Surface

II

Fig. 3-8 Intrusive action of the salt dome creates abnormal pressures in shale
sections that prevent fluid migration and pressure normalization

Surface

Normal pressure in all

adjacent formations

Pressure at 9,000 ft is
0.052 x 9.0 Ib/gal x
9,000 ft = 4,212 psi/ft
11,000 ft Pressure at 9,001 ft is
TVD
5,148 psi - 0.115psi
x 2,000 ft = 4,918 psi
= 10.50 Ib/gal EMW

11,000 ft = 5,148 psi

Fig. 3-9 Abnormalpressuresat the sandtop at 9,000 ft occurbecauseof the

low density gas attempting to counterbalance the 11,000 ft of normal
formation fluids
50 Drilling Engineering

Seismic Analysis
Geophysical methods such as seismic can be used to detect the presence
and top of abnormally pressured formations and to evaluate the magnitude of
the pressures. The techniques are similar to acoustic well logging but utilize
different frequencies and wavelengths. Fig. 3-10 illustrates the velocity ranges
to be expected in sedimentary sections.

Tlm~ in mi croseconds per ft.

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Vf - Dolomit~
25000

- Calcite

20000 _
- Anhydrite
Granite

- Quartz

v
" '"
_...", 15 000
-:s
!!.
... It \

!: \ Shales rarely
>- over 13000'/s v
;0;: ?~
v
0 Q,~.
ii ~O<
> 10000 0),.
"0-

~
Cay and sandy clay
} Unconsolidated .sand
_20.'. NaCI 100.'. . .
5000 Hi=> -150'0 NaCI
Oil 'L,0.,. NaCI
Alcohol
't!..."' "'- "'-
AlluviuM
Methane
Air
o

Fig.3-10 Velocity ranges frequently encountered in sedimentary sections (Af-

ter Fertl)
 Predicting Formation Pressures 51

Seismic data analysis methods are based on the elementary reflection anal-
ysis summarized by Pennebaker. Let SS represent the earth's surface (Fig.
3-11). Assume shot point 0 is at the surface. When explosives at the shot point
are detonated, acoustic energy is created in the form of compressional waves.
This seismic energy moves equally in all directions. Energy traveling vertically
strikes the subsurface plane RR and is reflected back to the surface SS along
vertical line OPO. Energy from the shot also propagates along paths diagonal
to plane RR in the subsurface (Le., path OT) and is reflected back to the surface
along path TW. The time required for the energy to travel the two-way paths is
recorded by the geophones at points 0 and W, separated horizontally by distance
X. The average velocity, V, can be computed with Eg. 3.2:

(3.2)

The depth to the reflecting bed can be determined from Eg. 3.3:

(3.3)

The interval velocity from seismic profiles is the reciprocal of interval

travel time. The reciprocated values can be plotted vs depth to indicate the

s 0-. x s

v
R p R
,
, , ,-
, ,,
I "
I ,'
I "
I , '
I ,'
1,'
0'

Fig. 3-11 Concept of the elementary reflection principle (After Pennebaker)

52 Drilling Engineering

presence of abnormal p.ressures. A normal environment exhibits decreasing po-

rosity as compaction occurs. Therefore, the travel times should decrease. An
abnormal pressure zone has greater-than-normal porosities for the specific depth
and causes higher travel times. Fig. 3-12 illustrates a seismic and sonic plot for
an abnormal pressure well. Quantitative methods for interpreting seismic (and
sonic) data are presented later in this chapter.

2
I
...Jllnte-grated sonic
I /1
3

4
0
8
5
1i
o (actual). r
II l
T/ overpresSAJrfL...
6 Tlove-pressure --I /
(p-edicted) f/
J>

7"
al-
f
'/
I I I
IJ.
20

Fig. 3-12 Comparison of seismically derived transit travel time and actual
velocity data in a well (Courtesy of the Society of Petroleum En-
gineers of AIME)
 Predicting Formation Pressures 53

