BANGKITKAN ENERGI NEGERI

7-8 Mei 2018 | Hotel Courtyard by Marriott, Bandung

 Objectives of the Workshop

At the end of the course, participants should know about:

• Basic understanding in pore pressure, on how it developed, the sources of

overpressure/underpressure, the mechanism(s) of pore pressure and how to
predict.

• Basic understanding of fracture pressure and ability to create basic PPFG model.

• Basic understanding of dynamic and static mechanical rock properties.

• Basic understanding of geomechanics and geomechanics model.

• Basic understanding of geomechanics applications in petroleum industry,

including applications of geomechanics for geothermal wells.

-3-
 What is Geomechanics?

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0112681/images/plates.gif

-4-
What is Geomechanics?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-11/japan-to-mark-tsunami-anniversary/4564284
-5-
What is Geomechanics?

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210580/earthquake.htm
http://www.tunneltalk.com/images/ITA-post-congress/ITAReport-5-M6HighwayCollapse.jpg
-6-
6
What is Geomechanics?

The study of rock and soil

mechanics.

How and why rocks move.

How and what happens

when rocks break.
-7-
The failure and movement of rocks

• How do they move?

• Why do they move?

• Stress – Strain  Does stress cause

strain? Or does strain cause stress?

• NEITHER! They are different aspects of

the same thing!

-8-
Stress – Strain – Failure

http://www.bcscience.com/bc10/images/0_quiz-12.2-03.jpg

-9-
What is Geomechanics? In brief…

Geomechanics is about the movement and

failure of rocks

Rocks move and fail because of stress &

strain

Geomechanics is important to understand

man made and natural rock failure.

- 10 -
Geomechanics Model

Pore Pressure Rock Properties

Geomechanics Model

Stress Magnitudes and Orientations

- 11 -
Geomechanics Model

Pp
UCS

Description of a geomechanical model for a

reservoir involves detailed knowledge of:
• In situ stress orientations
• In situ stress magnitudes
• Pore pressure
• Rock mechanical properties

- 12 -
Benefits of Geomechanics

• Lower exploration risks  Fault leakage, seal breach

• Reduce drilling problems  reduce NPT

• Wellbore instability
• Kicks and losses
• Stuck pipes

• Feasibility for underbalanced drilling option in special case

• Increase reservoir performance

• Optimize production from naturally fractured reservoir
• Predict sand production
• Improve hydraulics fracture design
• Reduce casing shear and collapse

Questions?
- 13 -
Fundamentals of Pore Pressure

- 14 -
Pore Pressure – Importance of Subsurface Pressure Data

Well Design
Frontier
Exploration Fracture Pressure
Hydrodynamics Abnormal Pressure
Water Salinities
Vertical/Lateral Seals
Seal Breach

Subsurface
Mature
Exploration Pressure Drilling

Data

Drilling Parameters
Fluid Contacts Mud Weights
Petroleum Column Well Control
Heights
Petroleum Composition Exploitation
Reserve Calculation
Production Monitoring
PVT Properties

- 15 -
Pore Pressure Prediction as a foundation of drilling operations

Goals and Objectives

Authority & Expenditure

Rig Selection

Casing Design Tubing Design

Casing Setting Depth – Formation Tops

FG Mud Plan Cement Plan

Pore Pressure
- 16 -
Drilling risks related to geopressure

• Shallow Water/Gas Flow

• Hole cleaning issues
• Wellbore collapse
• Stuck pipe  lost in hole
• Lost circulation
• Kicks / influxes
• Underground blow out
• Excessive NPTs
• Narrow margin drilling operation window
• Formation damage
• Poor wellbore quality
• Completion issues
HIGH RISKS  HIGH COSTS
LOW SAFETY MARGINS

- 17 -
- 18 -
- 19 -
23 Agustus 2016 – LuSi

- 20 -
- 21 -
Pressure – Basic Terms

Pressure: force per unit area.

Absolute Pressure: pressure relative to a perfect vacuum.

Gauge Pressure: pressure measurement recorded by a pressure

gauge set to zero at datum.

Hydrostatic Pressure: pressure exerted by the weight of a static

column of fluid.

Lithostatic Pressure: pressure exerted by the weight of overlying

sediments, including the weight of the contained
fluids.

Formation Pressure: pressure acting on fluids in the pore space of

the formation.

