hole (no breakouts) or very limited breakout variation and other possible formation property

development which is consistent with the lack of changes on the sonic log may have been misinterpreted
drilling problems as shown by the drilling experiences as a pore pressure anomaly. An anomalously high pore
through this depth interval (Figure 10). With the mud pressure model would have significant implications for
weight of 9.3 ppg used to drill this section the stability and well control in the study area as high pore
geomechanical model with the preliminary pore pressure would require a higher mud weight to avoid
pressure gradient of 10.6 ppg predicts wide breakouts well flow and maintain wellbore stability while
(breakout width of ~100deg). If the calculated breakout drilling. Figure 11 shows that the sections of interest
width was true, we would expect problems during are naturally fractured and excessive mud weights
drilling such as tight hole and the occurrence of stuck could lead to mud losses and well control problems.
pipe due to an excess amount of cavings (material Hence, a narrow safe operating mud weight window
falling from the wellbore wall into the well). would exist if the anomalously high pore pressures
predicted from conventional sonic log-based methods
The inconsistencies between predictions of wellbore
are used in well planning. In addition, use of excessive
failure and the lack of failure observations using the
mud weight during drilling of development wells could
above geomechanical model suggested that the pore
cause formation damage and reduced well productivity.
pressure profile is inaccurate. In the absence of direct
pore pressure indicators in the Vulcan formation,
wellbore breakout observations from image logs and
drilling experiences were used to constrain a pore 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
pressure profile that best explains these observations.
The velocity-effective stress relationship is non-linear.
A revised normal pore pressure gradient (Pp ~ 8.5 ppg)
Generally, there is a sharp increase in velocity with
incorporated into the geomechanical model between
effective stress increase (pore pressure decrease),
~4300m and 4450m results in the prediction of narrow
followed by a plateau. The plateau is established at
borehole breakouts consistent with observed breakout
lower effective stresses for high porosity rocks.
width in image logs through these depths.
Worldwide published laboratory data were used to
establish a generalized relationship between porosity
N E S W N Model Inputs
and the velocity-effective stress plateau. The equation
4362 m

In-gauge hole
Overpressured Normally pressured is: Porosity = 0.51 exp (-0.025* S’) where S’ is the
Pp ~10.6 ppg Pp ~8.5. ppg
Sv ~18.6 ppg Sv ~18.6 ppg effective stress at velocity plateau. For example, the
MW:
Shmin ~14.6 ppg
No
SHmax ~ 21.9 ppg
9.3 ppg
Shmin
SHmax
~14.0 ppg
~ 22.5 ppg
effective stress-velocity plateau for a 25% porosity
drilling
problems
UCS ~15000 psi UCS ~15000 psi siliciclastic rock will be approximately 27 MPa.
fric. ang. ~50º fric. ang. ~50º
Depending on the magnitude of the vertical stress this
Lower Vulcan Sst.

Narrow Breakouts
Model Outputs would correspond to a depth limit of 2200-3000m. By
comparison, the depth limit for a 15% porosity
siliciclastic rock would be 4100-5700m. Extrapolating
Breakout Ang.
the velocity-effective stress relationships to deeply
Breakout Ang.
~100º ~35º buried rocks beyond the corresponding depth of
effective stress-velocity plateau could result in
4369 m
Inconsistent with
log and drilling data
Consistent with log
and drilling data
inaccurate pore pressure estimates. This in turn could
lead to erroneous mud predictions and hole stability
Fig. 13. Verification of geomechanical model with revised analyses.
pore pressure for the Vulcan formation consistent with It should noted that the proposed porosity-velocity
observed borehole failure observation in image log data and plateau is mostly applicable to homogeneous
absence of drilling problems at this interval. sandstones and claystones with limited extrapolation to
other rock types such as shale and carbonates because
of their complex rock fabric and inherent anisotropy.
The depth of the velocity-stress plateau for rocks at Further petro-acoustic measurements and modeling are
4300-4450m depth in the Ichthys Field is estimated to needed for other common sedimentary rocks to
be about 4000m. One reason for the mismatch of the characterize the stress sensitivity of acoustic velocities
modelled pore pressure with the field data may be that for a wider range of rock types.
the sonic-based pore pressure models are used beyond
their depth applicability. The effect of a compositional
A field example is presented where the target
formations at 4000-4900m depth are normally
pressured and the depth of the velocity-stress plateau is
estimated to be about 4000m. Conventional sonic log-
based pore pressure modelling suggests abnormally
high pressures for rocks buried at 4300 - 4450m depth.
