You are on page 1of 4

OTC 18192

Normal Resistivity Trends for Geopressure Analysis in Mexican Offshore Wells
Víctor López-Solís/Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX); David Velazquez-Cruz/Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo (IMP); Agustín
Jardinez-Tena/Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX); Gustavo Espinosa Castañeda/Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo (IMP)

Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 1–4 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

The normal compaction trend and the pore pressure gradient
play a very important role in oil wells design for drilling
operations. It is essential understand the physical principles
originating these pressures and evaluate the models of
quantification for a particular geographical area. In this paper,
we show the results from our analysis of geopressures in 11
(eleven) offshore wells drilled in the Offshore Area in Gulf of
Mexico from PEMEX. Our work focuses in the normal
compaction trends using curves of Resistivity Logs. Moreover,
the Eaton´s model was regionalized in order to defining the
magnitude of the pore pressure with high precision. From
those results we inferred that the accuracy of the predictions
depends of slope from normal compactions trend. Finally,
using the profiles of real pressure data, we built a “Pore
Pressure Cube” for the area of study, which simplifies the
quantifications of pressures during the process of planning and
design of the wells.
There are several mechanisms originating abnormal pressures.
This phenomenon is related to physical, geological,
geochemist and mechanical processes. Frequently is difficult
to establish what phenomena is the most important for a
particular geological frame due to their dependences in the
abnormal pressures origins. Between the causes of abnormal
pressures, referred in the literature 1, we picked up the
1. Compaction disequilibrium
2. Tectonic stress
3. Aquathermal expansion
4. Mineral transformation
5. Hydrocarbon Generation
6. Thermodynamic effects

7. Osmosis
8. Hydraulic head
From our point of view the main cause cited of abnormal
pressure behaviour is sediment compaction disequilibrium.
Present work focuses in the identification of compaction
changes. Our approach considers Terzaghi 2 theory, and
Hottman & Johnson3 Log Analysis method in order to define
changes in the shale compaction trend and we exploit Eaton´s 4
Pore Pressure Equation for resistivity logs. We describe pore
pressure results using Eaton equation considering resistivity
compaction trends from Mexican offshore wells. Further, we
analyze resistivity compaction trends and defined a series of
trends that we call “overlay graph” of resistivity trends.
Finally, we define a new alpha exponent for Eaton’s equation;
such changes in the exponent allow us to define pore pressure
behaviour with more accuracy, this fact was successfully
validated using resistivity logs from several offshore wells.
Pore pressure results with original Eaton’s exponent
From previous works in pore pressure prediction to offshore
Mexican wells5,6. We found that original Eaton equation for
resistivity and transit time “overestimate” pore pressure than
results obtained from well real measures.
In figure 1, the red line at right, show pore pressure with
1.2 Eaton exponent; green lines; in same figure, show ECD
and mud weight used to drill well. We can see that pore
pressure is higher than real mud weight.
From this analysis we already verified that when we used
original Eaton exponents, predicted pore pressure is higher
than real. We considered that those coefficients in the Eaton
equation must be adjusted to obtain more accurate results for
Mexican Offshore wells.
Resistivity compaction trends analysis
In 1965 Hottman y Johnson3 developed a relationship between
logs response and abnormal pressures in shale. In brief, they
were reasoning that well compacted shale rock with less
quantity of water (less porosity) is more resistive than a less
compacted shale rock. Then they concluded that a sequence of
normally compacted sediments should have a normally
increasing shale resistivity trend. Then, any shale resistivity
decrease from the established normal trend indicates the
presence of abnormal pressure zone.

