Pore PressureFracture Gradient Prediction and Annulus Pressure Measurements in the Nile Delta.

The Integrated Application of Sperry PPFGTM And PWD® in the Nile Delta.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Integrated Application of Sperry PPFGTM and PWD® for

Pore Pressure/Fracture Gradient Prediction and Annulus
Pressure Measurements in the Nile Delta.
By
Mohamed Ahmed Abdullah
M/LWD Technical Professional,
Sperry Drilling Services, Egypt.
Abstract
The PPFGTM is a program designed to provide up to the minute information on pore

pressure and fracture gradient from the routinely recorded petrophisical data. It uses a
balanced stress strain algorithm not dependent on geologic age or burial environment. It
could be used for planning as well as for real time prediction. An accuracy that is better than
½ ppg can normally be achieved over the entire depth rang using this approach.
The PWDTM is a down hole tool which designed to provide measured real time and recorded
annulus as well as internal hydrostatic pressure while drilling under both pumps-on or
pumps-off conditions. The measurement range of 0 to 22500 psig. With a resolution up to 1
psig
Introduction
Pore pressure at depth is equivalent to a hydraulic potential measured with respect to the
Earth’s surface. It is assumed to be uniform in a small volume of interconnected pores. In the
Nile delta the pore pressure values greatly differ with both depth and location. The pore
pressure is highly dynamic system. It builds up or decline in response to burial or tectonic
stresses. Thermally induced digenetic changes can lead to overpressures or underpressures at
depth it also leak and redistribute through permeable zones at rates dependent on the system
permeability.
The pore pressure and fracture pressures prediction represents one of the big challenges in
drilling in the Nile delta. They place constraints upon the design and ultimately the cost of a
well. They can also be a source of significant amounts of non productive time in the drilling
operation. Inaccurate estimates of formation pressure can significantly increase the costs of a
well, from over-engineering the well design, taking kicks, differential sticking, and lost
circulation, to losing hole sections. The accurate determination of pore and fracture pressures
is an iterative process, with pre-drilling estimates forming the basis for the well construction.
Accurate whilst-drilling estimates allow the prognosis to be refined and the correct
contingency plan to be implemented. Good post – well analysis allows information that is
more accurate for the next well design and refinement of the basin model.
In the early sixties, following the penetration rate was the most common method of detecting
the abnormal pressure. But the raw penetration rate includes so many influencing factors that
it is too random to be used as a prediction method. Various ways of normalizing penetration
rate have been formulated. Their aim is to eliminate the effects of drilling parameters
________________________________________________________________________
Mohamed Ahmed Abdullah Sperry Drilling Services
1
____________________________________________________________________________________
variations and arrive at a representative measure of the formation drill ability (Mouchet &
Michell, 1989).
Pressure While Drilling (PWD®) is now a well-established part of the MWD arsenal. In
places where the margins between pore, collapse, and fracture pressures are narrow, it has
proven to be valuable through reducing the uncertainties in equivalent circulating density
(ECD) prediction. Benefits from monitoring of hole cleaning with PWD have also been
described. In riser less deepwater drilling PWD has found a “killer application” identifying
and mitigating troublesome shallow water flows (Ward & Beique, 2000).
Pore Pressure and Fracture Prediction Methods
Several attempts are made to collect as many as data and information that can be utilized to
indicate or measure changes in formation pore pressure. These include pre, during and post
drilling ones as well.
Pre – drilling seismic data can be used to identify shallow gas, gas zones, faults and diapers.
The seismic velocity is converted to a pseudo density and integrated to get Sv. Then (σv) is
derived from a power law relationship with velocity. Relationships are calibrated to known
pressures and sonic velocities in offset wells.
During drilling several attempts were made to use the drilling parameters and hole indicators
to predict pore pressure. These attempts mostly focus on the use of a more or less a shape of
normalized rate of penetration which compensate to the changes on the surface drilling
parameters and relate the final change in ROP to porosity changes. Of this the attempts made
by Jorden & Shirley (1966) by utilizing Bingham (1964) informal formula between the
drilling rate, weight on bit, rotating speed and bit diameter. Their solution known as the “d
exponent” is the simplest and most popular. Other attempts developed by utilizing the
measured petrophisical data in a slightly similar way, i.e. establishing a trend line and relate
the deviation in trend line to deviation in pore pressure.
Post – drilling direct measurements can be taken from the formation through wire-line
samples or well testers. However these information even if it has been taken while drilling
(Proett et al, 2004), are confined to the reservoir section and permeable formations only. In
fact they are after fact data. However all these method are based on the Terzaghi and Peck
1948 formula (fig1). The difference between them is how to solve for the unknown variables.