Fracture Pressure: pore pressure required to initiate a fracture.

- 22 -
Understanding the system

- 23 -
Pressure (and stress) Units

1. Pressure Unit
• Imperial  psi (USA and UK), bar (most Europe)
• SI  MPa (Southeast Asia)

2. Pressure Gradient Unit

• Imperial  psi/ft, bar/ft
• SI  MPa/m

3. Equivalent Mud Weight Unit

• Imperial  ppg
• SI  s.g.

Pressure  Scalar  only has magnitude

Stress  Vector  Has magnitude and direction

- 24 -
Whose perspective?

- 25 -
Hydrostatic Pressure

Phydro = ρ𝗀h

Controlled by density  salinity, as a

function of:
• Diagenesis
• Temperature
• Proximity to salt bodies
• Osmosis
• Connate water history

Not a straight line, however often depicted

as a straight line  may vary with depth

Why is it important?
Reference for determination of overpressure

- 26 -
Lithostatic (Overburden) Pressure
Source of density data:
• Density logs
• Sonic logs  use transform
• Cutting samples or core samples
• Basin modeling
Why is it important?
Determination of Pore Pressure
𝑺𝒗 = න 𝝆𝒃 𝗀𝒉
𝝆𝒃 = [𝝆𝒎 𝟏 − ϕ ] + (𝝆𝒇 ϕ)
Defined as pressure exerted by overlying
sediments, including the weight of fluids.
Referred as vertical stress (Sv) in geomechanics.
Deep-water has the lowest pressure and onshore
has the highest pressure.
Lithostatic pressure is the upper limit of pressure
system.
If pore fluid pressure is equal to lithostatic
pressure (weight of overburden is on fluid):
• unconsolidated sediments  loss of cohesion
• consolidated sediments  fracture may occur
Terzaghi’s
Ppore = Sv – σ’v
- 27 -
Overburden – Salt affected

● ? ●

- 28 -
Pore Pressure – Terzaghi Equation (1)

Total mean stress is a shared stress between total

mean effective stress and pore pressure.

Pore pressure  isotropic fluid pressure

′
෍ 𝑺𝒎 = 𝝈𝒎 + 𝑷𝒑
Where: Sm = Total Mean Stress
σ’m = Total Mean Effective Stress
Pp = Pore Pressure

- 29 -
Pore Pressure – Terzaghi Equation (2)

Vertical stress (overburden) often used as a proxy for mean stress

in extensional basins.

- 30 -
Pore Pressure – Terzaghi Equation (3)

- 31 -
Compaction Disequilibrium – Primary mechanism

Rapid sediment loading leads Magnitude governed by rate of

to ineffective dewatering loading and permeability of seal

Vertical Stress
(Sedimentary loading)

Compressible sediment

Horizontal Stress
(Tectonic compression)

Increases in horizontal stress:

This mechanism implicit in most pore same effect, magnitude less well
pressure prediction methods understood

- 32 -
Compaction Disequilibrium – Primary mechanism

Normal compaction

- 33 -
Normal compaction conditions

Normal Compaction Curve:

No Overpressure

- 34 -
Compaction Disequilibrium – Primary mechanism

Disequilibrium
compaction

- 35 -
Compaction disequilibrium conditions

Shallow section is normally compacted

Porosity can be used to IF source of overpressure is

determine the magnitude of the compaction disequilibrium
Vertical Effective Stress

- 36 -
Compaction disequilibrium conditions

Fluid Retention Depth

Normal Compaction

Overpressure
If Vertical Effective
Stress remains
same, so does
Porosity

Vertical Effective Stress

Modified from Harrold et al. 2000
- 37 -
Typical shale compaction from various studies

Typical Sandstone Compaction

Increasing Age

From Mondol et al., 2007

Mondol, N.H., Bjørlykke, K., Jahrena, J., Høeg, K., 2007, “Experimental mechanical compaction of clay mineral aggregates – Changes in
physical properties of mudstones during burial.” Marine and Petroleum Geology 24: 289-311
- 38 -
Secondary mechanism(s)

Swarbrick, R.E., 2012. Review of pore-pressure prediction challenges in high-temperature areas. The Leading
Edge, November 2012, p. 1288-1294.
- 39 -
Overpressure Mechanisms

- 40 -
Porosity ø and Effective Stress σ’ relationship

These relationships are only for compaction disequilibrium in

shale.