2 and with alpha=0. This graph is used to track pore pressure while drilling exploratory wells..40. B. C. Figure 7 shows Lankahuasa area and a view of pore pressure cube. 1948. Ben E. J. and Johnson. We identified the normal trend from any well. we show typical behavior of normal resistivity trend from offshore wells. from previous experiences7. Mancilla-Castillo.0 ohms-m. Conclusions We define a resistivity normal compaction trend in order to decrease uncertainty of pore pressure prognosis. D. López-Solís. he recognized that correct value from alpha coefficient from his equations was a great question mark until was evaluated with much data. We observed. et al.: “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 5. Terzaghi. Julio del 2005.0)”.8 to 1. we show overlay graph that describe normal resistivity trends from our study area. D. D. 3. paper SPE 39903 presented at the SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico. 2004.. K. In addition. Villahermosa. we show our results from wells drilled in the Mexican Offshore fields (North Area). In figure 2. The graph allows us to define normal trend even in first stages of wells with high accuracy. 8.2 is higher than ECD and mud weight used to drill well. we built a pore pressure volume that we used to design casing sets. With regionalized Eaton’s equation main component (alpha).Velazquez-Cruz. and Peck. 4. Eaton admitted that validation process of his model was by trial-error tests. 1975. affect pore 18192 pressure magnitude when we used equations originally published. it can be represented by an equation as such we show in figure 3. et al: “Detection of Abnormal Pressures System from Seismic Data and Geophysical Well logs”. his equations are the most used for drilling engineers worldwide due to predicted pore pressure with good accurate.. D. Proyecto F. We calculated pore pressure with several values of alpha coefficient until we found correct alpha values for pore pressure measures.2 We define from a gamma-ray log the shale points to translate on a resistivity curves for all wells in analysis. L. K. In table 1 we show our results. AAPG Memoir 70. 2. Hottman. 6.000 m. Tab. Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo. “The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs” SPE 5544.30545.42461. From all wells drilled in Lankahuasa center cube. March 1998. S. References 1. . 1994. Overlay graph of normal trends The overlay graphs were product from normal trend analysis from Mexican Offshore wells. Banuet-Sanchez. 7. V. Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo. Proyecto F. The pore pressure calculated with alpha=1. John Wiley and Sons”. JPT. Pore pressure models published in oil industry. B. The origin ordinate varies from 0. 1996. Behavioral differences of resistivity normal trends slopes from Mexican Offshore fields. The resistivity normal trend analysis showed that trends have an average slope of 5x10 -4 and a mode of 4x10-4. In figure 6 we show pore pressure analysis from Mexican offshore well. we can obtain a set of equations that represent normal pressure trends for any study area. In figure 4. However.Velazquez-Cruz. must be adapted to behavioral pattern of resistivity normal trend from Mexican Offshore Fields. et al “Estudio de Geopresiones y Estabilidad de Pozos en el Área Marina de la División Norte”. This resistivity normal compaction trend was used with LWD to determine pore pressure while drilling in exploratory wells with good results.8 that in Mexican offshore fields the normal pressure zone is since mud line to up 2. Velazquez-Cruz. June 1965.:“Estimation of Formation Pressures from Log-Derived Shale Properties”..: “Sistema de Computo para la Detección de Presiones Anormales a partir de Información Sísmica (SISMIC 1. Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo. Velazquez-Cruz. We analyzed several wells drilled in Mexican Offshore fields with Eaton’s equation. The pore pressure predicted when we used overlay graphs is more precise. R. E. Eaton. R. In figure 5.: “Abnormal Pressures in Hydrocarbon Environments”. we have pore pressure prognosis more accurate to real measures. Regionalized pore pressure model In his paper. We can see quantitative differences in pore pressure calculated with alpha=1. From several wells.. et al: “Análisis de Geopresiones de los campos Ku-Maloob-Zaap”. Proyecto CDC-0302.

39 Table 1.4 LANKAHUASA DL2 0. .Eaton’s alpha exponent for wells drilled in Mexican Gulf Coast. Figure 1-Pore pressure analysis from offshore Mexican well.4 AVERAGE 0.Typical behavior of normal resistivity trend from Mexican Wells.4 LANKAHUASA-1 0.18192 3 WELL ALPHA KOSNI-1 0.4 SIHINI-1 0. Figure 3.3 CHIHUIX-1 0.Normal trend equation from resistivity logs.4 KOSNI-101 0. Figure 2.4 LANKAHUASA NTE-1 0.4 LACAZTZU-1 0.

) Figure 5. Figure 4-Normal resistivity trends analysis from Mexican offshore wells) Figure 7.Pore pressure volume from Lankahuasa area.Results from regionalized pore pressure model.Overlay graph of normal trends .4 18192 Figure 6.