Overburden pressure (S) = Matrix stress (σ) + Pore Pressure (P)
(Fig. 1) Terzhagi’s effective stress concept (Geomechanics International, Inc., 2002)
________________________________________________________________________
2
____________________________________________________________________________________
The relationship can be solved in terms of pore pressure, and the overburden pressure can be
calculated for any point in the wellbore if the bulk density of the overlying sediments is
known. The matrix stress can be calculated as a function of any parameter that can represent
the compaction of the formation. At this point the attempts to calculate the pore pressure are
possibly to be grouped in two categories. The trend line methods and the PPFGTM method.
The Trend Line Methods:-
The back bone of these methods is the establishment of a normal compaction trend for the
parameter in question. The normal compaction trend is the expected parameter value if the
equilibrium compaction has occurred and the clay or shale has dewatered without restriction,
(fig.2). Once the normal compaction curve is defined, the pore pressure prediction involves
comparison between observed and normal compaction attributes which is reflecting changing
porosity (Swarbrick, 2002). The comparison is made at the depth of interest when using
Eaton’s Ratio Method, or comparison of the same attribute value on the normal compaction
curve using the Equivalent Depth Method.
(Fig. 2) Comparison between some trend lines based methods (Mouchet & Mitchell, 1989)
The main pitfalls of these methodologies are the use a basic informal equation to solve for
the relationship:-
P= Pn + ∆P
This relationship for prediction is not physically meaningful. That is, both normal hydrostatic
pressure (Pn) and “excess pressure; ∆P” exist in the same pore space. They are not, as the
________________________________________________________________________
3
____________________________________________________________________________________
equation implies, physically separable. All fluids in the same pore space are at the same
pressure (Pascal’s Principle, 1660). Formulations based upon this equation are fundamentally
flawed because they do not reflect any natural process.
Secondly, the excess pressure calibration ∆P is directly dependent on the compressibility of
the rock at the depth where overpressuring occurs. This in turn is indirectly dependent on
mechanically irrelevant external parameters such as geologic age, previous compaction rate,
and depth of burial. In general these methods:-
1- require the establishment of a normal trend-line; normally pressured compaction
curve,
2- applies only to clean shales,
3- many different methods; most popular are the ratio, equivalent depth , and Eaton
density, applicable to d-exponent, sonic, resistivity, and density,
4- Regional overlays are often calculated and applied to well known areas.
Of the previous calculations Eaton’s Ratio Method being the more popular which use for
several sources of data, e.g. dxc, resistivity, sonic..etc.. The general form of the equation is:
Pp = Sv – (Sv-Pn) (Aobs/Anorm)x
Where Pp is the pore pressure; Sv is the total vertical stress (Overburden); Pn is the normal or
hydrostatic pressure; Aobs is the observed attribute; Anorm is the attribute when pore pressure
is normal, X is an empirical constant, 3 for velocity data and 1.2 for resistivity and dxc.
The PPFGTM Program.
Pore Pressure
The PPFGTM is a software i.e. not a down hole tool. The program is designed to provide up
to the minute information on pore pressure and fracture gradient from petrophysical data.
In its simplest case the program uses measured resistivety and gamma ray and regional water
conductivity (Cw) profile to calculate rock shale volume and porosity for every foot
penetrated. The pore pressure (P) is calculated for each foot as the difference between the
total load borne by the rock element (overburden S) and the load borne by the rock grain
matrix (effective vertical stress σv) using the direct application of Terzaghi’s effective stress
concept:
P = S- σv
This is a paradigm of the rock and soil mechanics which has been developed and tested for
over 50 years. Sperry is the first company to offer this physically sound method for pore
pressure prediction as a service. The advantage of this concept over the other trend line
methods it does not require establishment of a normal trend –line versus depth which is
largely tentative and human dependent. It is also accounts for variable overburden.
The two earth stresses (S and σv) are calculated from rock physical properties, porosity (Ø),
and shale volume (V-shale). These two rock parameters describe solid and fluid volumes and
densities which, when integrated over depth, determine rock compressibility and stress
________________________________________________________________________
4
____________________________________________________________________________________
calibrations. Effective vertical stress (σv) has been calibrated to solidity (1- Ø) for all
lithologies in the sand-shale continuum using a compact ional stress–strain relationship
(fig.3).
(Fig. 3) Effective stress method (Sperry – Sun, 1992, Geomechanics International, Inc., 2002)
This figure shows a free body diagram for the Terzaghi relationship as well as the stress-
strain relationships used to implement it for pore pressure prediction. These relationships are
based on rock physical properties which are independent of rock age and previous
compaction rate. This is in sharp contrast to most of the trend line pore pressure prediction