Terzaghi (1943):
𝐶
∅ = ∅0 𝜎′4.606

Athy (1930) and Dutta (1983):

∅ = ∅0 𝑒 −𝐾𝜎′

Dutta (1988):
∅
′ −1−∅𝛽 𝑇
𝜎′ = 𝜎0 𝑒

Palciauskas & Domenico (1989):

∅ = 1 − ∅0 𝑒 −𝛽𝜎′

Where:
After Wang & Wang, 2015 Ø = Porosity
Ø0 = Porosity at mudline
C, K, σ’0, β = Empirical coefficients

Wang, Z. and Wang, R., 2015, “Pore pressure prediction using geophysical methods in carbonate reservoirs: Current status, challenges and
way ahead.” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2015) p.1-8
- 41 -
Velocity V and Effective Stress σ’ relationship

Bowers (1995)
Virgin curve:
𝑉 = 5000 + 𝐴𝜎′𝐵

Unloading curve:
𝐵
1
𝜎′ 𝑈
′
𝑉 = 5000 + 𝐴 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 ′
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥
1
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 5000 𝐵
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝐴

Tau (τ) model from Shell

𝐵
𝐶 − ∆𝑡
𝜎 ′ = 𝐴𝜏 𝐵 = 𝐴
∆𝑡 − 𝐷

After Bowers, 1995

Bowers, G.L., 1995, “Pore Pressure Estimation From Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction.”
presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb. 15-18, 1994, SPE 27488.
- 42 -
Porosity ø, Velocity V and Effective Stress σ’ relationships

After Wang & Wang, 2015

After Sayers, 2006

Sayers, C.M., 2006, “An introduction to velocity-based pore-pressure estimation.” The Leading Edge Dec. 2016, p.1496-1500.
- 43 -
Pore Pressure Prediction
Static Dynamic
Prediction
Basin
Seismic
Modeling

Pore Pressure Prediction

Petrophysics Drilling
Detection
Static Static
- 44 -
Industry Standard Pore Pressure Prediction Workflow

Determine Normal Calculate pore pressure

Calculate prediction (Eaton’s,
Compaction
overburden Trends (NCT)
Bryant’s, EDM, Miller’s,
etc.)

Integrate with Calibrate to known Check for other

mechanisms
seismic pore pressure pressures
(tectonics, chemical
model (or cube) if (MDT, RFT, kicks, compaction,
available etc.) temperature, etc.)

Fine tune and interpret pore

pressure model

- 45 -
Industry Standard Pore Pressure Prediction Workflow

Assumptions:
• Data from onshore Texas and Louisiana or Gulf of Mexico 
shallow water
• Overburden is 1 psi/ft
• Low temperature  Below 100°C
• Relatively homogeneous shale  smectite rich shale
• Main mechanism: disequilibrium compaction
• Relax basin  normal or extensional basin  Sv > SHMax > Shmin

Questions:
• Deep-water?  Narrow window between pore pressure and fracture
pressure
• High temperature?  Secondary mechanism(s)
• Mixed lithologies?
• Carbonates?  almost no primary porosity
• Salt?  overburden is less than non-salt
• Strike-slip? Thrust-fault?  Compressional basin  Sv < Shmin < SHMax

- 46 -
Geological-based Pore Pressure Prediction

Offset Well(s) Pore Seismic Pore Pressure

Geological Model Basin Modeling
Pressure Prediction Prediction

Regional Sub-surface
Pressure Study

Well plan pressure

prediction

- 47 -
 Geological Model

Shallow water, deep

Setting
Geological Information

GEOLOGICAL MODEL
water, HTHP, etc.

Temperature, rate of
Basin History
deposition, age, etc.

Faults, folds, inclined

Structure
reservoir, etc.

Shales, carbonates,
Lithology
mixed, etc.

Reservoir pressure Kicks, direct

data measurements, etc.

