® | TECHNOLOGY _ Real-time geo-pressure analysis roved understanding of subsurface pressures achieved through real-time geo-pressure analysis enabled Santa Fe Energy Re- sources to save over § 1.8 million in di- rect drilling costs, Three practical case histories are examined in respect to the integration of measurement-while-drilling | (MWD), seismic, and offset well data. For the first case study, located in South Timbalier Block 179, real-time geo-pressure analysis monitored and verified the predrill evaluations, al- lowing Santa Fe to successfully deep- en a well using a reduced mud densi- ty. This allowed the company to avoid mud-loss problems while eliminating an intermediate drilling liner. For the second case study, located | in Ship Shoal Block 365, the additional recision gained in the understanding, Ents was instrumental in eliminating a casing string from the predrill casing, plan. The third case study, located in Mississippi Canyon Block 154, de- scribes some limitations in regards to state-of-the-art of geo-pressure evalu- ation through petrophysical methods. The knowledge gained from the | analysis of this well can be applied to improving the drilling efficiency of fu- ture wells in this area. Real-time evaluation When first introduced to the drilling industry, MWD technologies held great promise for real-time for- mation evaluation mainly because more timely formation evaluation fa- cilitates better decision-mal er drilling and comple The earliest MWD formation evalu- Santa Fe En Knoroledge Systems Inc. tems Inc, Area; South Timbalier 179 Wo-t6att KB. MSL=96 AKE-iL=256 i-Ouip MLH @ 29840 BML) BaTHTeF Mud Logging F 4,000 0 70 Logs | Amussicn, | ‘ewuorica, sn swos (Pe BaTe194 F ATTASSIAMSIGR ‘ouoTiAMsiCR | ee BHT2eF AITILSSAMSICR | Faun y Resources 200 1 Gamont pug reduces drilling costs William P. Kenda Steve Hobart Eamonn F. Doyle Knowledge 5 Houston Stafford, Tex. Bergen, Norway Fig. eee My ‘Shorebase: Fourchon Top of30in.cut@ 240 Top o120in, 16in, & 117i, cut 295 AK xen a6 30/n.x-10(n, rab B pin ond eornene) 200 Pug Seawater gl 00-400 8890909 2in 20)n, 94, KS5, BTC eon wo Cond Sati ut Test anus 064 pi 173.999 wou ' 9095; hin Le) uR22in 4000 nwo 16 54 N60 BTC-Ont 10 sut Frac gad= 197 pen Test annuus to 625 ps 9.518.190, 1107210872 Wain, 71.8, HoO12s are iain iene eas Interelate casing 179ppqwen J Fracorad = 173900 toh 140-189 p90 Ua 24 14500110 gh oFsin, 53.56 Ps, FL Orting ner Frac rad = 18.1 peg 179 990 WM 180-165 op iin. @ 6015 ff | Holt 15.602, stuckliner @ 14580 0 Pin, 39¢ 0125 SLX Deiting int Es, Frac grad = 187 999 179.0 WM 165-181 pp ohine 16409 tt Yi eee Reprinted from the March 1, 1999 edition of OIL & GAS JOURNAL Copyright 1999 by PennWellFio.2 ation sensors used gamma ray and re- sistivity instruments. These were ini- tially used for geologic correlation and rudimentary formation evaluation. However, early on, it was also recog- nized that the information from these sensors could also be used for pore- pressure and fracture-gradient estima- tion, facilitating mud-weight and cas- ing-seat decisions, even during the drilling process. Real-time pressure advantages MWD data offer distinct advan- tages over offset well and seismic in- formation used in predrill geo-pres- sure prediction. For instance, the di tance from the offset wells, coupl with the geologic complexity, limits the confidence with which knowledge from the offset wells can be used to- wards evaluating pore pressures at a new drilling location In addition, although seismic infor- mation is generally more site-specific than offset well data, inherently itis of low resolution and sometimes of ques- tionable value when applied to pore- pressure forecasting, This is not intended to suggest that predrill studies using offset and seis- mic data are of no value in well plan- ning, when in fact, they are of im- mense value. However, real-time geo- pressure analysis using MWD data is, preferable because it is both site-spe Cific and of high resolution. These dit ferences in data quality, coupled wi the timeliness inherent in a real-time analysis, can contribute to significant bottom-line savings in drilling costs. For each of the wells in these case studies, Santa Fe initially determined mud weight and casing-program de- signs based solely on correlation to offset well information. Subsequent to the initial designs, seismic interval ve- locity data were analyzed for prelimi- nary pore-pressure and fracture-gra- dient profiles Recognizing the potential for avoiding unnecessary drilling costs, Santa Fe decided to utilize a real-time analysis of MWD data throughout the drilling process to continuously re- view and refine mud weights and ca ing plans. ™ Preliminary analyses Seismic interval velocity data were analyzed using the familiar Exponent method for acoustic log data (Equa- tion Box, Equation 1).’ The normal pore pressure gradient used for the analysis was equivalent to a 9 ppg mud density. Due to the absence of local density logs, the overburden gradient (OBG) required for these analyses was ob- tained through the integration of syn- thetic density data. Synthetic density data were ob- tained either from the Gardner equa- tion (Equation 2)? which is to transform velocity to density, or from an empirical “Average Gulf Coast For- mation Density” equation, published by Martin Traugott of Amoco Corp. (Equation 3). Dy The Gardner equation, in gener seems to slightly underestimate densiTECHNOLOGY Fiat LEE iy. Therefore, it was used only in the ississippi Canyon 154 case study there the less dense sediments are jounger than average Gulf Coast for- ations. The recently published 1oco formula was applied to the re- ing two wells. Chat cst saving 283 result a alasion aa eleratin é finer = 147 alton i Real-time analysis ‘The real-time pore-pressure analy- sis was performed at the well sites using a commercially available sys- tem’ linked to the MWD contractor's computer, using an RS-232 cable and WITS (wellsite information transfer standard) Level 0 protocol. The well-site analyst used the sys- tem to identify shale depths with the | MWD gamma ray (GR) in order to s- | tablish shale resistivity trends. The an- alyst then applied the Exponent method to estimate pore pressure from the resistivity (Equation 4) using this pore pressure to estimate the frac- ture gradient (Equation 5). The Exponent method, like most other methods, is a form of Terzaghi’s Law, which states that the overburden stress is balanced by the pore-fluid stress and the grain-to-grain stress in the rocks. This grain-to-grain stress is often referred to as the “effective stress" or the “matrix stress.” } When the overburden and effective stresses can be estimated, the pore fluid stress can be estimated using this relationship. By dividing each of the stress terms by the vertical depth, a stress gradient is obtained, which is dimensionally equivalent to a density. From here, the mud density required to balance the pore-fluid pressure can be obtained, For the real-time analysis using the MWD resistivity data, the overburden was estimated using the same empiri- cal methods as applied to the prespud seismic analysis (Equations 2 and 3). ‘The effective stress was estimated in real-time using the method popu- | Jarized by Ben Eaton (Equation 4).' In this “Exponent method,” the effective stress is related to the normal effective stress by a factor which is the ratio of the actual shale resistivity to the nor- mal shale resistivity. An empirical ex- ponent of 1.2 is then applied to this ratio. This relationship is then solved for the pore pressure. The term “normal” in this context refers to the condition of “normal pore pressure,” which refers to the pressure exerted by an unconfined column of pore fluid. For the U.S. Gulf Coast, this is assumed to be equivalent toa 9 1g mud density PPline resisuvites of normally pre sured shales form a trend that is ex- trapolated to overpressured zones in order to provide the necessary normal shale resistivity input for the analysis. In order to estimate the fracture stress gradient in real-time, use was made of the general assumption that | the ratio of the vertical effective stress to the minimum horizontal effective stress can be characterized by Equa- tion 5, called the matrix stress ratio. The horizontal effective stress is equal to the minimum. horizontal stress (considered equal to the fracture stress) pressing the rocks together, less the pore fluid pressure. The form of the fracture gradient formula that wasTECHNOLOGY | Exponent Pore Pressure trom Sonie! | rocents used in tis empiical formula ae referenced to ue vor cal cop PP = 086 - (086 wee: ee Sec Es . Fy = PPn) (Aty/ at? gate ik Sebeees cae Pore pressure ‘fade of normaly ‘compacted sedi- ‘Soaerod shale wane sme ‘ran tne of rermaly compacted shale, sect a or Eauaton? Vols fo doy tthe forula may be sede create syne seinen dong that can be eterated'o cass te oveeurden gation usin sm tonal ele ta p= 023v9% Woe: @ a = Valoah oe Ath ‘mela ied terete onres cedmen ‘Be tegrated calcula the overourden grade witout {D'any daa beedes depth P= 163 + (0 - W~ Aji st25P* a saioutelronce @ = ERE wt mice ato = ‘Water dept, w A & Aigap, Exponent Pore Pressure trom Fela ‘cg te gfadens used in is empiri forma ae reerenced to rue vert. General Form for Fracture Gradient sili Safgasens cd hs emp oral a lence 10 ve FEBS «ons - pry ® vee’ 68 Baw preter pat 2 Give Rt ge ton 0 sno OBG = Overburden gradient. psi‘t © ‘= Matix stress coefficient in Equation 5 = mate! dept-dependert Posen rao ee Eun ‘Vy = ~6.0992866-9D* + 8.0214286-50 + 02007182857 (7-A) Where: vq = Poisson Ratio for depths to 4,100 below the mus line = Depth below mud tine, ‘For depths 5.000 tor more below the mud ine y= ~1 8826-100? + 7.20471296-6 0 + 04260841267 78) y tm em iaicontine ee 7) oY o D = Bopth felow mud ine, f | Where: PP = Pore