approaches mentioned earlier.
To solve for the previous parameters the program calculate the Shale volume from the
gamma ray log using the equation:-
GR log − GR min
Vshale =
GR max − GR min
The porosity (Ø) is calculated either using the deep resistivity data or density data. With the
assumption that the formation is 100% water saturated the porosity is calculated using the
modified formula from resistivity:-
−1
 (Cw + Vsh x BQv )  m
φ= 
 Co 
Indeed the using of the resistivity data for porosity calculations has will be greatly affected
with shale intervals which are organically rich or reservoirs with hydrocarbon.
In case of the density data a modified formula for porosity calculations which are corrected
for shale volume is used:
ρb − ρma ρma − ρb  ρma − ρsh 
φ= Or expressed as φ= − Vsh 
ρfl − ρma ρma − ρfl  ρma − ρfl 
________________________________________________________________________
5
____________________________________________________________________________________
With the density data, other challenges come from the variable clay mineralogy, dehydration
and transformation as well as the organic fraction, all affects the matrix density (ρ). In
addition the quality of the density data taking inconsideration the hole conditions such as
hole enlargement and shale reaction add another challenge.
The effective vertical stress (σv ) is then calculated (fig. 3). Finally the vertical stress or the
overburden stress is calculated using the formula:
Sv = ∑surface [ρma * (1 − φ ) + (ρfl * φ )]
Depth
Which account for variable overburden composition. Getting those parameters in hand the
calculation of the pore pressure come strait forward by the application of the Terzahgy
concept mentioned earlier.
Fracture Pressure
The older traditional methods for fracture pressure prediction use empirical fracture, pseudo-
stress relationships which use depth as a pseudo function to estimate effective horizontal
stress (σh).
The Sperry PPFGTM program computes the fracture propagation pressure, the pressure at
which naturally occurring fractures will propagate, and it is a guide for a lower safe limit
fracture pressure for drilling (Ward, 1993). Another unique feature of the Sperry PPFGTM
program is that fracture pressure is calculated from effective stress (fig. 3). Fracture pressures
are calibrated to effective vertical stress rather than depth and are well specific. This offers a
more accurate and direct measure of fracture pressure determination. Effective horizontal
stress has a relationship to effective vertical stress through Drucker – Prager (1959) failure
criteria. These relate effective vertical stress (σv) to horizontal stress (σh) and are lithology
dependent. The general concept for fracture pressure prediction is the assumption that the
effective borehole stress (Fp) required to propagate an existing vertical fracture is pore
pressure (P) plus the effective horizontal stress (σh):
Fpv = P + σh ………………(Hubbert & Willis, 1957)
Obviously this assumes that the principal matrix stress is vertical, as it is in relaxed tectonic
regions, and there is no fluid invasion.
σh
Because Solidity = 1 – Ø is a measure of Grain Matrix Strain and the relationship of with
σv
σh
depth approximates the same relationship Solidity can be used to represent . So:
σv
σh
= 1 – Ø.
σv
Pfp= (1-Ø)σv + Pp
This relationship overcomes the shortcomings of traditional methods because horizontal
stress is a direct function of effective stress, not a depth pseudo function. The equation
honors both upper and lower minimum horizontal stress observed in sandstones through
porosity rather than Poisson’s ratio (Ward et al, 1995).
________________________________________________________________________
6
____________________________________________________________________________________
World wide the PPFGTM achieved excellent results with some constraints in case of adjacent
to salt domes or the dominance of hydrocarbon (fig. 4). The results obtained from processing
good density data revealed better results. This is due to the fact that the water salinity
anomalies near the salt domes and the hydrocarbon effect on the resistivity value diminishes
here as the previous equations indicate.
(Fig. 4) Accuracy range using resistivity data for porosity calculations, (Geomechanics International, Inc., 2002)
PWD® Tool
The Pressure While Drilling (PWD®) is a drilling performance tool (fig. 6) that provides
continuous down hole measurement of internal and annular pressure under pumps-on or
pumps-off conditions. These pressure measurements provide information on downhole
hydraulics and fluid performance that help in avoid drilling problems and drilling
optimization. The smart sensor electronics:
1- Detect pumps-on and pumps-off transitions,
2- Measure annular and internal pressure across the range of 0 to 22500 psig,
3- Sample and record both annular and internal pressures at rates from 1 to 220 seconds
per sample,
4- Measure annular and internal transducer temperature,
5- The tool can withstand a temperature as high as 175°C with a resolution ±0.05% of
the full scale.
The measurement taken is an absolute pressure measurement. To make this data easier to
compare with mud properties, surface readings and pressure gradients, the surface software
converts the pressure to psig and then to equivalent mud weight (EWM). Of course this
transformation is sensitive to depth and survey errors. Accurate depth is vital to report
accurate PWD data in EMW style.
________________________________________________________________________
7
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Fig. 4) PWD Tool (Ward and Beique, 2000)

