Estimation The Effect of Abnormal Pore Pressure On Drilling Operations/ Case Study: Eastern Missan Oil Fields

University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Department of Petroleum Engineering
Estimation the Effect of Abnormal Pore

Pressure on Drilling Operations/ Case study:
Eastern Missan Oil Fields.
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO
THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCINCE
IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
BY
NEAAM FAIK HUSSAIN
(B.Sc. 2016)
SUPERVISED BY
ASST. PROF. Dr. FALEH H. M. ALMAHDAWI
2018 A.C. 1400 A.H

‫س‪ٛ‬سح االٔششاػ‬
‫بسم هلل الرحمه الرحيم‬
‫رُ أغبص ٘زا اٌجؾش ِٓ خالي أثشاَ ػمذ ثؾش دساسبد ػٍٍب اٌّ‪ٛ‬لغ ثٍٓ اٌطشفٍٓ ادٔبٖ‪:‬‬
‫اٌطشف األ‪ٚ‬ي ‪ٚ:‬صاسح إٌفؾ ‪ِ /‬شوض اٌجؾش ‪ٚ‬اٌزط‪ٌٛ‬ش إٌفطً‪.‬‬
‫اٌطشف اٌضبًٔ ‪:‬عبِؼخ ثغذاد ‪/‬وٍٍخ اٌ‪ٕٙ‬ذسخ‪ /‬لسُ ٕ٘ذسخ إٌفؾ‪.‬‬
‫ِٓ خالي سسبٌخ ؽبٌت اٌّبعسزٍش ( ٔؼُ فبئك ؽسٍٓ) ‪ ٚ‬اٌّ‪ٛ‬س‪ِٛ‬خ‪:‬‬
‫" رمذٌش رأصٍشاٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ غٍش اٌطجٍؼً ػٍى ػٍٍّبد اٌؾفش‪ِٕ /‬طمخ اٌذساسٗ‪ :‬اٌؾم‪ٛ‬ي إٌفطٍٗ اٌششلٍٗ‬
‫ٌٍّسبْ"‬
‫ٌظبٌؼ اٌطشف األ‪ٚ‬ي اٌزي لبَ ثزّ‪ٔ ًٌٛ‬فمبد ٘زا اٌجؾش ِبدٌب‪ٌ .‬زا رؼزجشػبئذٌخ اٌذساسٗ ‪ٔٚ‬زبئغ‪ٙ‬ب اٌؼٍٍّٗ‬
‫خبطٗ ثبٌطشف اال‪ٚ‬ي ‪ٌٚ‬ؾك ٌٗ اسزخذاَ ٔزبئظ اٌذساسٗ ٌظبٌؾٗ‪ٌٚ .‬ؾك ٌٍطشف اٌضبًٔ إٌشش اٌؼًٍّ ٌٍذساسٗ‬
‫ثؼذ اسزؾظبي ِ‪ٛ‬افمخ اٌطشف اال‪ٚ‬ي‪.‬‬

DIDICATION
To the great heart, the light that illuminates my path
of success, my father.
To a woman who taught me sacrifice and tenderness,

my mother, we are nothing without you.
To my soul mate, my husband Osama, you complete