pressure gradient, psit | ee = rc ‘ ‘Eor-depths between 4.100 and 5.000 tt below the mud line | Frome pain Seen Dormaly compacted Sec) yy. «yy « (© ~'4100) [v4(8000) ~ v4 (4,100)]/ 900 ro) ws See ecm [imme os + peut ecto wot hem @ o - below mud line, tt mud ine preferred for these Gulf Coast wells States that the matrix stress ratio is equal to an empirically derived Pois- son Ratio divided by one minus the Poisson Ratio (Equation 6). The exact | value of this Poisson Ratio is depen- dent on the depth below the mud line (Equation 7) ‘The pore pressure and fracture gra- dient were estimated in real-time and continuously compared to the mud density being used during the drilling process, as well as to the predrill analysis results By incorporating this analysis with the well behavior at the time, deci sions could be efficiently made re- garding the casing setting depth and whether the mud density required ad- justment. The predrill seismic analy- bis, using the pore pressure magni- tudes recalibrated from the real-time data, provided a low-resolution indi- cator of the pore pressures to be ex: pected ahead of the bit. Well deepening For the first case history, the South Timbalier 179 well, the geologic objec- tive was located at a depth of 17,000 ft (5,200 m) (Fig. 1). A prespud analysis of the offset data, performed by the turnkey drilling contractor, provided the basis for the mud-weight and cas- ing-configuration programs to be used in reaching this objective. The well was drilled to 16,400 ft, at which point the well was temporarily abandoned because of mud losses. The well had been cased to 16,000 ft with a leak-off test at the shoe of 18.6 ppg equivalent mud weight. At 16,400 ft, with 184 ppg mud in the hole, mud losses were experienced. Mud losses ‘were still evident at a mud weight of 18.1 ppg. Based on the prespud analy- sis, Santa Fe decided that further drilling was too risky and the well was temporarily abandoned. The drilling program was subse- quently reviewed, taking into account data obtained from wire-line resistivi- y and sonic logs down to 16,000 ft sing a commercially available geo- pressure analysis software package,' the pore pressure at 16,000 ft was esti~ mated to be only 16.8 ppg, Using seismic-derived interval transit-time data, the pore pressure at 17,000 ft was estimated to be 17.2 ppg. The new analysis indicated that the well could be drilled to TD with a mud weight in the range of 17.3-17.7 pps; The hole was reopened to 16,400 ft while logging with MWD resistivity and GR tools. The MWD logging da’ were transmitted in real-time to th suriace.L-time data were merged with the wire-line data for a continu ous real-time, pore-pressure analy (Fig. 2). This analysis confirmed the projection from seismic data and pro- vided confidence that the objective at 17,000 ft could be reached. ‘The real-time analysis of MWD re- sistivity data was maintained to TD in order to assist in optimizing the mud weight. The TD was reached using a in. drill bit and a 178 ppg mud ight, removing the need for the planned 5/in, drilling liner and pro- __ TECHNOLOGY Fig.6 Ts viding cost savings associated with casing, cementing, and rig time. In addition, by maintaining a larg- er hole size, drilling difficulties nor- mally encountered with a slimmer hole were avoided (Fig. 3). This also facilitated the use of larger tubulars for the gravel-pack completion, en- suring the maximum possible produc tion rates. By maintaining the larger hole size, additional rig time was saved because it was not necessary to pick up a smaller size drill pipe to finish the Fo? | monet TerSeene ees 1 [beset aw a0 ese Dears re oeedime ts well. Santa Fe estimated total cost sav- ings of $634,750. Liner elimination The prognosed TD for the second case history, the Ship Shoal 365 well, was 14,000 ft. Based on the mud- Weight and casing programs from off- set wells, it was considered likely that a 7%-in. drilling liner would have to be ran to TD. However, the seismic-data analysis indicated the possibility that pore | pressures would not be as high as sug- gested by the offset well data. To re- solve this issue, Santa Fe utilized real- time pore-pressure analysis. MWD GR and resistivity data were collected and analyzed immediately below the 30-in. casing shoe (Fig. 4). This provided sufficient data to estab- | lish the resistivity trend of normally compacting shales used in real-time pore-pressure analysis. Drilling parameters and the real- time pore pressure analysis of the MWD resistivity data confirmed that the predrill analysis for the seismic | data was correct—that the pore pres- sures were not as high as expected based on the offset well data.This removed the need for a liner and allowed the operator to deepen all casing points. This led to subsequent savings in casing hardware and. rig costs while allowing for optimum hole sizes for completion and production needs (Fig, 5). The