®
The PWD can monitor, confirm and predict many of the hole conditions and rig activity:
1- Picking the precise values of Formation Integrity Test (FIT) and Leak Off Test,
2- Measuring pumps-off Surge and Swab pressures and Gel pressure,
3- Monitoring Hole Cleaning, i.e., cuttings load in the annulus,
4- Detecting the warning alarms before hole Pack off as well as confirming it when it
happen, this appears as a series of positive spikes in the EMW. The recorded data
usually has a much higher data density than real-time or pumps off data and is
recorded regardless of the status of the pumps. This allows recorded data to capture
short term pressure transients. The real time data may miss these events either
because of the slower transmit frequency or the event being happen while the pumps
are off.
(fig. 5) An example of Real Versus Recorded PWD® Data.

5- Mud weight optimization. A stable EMW between the fracture pressure and pore
pressure indicates the optimum mud weight,
6- Detecting the Mud condition, the fluctuations in mud weight and ECD under stable
circulating conditions or EMW different than expected indicates out of spec mud.
7- Help in analyzing the reasons of some drilling problems like what caused the
formation to fracture, what caused stuck pipe, what caused hole to collapse, what
caused a kick, …
________________________________________________________________________
8
____________________________________________________________________________________
8- Detecting the Formation influxes both water and gas, which appears as a decrease or
increase in the EMW depending on the density difference between the mud and the
intruding fluid which is not correlate to rig operations,
9- Detecting Formation instability, e.g., sand pulses or hole collapse,
(Fig. 7) An example of Real time shows gas influx in the Annulus.
(Fig. 8) An example of Water and Sand influxes in the Annulus.
________________________________________________________________________
9
____________________________________________________________________________________
Applications in Nile Delta