Therefore a high mud weight while drilling would be
required to avoid well flows events and maintain
wellbore stability. The sections of interest are naturally
fractured and excessive mud weights could lead to mud
losses and well control problems. The consequence of
the anomalously high pore pressures predicted from
conventional sonic log-based methods would be a
narrow safe operating mud weight window. One reason
for the mismatch between the modelled and measured
pore pressure may be that the sonic-based pore
pressure models are used beyond their depth
applicability and the effect of a rock compositional
variation on the sonic logs is misinterpreted as a pore
pressure anomaly. The pore pressure model was
corrected using geomechanical modelling based on
drilling, well log and core data. The revised pore
pressure model was then used for wellbore stability
analyses. Subsequent wells were drilled successfully
with a mud weight lower than the original pore
pressure predictions, confirming the accuracy of
revised pore pressure estimate.
REFERENCES
1. Mouchet, J. P. and Mitchell, A. 1989. Abnormal
pressures while drilling. Manuels techniques ELF
Aquitatine, 2 Boussens, France, ELF Aquitatine..
2. Albertin, M. Petmecky, S., Jay, C. and Vinson, P. 2003.
Drillability assessment in deepwater exploration. OTC paper
15295.
3. Standifird, W. and Matthews M. 2005. Real time basin
modeling: improving geopressure and Earth stress
predictions. SPE 96464.
4. Khaksar, A., Warrington, A., Magee, M., Burgdorff, K.
and Castillo, D. 2004. Coupled pore pressure and wellbore
breakout analysis in the complex Papua New Guinea Fold
Belt Region, SPE 88607.
5. Hottman, C.E. and Johnson, R.K. 1965: Estimation of
formation pressure from log-derived shale properties.
Journal of Petroleum Technology 17, 717-22.
6. Eaton B. 1975. The equations for geopressure prediction
from well logs. SPE 5544.
7. Bowers, G. 1995. Pore pressure estimation from velocity
data: Accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides
undercomaction. SPE Journal of Drilling & Completion, p.
89-95.
8 Yassir, N, and Addis, A. 2002. Relationship between pore
pressure and stress in different tectonic settings. Pressure
Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and Their Prediction AAPG
memoir 76, ed. Huffman A. and Bowers G., 79-88.
9. Bell, DW. 2002. Velocity estimation for pore pressure
prediction, Pressure Regimes in Sedimentary Basins and
Their Prediction AAPG memoir 76, ed. Huffman A. and
Bowers G., 217-233.
10. Chopra, S. and Huffman A. 2006. Velocity
determination for pore pressure prediction, The Leading
Edge, April edition, 29-46.
11. Wyllie, M.R., Gregory, A.R. and Gardner, G.H.F. 1958.
An experimental investigation of factors affecting elastic
wave velocities in porous media. Geophysics 23, 459-493.
12. King, M.S. 1966. Wave velocities in rocks as function of
changes in overburden pressure and pore fluid saturation.
Geophysics 31, 50-73.
13. Nur, A. and Simmons, G. 1969. The effect of saturation
on velocity in low porosity rocks. Earth Planetary Science
Letters 7, 183-193.
14. Domenico, SN. 1974. Effect of water saturation on
seismic reflectivity of sand reservoirs encased in shale.
Geophysics 39, 759-769.
15. Tosaya, C. and Nur, A. 1982. Effect of diagenesis and
clay on compressional velocities in rocks. Geophysical
Research letters 9, 5-8.
16. Han, D-H., Nur, A. and Morgan, D. 1986. Effects of
porosity and clay content on wave velocities in sandstones.
Geophysics 51, 2093-2107.
17. Yu, G., Vozoff, K. and Durney D.W. 1991. Effect of
pore pressure on compressional wave velocity in coals.
Exploration Geophysics 22, 475-480.
18. Freund, D. 1992. Ultrasonic compressional and shear
velocities in dry clastic rocks as a function of porosity, clay
content, and confining pressure. Geophysical Journal
International 108, 125-135.
19. Jones, S.M. 1995. Velocities and quality factors of
sedimentary rocks at low and high effective pressures.
Geophysics Journal International 123, 774-780.
20. Prasad, M. and Manghnani, M.H., 1997: Effect of pore
and differential pressure on compressional wave velocity
and quality factor in Berea and Michigan sandstones.
Geophysics 62, 1163-1176.
21. Khaksar, A. and Griffiths, C.M. 1996. Influence of
effective stress on the acoustic velocity and log derived
porosity. SPE 36981.