Log Analysis
Log analysis is a common procedure fo~ pore pressure estimation in both
offset wells and the actual well drilling. New MWD (measurement-while-drilling)
tools implement log analysis techniques in a real-time drilling mode. The analysis
techniques use the effect of the abnormally high porosities on rock properties
such as electrical conductivity, sonic travel time, and bulk density. Both the
resistivity (or reciprocated conductivity) log and the sonic log presented here are
based on one of these principles. Note, however, that any log dependent primarily
on porosity for its responses can be used in a quantitative evaluation of formation
pressures.
The resistivity log was originally used in pressure detection. The log's
response is based on the electrical resistivity of the total sample, which includes
the rock matrix and the fluid-filled porosity. If a zone is penetrated that has
abnormally high porosities (and associated high pressures), the resistivity of the
rock will be reduced due to the greater conductivity of water than rock matrix.
The expected response can be seen in Fig. 3-13.
Fig. 3-13 illustrates several important points. Since the high formation
pressures were originally developed in shale sections and later equalized the sand
zone pressures, only the clean shale sections are used as plotting points. This
excludes sand resistivities, silty shale, lime or limey shale, or any other type of
rock that may be encountered. As the shale resistivities are selected and plotted,
a normal trend line should develop prior to entry into the pressured zone.
Upon penetrating an abnormal pressure zone, a deviation or divergence
will be noted. The degree of divergence is used to estimate the magnitude of
the formation pressures. This concept of the development of the normal trend
and noting any divergence will be used with most pressure detection techniques.
An actual field case can be seen in Fig. 3-14. The impermeable shale
section was entered at about 9,500 ft. Although this section contained normal
pressure from 9,500-9,800 ft, as evidenced by the increasing resistivity of the
normal trend, the reversal can be seen from 9,800-10,900 ft. The mud weight
was 9.0 lb/gal at 9,500 ft but was increased to 13.5 lb/gal at 10,900 ft. A plot
of the key shale resistivity points is shown in Fig. 3-15.
Hottman and Johnson developed a technique based on empirical relation-
ships whereby an estimate of formation pressures could be made by noting the
ratio between the observed and normal rock resistivities. Their data points, shown
in Table 3-3, were used to construct the curve in Fig. 3-16. As they explained,
the following steps are necessary to estimate the formation pressure.
1 The normal trend is established by plotting the logarithm of shale re-
sistivity vs depth.
2 The top of the pressured interval is found by noting the depth at which
the plotted points diverge from the trend.
Text continued p. 58
54 Drilling Engineering

.
.\
.\ .
.
...
Transition')
\
It
..
. \15
\

\\
\
~
a.
\
Q)
CI
1
\
!
..
I \
\
\
r-

0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0

Resistivity of shale, ohms

Fig. 3-13 Generalized shale resistivity plot

 ,
,
.I tI
d:+-ttT1
I,I ' ~,
q-j:
i I
i'. !-d
.. 10-_.
ldt : I : :
;'1 '_.

I,
L

, ,

I. !'
f::-;:
;..
~_! . I:.';'
. . .

Fig. 3-14 Illustration of an electric log from' a well in which the deposi-
tion of an impermeable shale barrier generated abnormal pressures
in the lower intervals. In this well, the barrier is from 9,500 ft-
9,700 ft.
56 Drilling Engineering

9,500 '- "

"-
"-
,
9,600 -,
,
I
I
9,700 +
I
I
g I
.£:
Q. 9,800
(I)
+
CI I
I
~ I
9,900
/
)
/
/
/
/
10,000
/
I
/
/
/
10,100

/
I
I
10,200 _
0.7
f
0.8
I
0.9
I
1.0 1.1 1.2
Resistivity,ohmmeters ~

Fig.3-15 Shale resistivities from the.Iog shown in Figure 3-14 are plotted vs
depth. Note the departure from the normal trend line at 10,000 ft.
Predicting Formation Pressures 57

Table 3-3 Formation Pressures and Shale Resistivity

Ratios in Overpressured MiQcene/Oligocene
Formation, U.S. Gulf Coast Area
Shale
Parish or County Depth Pressure FPG* resistivity
and State Well ft psi psi/ft ratio** Om