Since it was introduced to the Egyptian market in 90th the PPFGTM program was applied to
over than 200 wells in different parts of the Nile Delta both in shore and off shore. It has
been applied in the ultra deep water; more than 1500m, with outstanding success. It proved
its validity which gave results better than 0.5 ppg in the pore pressure prediction and 0.3 ppg
for fracture gradient.
The application of the program in the Nile delta was subjected to three stages of preparing,
extracting and improving the data before each different lease. Each new concession
application was preceded with a pre job stage which includes collecting and evaluating the
calibration data. These data include main petrophisical data such as density, deep resistivity,
porosity, sonic..etc. The minimum requirement being gamma and deep resistivity which are
the routine logging data commonly available. Other important data include formation water
conductivity values, repeat formation test values; RFT or MDT, mud logs, PWD logs,
previous drilling history as well as geologic maps and cross sections.
Pre – Job Phase:
1- The first step in the prejob stage was locate the well with regard to the nearest offset
ones and select the one/s which seem to be geological more helpful. With the
extensive work in the Nile delta it was found the east – west aligned wells give better
values than the scattered or north – south ones.
2- Drilling experience history log and events; tight holes, flows, cavings, connection
gases..etc, versus depth and mud weight was picked up and constructed from the all
available offsets. These data commonly used as control points for the intervals which
lack measured MDT/RFT values as it commonly happen in shaly sections.
3- Water conductivity values (Cw) at several depths normally come from the nearest to
location MDT water sample data. In case of the lack of such data attempts were made
to construct a continuous profile by back calculation from known pressures in offset
wells. It is important to mention that the accuracy of the results greatly improve with
the availability of such data. Sensitivity mapping for Cw showed that changing the Cw
in the range from 10-20 resulted in a Formation pore pressure variation of ± 0.5 PPG
in the shallower section and ± 0.2 PPG in the deeper sections. Sensitivity mapping
also indicated that if the Cw is decreased to 5, this has a drastic impact on the PP (Cw
5 is however out of the range for the Nile Delta).
4- BQv values represent another challenge. In cases of available CW data the trials were
made to back calculate the BQv in same way followed in case of lack Cw. It is
important to emphasize that only one unknown parameter could be calculated each
time.
In the Mediterranean Sea shale surface area values increase with depth in the Kafer El
Sheikh formation as Smectite volume increase. This effect was reflected in increasing
of the BQv. Deeper down the Smectite has largely been diagenetically altered to Illite
and the surface charge effect is much reduced, i.e. lower BQv. The following is a
tentative composite table to show that in a study area in the North East of the
Mediterranean basin (Table 1).
________________________________________________________________________
10
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Fig. 11) A Cw sensitivity plot.

(Table 1) A tentative compilation of BQv values used in the Western Province of the Mediterranean.
Depth BQv
1500 2
1795 6
2300 10/12
2350 19
2667 41
2872 45
3200 30
However Sensitivity mapping for the following range: -5, +5, +10, +15 indicated that
the PP variation was up to 0.7 PPG (Fig.12). As a general conclusion, the model
________________________________________________________________________
11
____________________________________________________________________________________
accuracy will be (± 0.5-0.7) ppg depend on how is accurate data been used for
calibration.
(Fig. 12) a Bq sensitivity plot.