related cost sav- ings, calculated by Santa Fe, totaled $1,177,750, Improved analysis Following the above two wells, an- other well, the Mississippi Canyon 154, was drilled in young sediments off the mouth of the Mississippi River. A prespud analysis of the seismic data was conducted and compared to. a prognosis using offset well data (Fig. 6). Based on the analysis, it appeared that an intermediate drilling liner again could be saved, as with the Ship Shoal 365 well. MWD GR and resistiv- ity data were collected and analyzed in real-time, but did not confirm the seismic data analysis. However, the analysis indicated a lower pore pressure than that which was compared to the offset wells. Based on this evaluation, the setting of the 9%in. casing was deferred from the original planned depth of 8,200 ft. ‘At 8,940 ft, however, a kick was taken indicating a pore-pressure gra- dient of 13.3 ppg with a mud weight of 12.5 ppg, The pore pressure calculated from MWD resistivity was only 11,7 ppg, and the pore pressure from the seismic was 10 ppg (Fig. 7). The mud weight was raised to 13.8 ppg and the 9%in. casing was subse- quently set at 8,800 ft. Because of the kick, the original pore pressure analy- sis, based on offset well data, was given more credence than the real- time data analysis. The mud weight used from that point onward was in accordance with the original progno- ‘Trend-line recalculation Based on the magnitude of the kick, a new normal-compaction, trend-line Position was calculated. The position of the new trend-line was so radically different from the original position that the original calculation of the OBG was in question. However, these adjustments to the analysis did not improve the capabili- ty to accurately predict the relation- ship between well and formation pres- sures, ie, the degree of over-balance or under-balance. The subsequent drilling was characterized by mud losses. In addition, there was no con- nection gas even when the pore pres- rivers | rl ody ae Ue tiling niin ete holding responsibility for oe prs ork He Sieve nln sures derived from the new trend-line and MWD resistivity data approached the mud weight. The conclusion drawn from the weight of these data was that the ex- cess pore pressure manifested in the kick was not the result of simple un- dercompaction. More likely, the sand in which the kick was taken had been charged with pressures from a deeper formation, possibly transmitted by a fluid-conductive fault. If it were to be presupposed that this rapid pressure increase was in fact caused by undercompaction, its detec- tion would have been compromised by the silty nature of the overlying for- mation. The reason for this is that rel able petrophysical pressure evaly tion relies on the input of data fi clean shale lithologies (Fig. 8). There is also the possibility that a change in formation fluid salinity above the sand zone could have affect ed the resistivity-based compaction model. A logging-while-drilling sonic ‘measurement would not have been af- fected by this phenomenon Lessons learned Based on experience gained from these wells, the following insights be- came evident: 1. Site-specific, real-time pore-pres- sure analysis, provided by linking MWD formation evaluation services with analytical software, can be used for optimizing mud weights in addit to ne Raine ailing rcenis EK) casing programs, sometimes resulting in spectacular bottom-line benefits. 2. There are many possible mecha- nisms for abnormally high pore pres- sures, several of which are not de- tectable using either seismic data or MWD logging measurements. Fortu- nately, the most prevalent cause, un- dercompaction, is amenable to analy- ssis using this data 3. Readjustment of the normal- ‘compaction trend line on the basis of a kick can be erroneous if the overpres- sure in the formation is caused by some factor other than undercom- paction. An understanding of the geo- logic structures and subterranean plumbing is necessary for a complete picture. 4. The incremental cost of real-time pore pressure analysis, relative to 2s potential positive impact on the economics, is generally a worthwhise investment. Acknowledgment The authors wish to thank Santa Fe Energy Resources and Knowledge Sys- tems inc. for providing the time and re- sources required to publish this article. References ato, BA, "Graphical Method Predicts Goo- pressures Worldwide” World Oil, June 1972, pp. st 2. Gardner, GLE, Gardner, LW, Gregory, “pormation Velacky and Dena The’ Diagnostic Basis for Strata Traps," Geophysics, 38, No.6, June 1 pp. 208535 3. Traugott, M, "Pore/factre pressure deter mination in deep water” Worl! Oi, Deep- seater Technology Special Supplement, AU {us 1997, pp. 6870. 4. Greenberg, Jrn’Managing, Lasvo-contol in Deepwater Dring” Otshore Maga Apri 198, pp. 38-0 > 5. Eaton, BA. and Eaton, TA, “Ractre Gr ent Prediction for the New Generation” World Oi, October 1987, pp 9-10.