81. Martin, La. A 12,400 10,240 0.83 2.60

Cameron, La. B 10,070 7,500 0.74 1.70
Cameron, La. B 10,150 8,000 0.79 1.95
C 13,100 11,600 0.89 4.20
D 9,370 5,000 0.53 1.15
Offshore E 12,300 6,350 0.52 1.15
81. Mary, La. F 12,500 6,440 0.52 1.30
14,000 11,500 0.82 2.40
Jefferson Davis, G 10,948 7,970 0.73 1.78
La. H 10,800 7,600 0.70 1.92
10,750 7,600 0.71 1.77
Cameron, La. I 12,900 11,000 0.85 3.30
Iberia, La. J 13,844 7,200 0.52 1.10
15,353 12,100 0.79 2.30
Lafayette, La. K 12,600 9,000 0.71 1.60
12,900 9,000 0.70 1.70
L 11,750 8,700 0.74 1.60
M 14,550 10,800 0.74 1.85
Cameron, La. N 11,070 9,400 0.85 3.90
Terrebonne, La. 0 11,900 8,100 0.68 1.70
13,600 10,900 0.80 2.35
Jefferson, Tex. P 10,000 8,750 0.88 3.20
81. Martin, La. Q 10,800 7,680 0.71 1.60
Cameron, La. R 12,700 11,150 0.88 2.80
13,500 11,600 0.86 2.50
13,950 12,500 0.90 2.75

AfterHottmanand Johnson,1965
*Formation fluid pressure gradient.
**Ratio of resistivity of normally pressured shale to observed resistivity of overpressured shale:
R",{n/R'h{ob)'
58 Drilling Engineering

0.4

~
.~ 0.6
0.5
,. " ".
10.0
a;
C)
:c
c6 \... ... 12.0 ~
It
...
0.7 ...
.. '" 14.0
"0

E
::;]

.~ t c

... .
3!
Q)
a:
0.8
........ . 16.0 ~ Q)

t--- . 'S
CT
0.9 w
18.0
1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Normal-pressured Rsw'observed RSh

Fig. 3-16 Empirical correlation of fonnation pressure gradients vs a ratio of

nonnal to observed shale resistivities (After Hottman and Johnson)

3 The pressure gradient at any depth is found as follows:

a. The ratio of the extrapolated nonnal shale resistivity to the observed
shale resistivity is detennined.
b. The fonnation pressure corresponding to the calculated ratio is found
from Fig. 3-16.

Example 3.2
Plot the following resistivity data on semilog paper. Where does the entrance
into abnonnal pressures occur? Use the Hottman and Johnson method to
compute fonnation pressures at each 1,0OO-ftinterval below the entrance into
pressures.

Resistivity, ohm-m Depth, ft

0.54 4,000
0.64 4,600
0.60 5,600
0.70 6,000
0.76 6,400
Predicting Formation Pressures 59

0.60 7,000
0.70 7,500
0.74 8,000
0.76 8,500
0.82 9,000
0.90 9,700
0.84 10,100
0.80 10,400
0.76 10,700
0.58 10,900
0.45 11,000
0.36 11,100
0.30 11,300
0.28 11,600
0.29 11,900
0.27 12,300
0.28 12,500
0.29 12,700
0.30 12,900

Solution:

1. Plot the data as shown in Fig. 3-17.

2. The estimated entrance into abnormal pressure occurs at 9,700 ft.
3. Extrapolate the normal trend established between 8,000 and 9,700 ft.
4. The observed and extrapolated resistivities at the bottom are 0.30 and 1.60
ohm-m, respectively.
5. Compute the ratio of RNonnal(Rn) and Robserved (Rob):

R='&'
Rob

= 1.60
0.30
= 5.333

6. Using Fig. 3-16 from Hottman and Johnson, the formation pressure as-
sociated with a ratio of 5.33 is approximately 18.0 Ib/gal.