5- After completing the preparation, self quality control (QC) checks were conducted.
Although the MDT/RFT points are the main QC but unfortunately it is restricted to
the permeable zones such as sand and fractured carbonates. Mostly they are restricted
to the pay zone intervals. For the rest of the well bath other QCs still needed. These
were performed with comparing the available measured porosity, density and sonic
logs with the same parameters calculated by the PPFGTM program during its feet to
feet processing. Several runs where then made and the missed CW and/or BQv where
________________________________________________________________________
12
____________________________________________________________________________________
adjusted with the help of the available MDT/RFT pore pressure points and the drilling
history logs in attempts to construct a primitive continuous Cw and BQv profiles for
the area represented by the available data.
(Fig. 13) a pre - job calibration using available petrophisical and drilling data...
During – Job Phase:
In the rig site real time application the preliminary frame work established from the previous
predrilling phase is started with. This frame work is likely to be subjected to modifications to
fit with the onsite situation. The changes is largely related to the gamma ray values which is
commonly differ from company to company and due to the fact that a long interval for the
gamma ray used for calibration is being recorded inside casing which is likely to reduce the
value than those record in open hole. Another factor is that the real time situation probably
encounters lateral facies changes which were not covered with the original data provided for
calibration. Off course when the drilling reaches depths which where not reached by the pre
job data this represent another challenge where the available calibrations are in fact
extrapolation of the previous values and commonly need to be adjusted.
In case of available other real time petrophisical data such as Density, Porosity or Sonic, such
data was used as immediate real time QC and were found to be very helpful for real time
model adjustments. Values as good as less than 0.3 ppg were reached in Ultra deep water
wells in the western province of the Mediterranean when such data were available. The
difference from 0.5 ppg to 0.3 ppg may seem not so big, but in critical situations where the
________________________________________________________________________
13
____________________________________________________________________________________
margin between the mud weight and the fracture pressure is so small, such accuracy means
too much to the well.
While drilling care must be paid to those very low resistivities; <0.2 ohm. The experience
from the drilling in the deep and ultra deep water; water depth over 1500m, showed that most
of those anomalous very low resistivities, commonly accompanied with almost clean gamma,
where due to hole enlargement against fairly young loose sediments. Those events where
commonly stamped in the PWD measurements. It appears as pulses of high ECD values
shortly after drilling these intervals. This phenomenon is well recognized especially in the
raiser less section where the sediments are still soft clays or loose sands.
(Fig. 14) a real time application for the calibrating data in a new well in the same lease...
It is probably worthy to mention that the PPFG engineer uses all the available data to provide
as much help as he can to optimize for the drilling conditions. For example was able to
predict a bit dulling conditions and distinguish it from bit balling which exhibit the same
surface character, commonly reduced rate of penetration. He was able to do that when
compared between the pore pressure values calculated by the PPFG which utilize the
petrophisical data which are not affected by the bit condition indeed with that behavior of the
corresponding behavior of rate of penetration. He found that the calculated pore pressure
shows a distinct increase trend while the ROP obviously behave in a reverse manner. A good
support came from watching the PWD internal pressure trend which should show a
progressively increasing trend if it was bit balling or stay almost steady if the bit dulling is a
function.
Another learning experience added to the importance of the PWD® readings to the Drilling
optimization in general is its value to the pore pressure prediction as well. Where it was
________________________________________________________________________
14
____________________________________________________________________________________
possible to fine tune the predicted values with help of the minimum pump off annular
pressure value. Minimum pump off values were found to be very helpful to refine the
predicted value. Simply the predicted pore pressure can not be higher than the minimum
pump of while the will stay static.
When come to critical decisions concerning increasing the mud weight while the window
between the fracture pressure and the mud weight is so small the accurate determination of
the leak off test value is needed. Figure (15) shows a value of 100psi difference in the
maximum pressure reached which could be misleading in determine the maximum mud
weight especially when the window is tight.
(Fig. 15) Comparison between the pressure recorded on surface and that recorded down hole by the tool...
Another common phenomenon in the pre Evaporite shales in the Eastern Mediterranean
province in particular (e.g. Wakar Formation) is the alternating mud losses while drilling
which is followed by mud increase in connections. Some times this phenomenon was
interpreted wrongly as a well kick. This was followed with wrong decisions to shut in the
well and raise the mud weight to tentative values due to the lack of Shut in pressures in most
cases. Later this phenomenon was clarified and interpreted as “Ballooning effect”. The PWD
measurements can recognize these phenomena via the tracking of the pumps shut down and
operating behavior (Ward & Beique, 2000). A normal connection is typically has a square
shaped when the pumps are stopped and started. When the pumps are off, the EMW is that of
the whole annular column. During circulation, the EMW is quickly established at a level
equivalent circulating density (ECD) (fig. 16).
As the loss/gain develops the PWD connection signature changes. When the pumps are
turned off, the EMW slowly decays to the static mud weight as mud bleeds back from the
formation. When circulation is re-established, the EMW slowly builds up to the ECD level as
fractures are slowly re-filled (fig. 17).
________________________________________________________________________
15
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Fig. 16) A PWD Log showing a normal pump off situation.
(Fig. 17) A PWD Log showing a developing loss/gain (Baloonig) situation.
________________________________________________________________________
16
____________________________________________________________________________________
In many cases the PWD spikes were good warning alarms for a potential drill pipes pack off.
These alarms commonly show themselves as repeated short spikes (figure 18). Coming to
this limit the drilling was commonly stopped and the hole was swept with high viscous mud
pills which was enough to return the ECD behavior back to it common shape. The applying
of this service helped in reducing the coast of several wells drilled in the Ultra deep water of
the Mediterranean as documented by Calis et al (2002).
Post – Job Phase
This is the phase to evaluate the real time results in accordance with the documented events.
As it being numbers, the MDT/RFT results compared with those values predicted by the
PPFG is the common and most accepted QC by the costumer (Table 2) and figure (18). But
for those intervals lacking these direct measurements QCs still needed for the pore pressure
engineer himself and for the customer to be shore that he had a valuable service for the
money he paying. Fortunately the program list so thenthetic parameters which could be easily
compared with similar measured ones such as bulk density, sonic and porosity. As long as
such data are available in the post drilling logging, a comparison between these parameters
and those calculated by the program represent another accepted QC especially in the shally
and carbonate sections (fig.19).
Depth PPFG MDT