22. Khaksar, A. and Griffiths, C.M. 1998(a). Acoustic
velocities as a function of effective pressure in low to
moderate porosity shaly sandstones; Part 1- Experimental
results, Exploration Geophysics 29, 447-455.
23. Khaksar, A. Griffiths, C.M. and McCann, C. 1999(a). Microcrack Closure Stress Porosity Sample description, Reference
Compressional and shear wave velocities as a function of (MPa) (Fraction)
150 0.007 Casco Granite [13]
confining stress in dry sandstones. Geophysical Prospecting 120 0.026 Sample 38 Sst. [18]
47, 487-508. 120 0.030 Sample 120 Sst, [18]
90 0.040 Cooper Basin Sst, [26]
75 0.070 Officer Basin Shale-VPv [25],
24. Khaksar, A. Griffiths, C.M. and McCann, C. 1999(b). 60 0.080 USA Tight Gas Sst. [29]
Effective stress coefficient for P- and S-wave velocity and 80 0.105 Cooper Basin Sst. [26]
70 0.120 Cooper Basin Sst. [26]
quality factor in sandstones, example from Cooper Basin- 70 0.127 Sample 307 Sst. [18]
Australia. Expanded Abstracts, 69th SEG Annual Meeting, 60
48
0.139
0.140
Cooper Basin Sst. [26]
Citronelle Sst., [11]
Houston, USA. 60 0.150 North Sea Shale-VPv [25]
60 0.164 Navajo Sst. [30]
25. Dewhurst D., Siggins A., Kulia U., Clennell, M, Raven 45
55
0.170
0.184
Michigan Sst. [20]
Berea Sst.[30]
M. and Nordgard-Bolas, H. 2008. Elastic, geomechanical 27 0.195 Berea Sst. [16] .
28 0.200 Berea Sst. [31]
and petrophysical properties of shales. ARMA 08-208. 31 0.200 Bandera Sst. [12]
31 0.200 Berea Sst. [11]
26. Khaksar, A. 1998. A petrophysical study on the 35 0.205 Berea Sst.[12]
35 0.212 Berea Sst. [20]
influence of effective stress and fluid saturation on acoustic 35 0.217 Gulf Coast Sst. [32]
velocities in sandstones. Ph.D. Thesis, University of 35 0.230 Barrow Sst [33].
28 0.250 Boise Sst. [12]
Adelaide, Australia. 20 0.260 Boise Sst. [16]
29 0.260 Indiana Sst’ [16]
27. Khaksar, A. and Griffiths, C.M. 1998(b). Acoustic 30 0.270 US GOM Sst. [16]
19 0.300 Unconsolidated sand [14]]
velocities as a function of effective pressure in low to 18 0.312 Gulf431 Sst. [16]
13 0.370 Ottawa sand [14]
moderate porosity shaly sandstones; Part 2- Implications for
hydrocarbon exploration. Exploration Geophysics 29, 456- Table 1. Details of dataset and references shown in Fig. 6
461.
28. Eberhart-Phillips, D., Han, D-H. and Zoback, M.D.
1989. Empirical relationships among seismic velocity,
effective pressure, porosity and clay content in sandstone.
Geophysics 54, 82-89.
29. Vernik, L. 1997. Predicting porosity from acoustic
velocities in siliciclastics: a new look. Geophysics 62, 118-
128.
30. Johnson, D. and Tosoz, N. 1980. Ultrasonic P and S
waves attenuation in dry and saturated rocks under pressure.
J. Geophys. Res. 85, 925-936.
31. Hicks, W.G and Berry, J.E., 1956. Application of
continuous velocity logs to determination of fluid saturation
of reservoir rocks. Geophysics 21, 739-754.
32. Gregory, A.R, 1976. Fluid saturation effects on dynamic
elastic properties of sedimentary rocks. Geophysics 41, 895-
921.
33. Siggins, A. F., Dewhurst, D. N., and Tingate, P. R.,
2001, Stress path, pore pressure and microstructural
influence on Carnarvon basin sandstones: OTC Paper 13043.
34. Zoback, M. D., Moos, D., Mastin, L., and Anderson, R.
N. 1985. Wellbore breakouts and in-situ stress. J. Geophys.
Res. 90, 5,523–5,530.
35. Moos, D. and Zoback, M. 1990. Utilization of
observations of well bore failure to constrain the orientation
and magnitude of crustal stresses: Application to continental,
Deep Sea Drilling Project and ocean drilling program
boreholes. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 9,305–9,325.