Overlays. Subsequent to the Hottman and Johnson approach, un-

published techniques were developed that used an overlay or underlay for a quick
evaluation of formation pressures. The overlay (or underlay) contains a series
60 Drilling Engineering

01
4,000
.,

5,000

6,000

7,000

\
8,000

9,000

10,000
"' Entry into abnormalpressures

11,000
L.......
o#P"
\ lxtrapolated normaltrend

(
tt''f:

12,000

13,000
\
14,000
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 o.s 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fig. 3-17 Resistivity plot for Example 3.2

Predicting Formation Pressures 61

of parallel lines that represent formation pressure expressed as mud weight (Fig.
3-18).
The overlay is shifted left and right until the normal pressure line is aligned
with the normal trend. Formation pressures are read directly from a visual in-
spection ofthe location of the resistivity plots within the framework of theparallel
lines. As an example, the data from Example 3.2 were plotted in Fig. 3-19 and
the overlay was used to estimate the formation pressure.
Different types of overlays have been developed for pressure determina-
tions. Some are used with resistivity or conductivity curves, while others are
used with sonic logs. In addition, overlays have been developed for the various
geological ages for each log type.
There are many pitfalls to avoid when using an overlay. Most can be
shifted left or right but are depth fixed and therefore cannot be moved vertically.
Overlays are generally developed for one scale of semilog paper and cannot be
interchanged. This means a different overlay design if paper sizes must be
changed.
Another common mistake when using the resistivity overlay is an attempt
to use it for conductivity values by turning it over. In addition, overlays do not
account for abnormal water salinity changes. When these changes are encoun-
tered, different techniques must be used that normalize the salinity effect.
Salinity Changes. The Hottman and Johnson procedure, as well as the
overlay techniques, assume that formation resistivities are a function of the
following variables:
.. lithology
fluid content
·. salinity

. temperature
porosity
The proceduresmake the followingassumptionswithrespectto thesevariables:
.. lithology is shale

.. shale is water filled

water salinity is constant

· temperature gradients are constant

porosity is the only variable affecting the pore pressure
Formations with varying water salinities can prevent the reliable use of the
Hottman and Johnson technique.
Foster and Whalen developed techniques for predicting formation pressure
in regions that have salinity variations. Their techniques have proved successful
and can be applied universally, although the complexity associated with their
use prevents wide acceptance. New computerized applications help make the
technique more useful.
62 Drilling Engineering

1,000
Resistivity trend
line with
2,000 evaluation curves_
for continuous
depositional basins
3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000 18 17 16 15 1413 11 9

Fig. 3-18 Shale resistivity overlay

i
Predicting Formation Pressures 63

4,000
\
5,000

6,000

II
7,000
1\

8,000
<I:
.c
a.
Q)
c
9,000

IO \
10,000 6- ,1

11,000
\ \ -,\ \. \ \\ Normaltrend _
\;1 \ \

12,000
8

\ \ \ \
Y
13,000
\ 1;
i-I
\
\
14,000
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fig.3-19 Overlay plot for Example 3.2

64 Drilling Engineering

The Foster and Whalen method is based on a formation factor, F, and its
relationship to the shale resistivity and formation water resistivity:

(3.4)

Where:
F = formation factor, dimensionless
R.. = shale resistivity, ohm-m
Rw = formation water resistivity, ohm-m

The shale resistivity, Ro, is read directly from the log. The water resistivity, Rw,
is computed from the mud filtrate resistivity, Rmr.The SP deflection is computed
from the shale base line. The formation pressures are calculated from a plot of
formation factors and the depth equivalent approach, as previously presented.
Example 3.3 will illustrate the procedures "requiredto calculate Rwand F.

Example 3.3
Use the following log data to calculate F and Rw.Assume that all bed thickness
corrections have been made.
Ro = 0.980hm-m
SP = - 87 mv (deflection from shale base line)
temperature= 190°F at 8,000 ft
depth of interest = 8,000 ft
Rmr= 0.40 ohm-m at 90°F
Solution:

I. The SP deflection from the shale base line is used with Fig. 3-20 to obtain
the ratio of Rmr.lRwc.From Fig. 3-20, a value of - 87 mv yields 10.5 for
the ratio.
2. The resistivity of the mud filtrate, Rmf,is 0.40 ohm-m at 90°F. It must be
converted to an equivalent value, Rmrc,at 190°F with Fig. 3-21. From
Fig. 3-21, the Rmrcis 0.195 ohm-m.
3. Combining steps I and 2:

Rwc= 0.0185 ohm-m

Predicting Formation Pressures 65

4. Fig. 3-22 is used to convert Rweto Rw. or 0.028 ohm-m.

5. (3.4)

_ 0.98
- 0.028
= 35
The SP deflection and resistivity values should be corrected for bed thick-
ness and its relationship to the logging tool. (These corrections are beyond the
scope of this text.) Failure to make the corrections will not be significant in
many cases.