1266.7 1.138 1.128
1279.6 1.138 1.118
1477.9 1.117 1.128
1479.5 1.113 1.128
1497.5 1.084 1.118
1500.3 1.084 1.108
1505.5 1.073 1.108
1555.9 1.03 1.108
1579.4 1.03 1.098
1600.0 1.03 1.087
1630.0 1.03 1.087
1766.0 1.052 1.066
1793.0 1.039 1.048
1806.0 1.033 1.048
1815.0 1.027 1.048
Table (2) a post Job QC implying the comparison between Predicted and Measured pore pressure.
Also the post job refining commonly interpret the fairly anomalous very low resistivities
(<0.2 Ohm) in the sand bodies, especially at the shallow section. These anomalous values
close to the sea water values commonly come from the fact that those bodies are loose facies
which commonly fall down and result enlarged holes with a diameter beyond the depth of
true investigation of the tool, where the measured resistivity values are actually those of sea
water trapped in this caves. This conclusion could be clarified from comparing the caliber
readings against those intervals with anomalous very low resistivities. While drilling some
clues for this situations may come from analyzing the PWD results just after passing those
intervals where pulses of high annulus pressure are commonly noticed.
________________________________________________________________________
17
____________________________________________________________________________________
It is important to emphasize here that the program was not apple to predict the correct values
for depleted reservoirs. But it is may be useful to mention that when the por pressure
predicted by the program for that interval it was found to be very close to that pressure
recorded when that interval was drilled before depletion (figure 18).
Figure (18) a post Job QC and investigation implying the comparison between Predicted and Measured pore
pressure. The under-prediction interval which is circled is actually a depleted Sand zone.
Certainly the post drilling processing is very important to fine tune the results and come to a
post job calibration frame work which is going to be used in the next potential drilling in the
same area or those to which this will be the offsets.
________________________________________________________________________
18
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Figure 19) post job QC implying the comparison between the measured and ppfg calculated density.
Summary and Conclusions