- 48 -
Pore Pressure Predictions – Shale-based Pore Pressure

Two main approaches:

A. Empirical rock property relationships
Porosity trends from well data, apply to seismic data
(velocity analysis, seismic attributes, etc)

B. Forward modelling (basin models)

Combine mechanisms (generation) with dissipation
(sealing properties)

- 49 -
Data needed

• Need some parameters that we can measure in

shale, which changes as a function of change in
porosity:
Seismic interval velocity
Sonic velocity Pore Pressure
Density Lithology Prediction Measure
Neutron Sand  P
Resistivity Carbonates  P
P 
Drilling exponent Shale
Salt  

• Establish normal compaction trend (NCT)

- 50 -
Responds to overpressure in logs

- 51 -
Equivalent Depth Method – Vertical method

- 52 -
Eaton’s Ratio Method – Horizontal method

Exercise 3
- 53 -
Some methods used for pore pressure prediction

• Equivalent Depth  Hottman and Johnson 1965

• Eaton’s (sonic, resistivity)  Eaton 1975
• Weakley (modified Eaton)  Weakley 1990
• Bowers’  Bowers 1995
• Compressibility Method  Atashbari and Tingay 2012
• Dxc  Jorden and Shirley 1966
• DEMSE  Majidi et al. 2016
• Seismic frequency v. Seismic Vint  Mannon et al.
2014
• Some other less common methods  work in certain
areas only.
- 54 -
Why does shale-based pore pressure prediction not work in
carbonates?

• Shale-based pore pressure prediction is based on velocity-porosity-effective

stress relationships. Porosity in porous rocks are influenced by many
factors: mineralogy, porosity, pore structure, pore fluids, temperature and
effective stress.

• Carbonates have dissolution and dolomitization in diagenetic process 

secondary pores are well developed and pore structure is extremely
complicated.

• Massive carbonate dissolution  non-fabric selective dissolution, i.e.

Cavern formation at any scale, collapse brecciation and fracturing, solution
enlargement of fractures, and dissolution of bedded evaporates.

• Complex pore structures in carbonates  velocity-porosity relationship

scattered  increases uncertainty of pore pressure prediction using shale-
based pore pressure prediction methods.

• An empirical velocity-porosity relationship used for clastic may lead to large

deviation and erroneous results when applied to carbonates.

- 55 -
Carbonate Pore Pressure Prediction Workflow

Create
FRD Pore Pressure
“theoretical” Eaton’s
shale pressure Prediction

Setting
Consider
Basin history
Geological Model Etc.
MDT Calibrate with
RFT, etc. known pressure
Choose Hobart
appropriate Atashbari & Tingay
method Etc.

“High Energy” Stress properties Apply

Understand paleo- “Low Energy” Rock elastic geomechanics
environment “Encasing shale” properties model
Compare with shale pressure

Check Gravity Lateral drainage Secondary

Number for mechanism(s),
Lateral/Vertical
overpressure ID buoyancy
transfer
Ng=1  boundary between low and high overpressures
Ng≪ 1  very high overpressure
- 56 -
Fracture pressure – Basic idea

Fracture Pressure  pressure required to initiate a fracture in formation.

Measurement  from LOT

In extensional basin, Pfrac = Shmin

Hydrofracturing occurs if Pp > Pfrac +  ( = tensile strength)

Pfrac = minimum compressive stress (S3)

extensional basin  Sv > SHMax > Shmin
strike-slip basin  SHMax > Sv > Shmin
compressional basin  SHMax > Shmin > Sv

Borehole environment includes Hoop stresses.

- 57 -
Extended Leak-Off Test (XLOT)

- 58 -
Fracture pressure algorithms

Several algorithms exist for fracture pressure

calculation.

Commonly used are:

Matthews’ and Kelly’s (1967)
Eaton’s (1969)
Breckels & Van Eekelen (1981)
Daines (1982)
Zoback (1990)
Pore Pressure Stress Coupling (1992)

- 59 -
Matthews’ and Kelly’s most common

𝑷𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄 = 𝑷𝒑 + 𝑲𝒊 𝝈′𝒗
Where: Pfrac = Fracture Pressure
Ki = Stress ratio  σhmin/σv
σ’v = Vertical Effective Stress
Pp = Pore Pressure

Need empirical regional value for Ki.

- 60 -
Eaton’s

ν
𝑷𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄 = 𝑷𝒑 + 𝝈′𝒗
𝟏−ν
Where: Pfrac = Fracture Pressure
ν = Poisson’s ratio
σ’v = Vertical Effective Stress
Pp = Pore Pressure

Need empirical regional value for ν.