Rwe DETERMINATION FROM THE SSP

(CLEAN FORMATIONS)
40
30

20

15

OW10.510
Omf 8
6

Rmfe 4
Rwe 3

1.5

I
.8
.6
.5
4

3 .
+60, +40 + 20 0 - 20 -40 -60 -801 -100 -120 -140 -160 -180
-87
STATIC SP (millivolts)

Fig. 3-20 Rwedetermination from the SSP (Courtesy of Schlumberger)

66 Drilling Engineering

Fonnation pressure calculations are made by defining the depth in the

nonnal pressure region that has a fonnation factor, F, equivalent to the deeper
depth of interest. The upper depth is defined as the equivalent depth, De. Eq.
3.5 describes the pressure relationships:

DG = 0.465 psi/ft (De) + (D - De) (1.0 psi/ft) (3.5)

Where:
D = deep depth of interest, ft
De = equivalent depth, ft
G = fonnation pressure gradient, 'psi/ft at D
1.0 psi/ft = assumed overburden stress gradient

If the depths D and De are known, the fonnation pressure gradient, G, is computed
as follows:

G = (1.0 psi/ft)D - 0.535De

D (3.6)

Example 3.4
The following log data were taken from a well that is suspected to have
significant salinity variations in the fonnation fluids. Use the Foster-Whalen
method to calculate fonnation pressures at each of the given depths. Assume
that all appropriate bed thickness corrections have been made to the log values.
Estimated fonnation temperatures have been previously calculated from the
temperature tools on the logging runs and are shown in the following list.

Data:

Depth, Temperature, Observed Resistivity, SP Deflection,

ft of ohm-m mv
3,900 114 0.76 -70
5,400 135 0.76 -76
6,900 162 0.84 -78
7,700 170 0.96 -85
8,900 191 0.99 -90
9,700 201 1.23 -87
10,300 211 1.02 -90
10,700 218 0.93 -94
10,850 221 0.73 -90
 ;; 0 ... . ..
NoCI i 8 8
CONCENTRATION
orol.l/ool 017SoF_ I!
} .. ..
I
~
. gI
.8.8.8
~+
10TSO
.::
~
I
I ppftl_
.I .Ii .II
18 8 II I
RESISTIVITY
GRAPH

20 FOR NoCI
SOLUTIONS
75
.0
40 100
80 12'
...
'"
80
'" ""0
'"
70
c:
804-175
80
100
2
.
110
120 50
'80
140 e!
.eo 300

178

200

t t. RESISTIVITY OF ...-.-..-.
0a
n_n' .n., ,_.....
."
68 Drilling Engineering

Depth, Temperature, Observed Resistivity, SP Deflection,

ft of. ohm-m mv
11,400 239 1.30 -60
12,000 250 1.70 -57
12,600 261 2.08 -38
12,800 270 1.03 -55

Logging runs:
Depth, ft Rmfat Temperature, ohm-m
10,300 0.65 at 90°F
11,400 0.89 at 80°F
12,800 1.03 at 90°F
Solution:

(The actual calculation procedures will be shown for the 12,8oo-ft depth.
Results for all depths are shown in Table 3-4.)
1. The SP deflection from the shale base line at 12,800 ft is - 55 mv. From
Fig. 3-20, a-55 mv value at 270°F correlates as follows:

Rmf(c)= 3.77
Rw(c)

2. The resistivity of the mud filtrate (Rmr)at 12,800 ft is 1.03. Using Fig.
3-21, this value is corrected from 900Pto the bottom-hole temperature of
270°F:

1.03 ohm-m at 90°F - 0.34 ohm-m at 2700P

3. The results from steps 1 and 2 are combined:

Rmnc)= 3.77
Rw(c)

0.34 = 3.77
Rw(c)

Rw(c) = 0.090

4. Convert Rw(c)to Rw (water resistivity) with Fig. 3-22:

Rw = 0.086