The integrated application for the Sperry PPFGTM Program and PWD® Tool for pore
pressure/ fracture prediction and Annulus pressure measurements proved its validity in the
drilling optimization and reliability for predicting and warning for potential hazard while
drilling in the Nile Delta.
________________________________________________________________________
19
____________________________________________________________________________________
The PPFGTM Program use an effective stress approach. It uses measured petrophisical data
for solving for its parameters, it is independent of rock age or previous compaction rate. The
long application of the model in the Nile delta proved its accuracy in giving results which are
better than 0.5 ppg in pore pressure prediction and than 0.3 ppg in fracture pressure
prediction. But the program can not predict precise values in the depleted intervals.
The PWD® Tool provides continuous down hole measurement of internal and annular
pressure under pumps-on or pumps-off conditions. These pressure measurements provide
information on down hole hydraulics and fluid performance that help in avoid drilling
problems and drilling optimization.
Acknowledgments
The author greatly acknowledges Eng. Ahmed Bassem; Sperry drilling services country
Manager, Dr. Mustafa Oraby; Middle East Petrophisical Manager for critical pleriminary
reviewing the manuscript. Germy Greenwood and Chris Ward for critical review and
improvements. Eng. Adel Karem; Sperry drilling services FQC for encouragement and
support. Many thanks go to Herman Calis; Shell and Ahmed Fouad; IEOC Egypt for
reviewing and their suggestions. Also many thanks go due many colleagues for fruitful
discussion about the subject and the experience of the integrated service in different parts of
the Nile delta.
References
1- Calis et al, Learning Lessons from the Ultra Deep Drilling in the Mediterranean.
2- Geomechanics International, Inc., 2002, Pore Pressure Course.
3- Holbrook, P., Maggiori, D., and Hensley, R., 1993, “Real – Time Pore Pressure and
Fracture Gradient Evaluation in all Sedimentary Lithologies”. SPE26791.
4- IEOC Experience in the Nile Delta.
5- Mouchet, J.P., Mitchell, A., 1989, Abnormal Pressures While Drilling. Elf Aquitaine,
6- Proett, M., Fogal, J., Welshans, D. and Gray, C., 2004, Formation Pressure Testing in
the Dynamic Drilling Environment. IADC/SPE 87090.
7- Sperry – Sun, 1992, PPFG Software user manual. Sperry – Sun Drilling Services,
Houston, Texas 77205.
8- Sperry – Sun, 1999, Pressure While Drilling (PWD) Sensor Manual. Sperry Sun
Training Department.
9- Sperry – Sun, 2001, FPE Evaluation, module 1, Course 357, Revision A, Technical
Services Department. Sperry – Sun, a Halliburton Company, USA.
10- Sperry – Sun, 2001, FPE Evaluation, module 2, Course 358, Revision A, Technical
Services Department. Sperry – Sun, a Halliburton Company, USA. Boussens. 255p.
11- Swarbrick, R.E., 2002, Challenges of Porosity-Based Pore Pressure Prediction. CSEG
Recorder, p: 74-77.
12- Ward, C.D, 1993, Pore and Fracture Pressure Evaluation. Euroil, 27-29.
13- Ward, C.D, Coghill, K and Broussard, M.D, Brief: Pore- and Fracture-Pressure
Determinations: Effective-Stress Approach. JPT, pp. 123-124.
14- Ward, C. and Beique, M, 2000, Pore and Fracture Pressure information from PWD
data. 2000 AADE Drilling Technology Forum.
________________________________________________________________________
20

Pore PressureFracture Gradient Prediction and Annulus Pressure Measurements in the Nile Delta.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Pore PressureFracture Gradient Prediction and Annulus Pressure Measurements in the Nile Delta.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pore PressureFracture Gradient Prediction and Annulus Pressure Measurements in the Nile Delta.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Integrated Application of Sperry PPFGTM And PWD® in the Nile Delta.

The Integrated Application of Sperry PPFGTM and PWD® for

The PPFGTM is a program designed to provide up to the minute information on pore

(Fig. 1) Terzhagi’s effective stress concept (Geomechanics International, Inc., 2002)

(Fig. 4) PWD Tool (Ward and Beique, 2000)

(fig. 5) An example of Real Versus Recorded PWD® Data.

(Fig. 7) An example of Real time shows gas influx in the Annulus.

(Fig. 8) An example of Water and Sand influxes in the Annulus.

Applications in Nile Delta

(Fig. 11) A Cw sensitivity plot.

(Fig. 12) a Bq sensitivity plot.

(Fig. 16) A PWD Log showing a normal pump off situation.

(Fig. 17) A PWD Log showing a developing loss/gain (Baloonig) situation.

Depth PPFG MDT

Summary and Conclusions

You might also like