- 61 -
Breckels & Van Eekelen  Empirical relationship

𝑷𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟑𝒁𝟏.𝟏𝟒𝟓 + 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝑶𝑷

For Z <3500m

𝑷𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟔𝟒𝒁 − 𝟑𝟏𝟕 + 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝑶𝑷

For Z >3500m

Where: Pfrac = Fracture Pressure

Z = Depth
OP = Overpressure  Pore pressure – Normal pressure

- 62 -
Daines’  Modified Eaton’s

ν
𝑷𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄 = 𝝈𝒕 + 𝑷𝒑 + 𝝈′𝒗
𝟏−ν
Where: Pfrac = Fracture Pressure
ν = Poisson’s ratio
σt = Tectonic stress  calibrated to LOT
σ’v = Vertical Effective Stress
Pp = Pore Pressure

Daines used ν = 0.14 for shale and 0.06 for sandstone

- 63 -
Zoback’s  Frictional faulting theory

𝑺𝟏 + 𝑷𝒑 𝟐
≤ 𝝁𝟐 + 𝟏 + 𝝁
𝑺𝟑 + 𝑷𝒑
Where: S1 = Maximum stress tensor
S3 = Minimum stress tensor
μ = Coefficient of sliding friction
0.6  crystalline rocks
0.3  plastic formations
Pp = Pore Pressure

- 64 -
Pore Pressure Stress Coupling

𝑷𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄 = 𝟏𝟒. 𝟕 + 𝑮𝒘 ∙ 𝑫𝒘 + %𝒐𝒇𝑺𝒗 ∙ 𝒁𝒎𝒍 + (𝑨 ∙ 𝑶𝑷)

Where: Pfrac = Fracture Pressure
Gw = Water gradient
Dw = Water depth
Sv = Vertical stress (overburden)
Zml = Depth below mudline
A = Pore pressure Fracture Pressure Coupling ratio
OP = Overpressure  Pore pressure – Hydrostatic pressure

- 66 -
- 67 -
Instructor – Leo Anis

Leo Anis is currently Geomechanics Manager covering Indonesia

for Schlumberger Software Integrated Solution (SIS) starting
Nov 2016. He was Geomechanics Manager covering Asia, from
Australia to China, for Schlumberger PetroTechnical Services
(PTS), based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He joined PTS in 1995
as a geophysicist and held various positions within geophysics
department. He has moved to Geomechanics since 2003 and
taking the position as Geomechanics Team Leader.

He is senior member of the Geomechanics and geophysics

community with a broad range of experience in clastic,
carbonate and basement reservoirs. Has extensive skills in
Mechanical Earth Model construction includes pore pressure,
stress analysis, wellbore stability, sanding prediction, hydraulic
fracturing and 3-D coupled geomechanics. He has worked for
Schlumberger for 23 years.

He received his Bachelors in Geophysics from Bandung Institute

of Technology, Indonesia (1994) and a Masters in Reservoir
Geophysics from University of Indonesia (2007). He is a
member of SPWLA, SPE, and SEG.

- 68 -
 Instructor – Don Basuki

An enthusiastic and highly motivated Geologist with a wide range of

worldwide experience in the petroleum exploration industry.

Don has more than 20 years of industry experience in several countries

with various roles. His current role in Pertamina UTC is as Drilling
Consultant responsible for all PPFG and Geomechanics aspects of drilling
and drilling optimization projects. Has wide range of experience in pore
pressure and wellbore stability modeling using petrophysical, drilling and
geophysical data along with extensive wellsite experience throughout
many different geological environments such as deepwater, extended
reach drilling, HTHP and in complex lithologies. Has various experiences
in drilling engineering subjects such as complex, multi-phase hydraulics
analysis and calculation, casing design, well trajectory design and drilling
dynamics analysis. He was successfully involved in some of record
breaking projects, such as Poseidon (the deepest well in Gulf of
Mexico, 2001), Semberah-77 (the longest onshore horizontal well
in Indonesia, 2006) and Sakhalin-1 Z-12 Chayvo (the longest well in
the world, 2008).

Enhancing this experience, Don is a certified OASIS Engineer in Pressure

Management and Performance Drilling. Don holds a Master of Science
degree in Structural Geology (1997) from Wichita State University,
Kansas, USA. Don was a recipient of various scholarships.

- 69 -
Disclaimer

Copyright belongs to respected owners of the original

slides owners: Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, GMI, Ikon
Science, BRAVO GeoConsulting and others. No
copyright infringement intended.

Other materials are taken from published papers.

Slides are used in non-commercial, in house training in

scientific discussion.

- 71 -