me.
To my dear sisters.
Acknowledgments
At the beginning, all thanks to the merciful god for giving me strength and patience to reach my
goal and his unlimited blessings, thank you god for your supports and all the help I’ve got by the
people around me who made everything easier.
Special thanks dedicated to the kind supervisor Dr. Faleh AL-Mahdawi (the head of
petroleum engineering department), his advice and positive support encouraged me to extract
my full potential.
A great thanks to everyone share his science and help to make it beneficial for others especially
Dr. Wafaa AL-Qataan for her valuable information, and all the staff of petroleum
department.
I’d like to thank the staff of Petroleum Research and Development Center (PRDC) for their
facilities. A special thanks to Mr.. Helal Ali Esmaeel (The director manager of PRDC). A
Special greeting and many thanks to Mr. Ahmed Kareem (the research coordinator) for his
coordination and following up the progress of work. All thanks and appreciation to Mr. Ail
Malik (petroleum engineer at MOC/ reservoir and geology department – petrophysics section)
for all the assistance provided by him.
A lot of thanks to my friend Nermin for her encouragements and helping, Allah bless her.
Neaam
I
Abstract
In petroleum industry, the early knowledge of “pore pressure gradient” is the basis
in well design; since, the mud weight design, casing seat selection, and cement
program design depend on that value. The extraction of this information in well
design is more direct when the pore pressure gradient is equal to normal gradient;
however, this matter will be more complex if it deviates from that limit. The
deviation of pore pressure gradient away (above or below) the hydrostatic pressure
gradient is called “abnormal pore pressure”, if this variable does not put in
consideration, then many drilling problems will occur might lead to entire hole
loss; such as, kick, lost circulation, pipe sticking, wall collapse, borehole
instability, etc... . To estimate the pore pressure gradient there are several methods.
In this study; Eaton’s method was selected to extract the underground pressure
program using drilling data (normalized rate of penetration (dc-exponent)) and logs
data (sonic and density log). This study covered three fields from Missan oilfields
(Abu Ghirab, Fauqi, and Halfaya) located near the southern- east borders of Iraq
and the data of three off-set wells for each field which are: AGCS-39, AGCS-42,
AGCS-44, FQCS-32, FQCS-33, FQCN-37, HF005-M316, HF010-N010, and
HF013-M013 were used. The results showed that an abnormal high pressure in
Lower Fars formation started from Mb5 member as a transition zone and increased
gradually until reach the Mb4 member and continued to Mb3 and Mb2 which is the
abnormal high pressure zone; then decreased from Mb1 which considered a
transition zone between the mentioned high pore pressure zone and sub-pressure
zone represented by Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk formations and back to
normal pore pressure at Middle-Lower Kirkuk formation. In Halfaya oilfield
observed an abnormal high pressure at Sadi, Khasib and Mishrif formations and
sub-pressure at Jaddala formation in addition to the abnormal high pressure in
Lower Fars formation and sub-pressure zone represented by Jeribe-Euphrate and
Upper Kirkuk formations. The dc-exponent method had been selected as the best
one for estimating pore pressure gradient. The results of pore pressure gradient
gave an imagination about the distribution of pore pressure gradient at Lower Fars
formation in this area, and proved that it is increasing in areas close to the collision
point of the Arabian plate with the Eurasian plate. The fracture pressure gradient
estimated from using eight methods which are: Huubert and willis, Cesaroni ,
Cesaroni II, Cesaroni III, Eaton, Daines, Matthews and Kelly and Christman. The
best methods that gave a good match with the previous studies are Cesaroni ,
Eaton, and Christman. The final outcome of this study was the design of an
optimal and safe drilling mud program to drill the Lower Fars formation which
considers an unstable wellbore interval. The lower and upper limits of mud weight
allowed for each field depending on the rock’s mechanical properties and stresses
around.
II
LIST OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE
Acknowledgment I
Abstract II
List of contents III
List of Tables V
List of Figures VI
Nomenclatures and abbreviations XI
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1-1 Introduction 1
1-2 Area of Case Study 2
1-3 Problem statement 13
1-4 Objectives 13
CHAPTER TWO: LITRETURE REVIEW
2-1 Preface 15
2-2 Previous Studies interested in identifying subsurface pressures 15
CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3-1 Preface 27
3-2 Overburden Pressure Gradient 29
3-3 Pore Pressure Gradient 32
3-3-1 Causes and origin of abnormal pressure 32
3-3-2 Methods of prediction pore pressure and detection abnormal 40
pressure zones
3-3 Fracture Pressure Gradient 48
3-3-1 Predictive methods 50
3-3-2 Verification methods 56
3-4 Wellbore Instability 56
3-4-1 Stresses underground 58
3-4-2 Rock’s mechanical properties 58
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY
4-1 Hydrostatic pressure 64
4-2 Overburden pressure 65
4-3 Normal compaction trend line 65
4-4 Pore pressure 66
4-5 Fracture pressure 67
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5-1 Preface 68
5-2 Calculations and Results 68
5-2-1 Overburden pressure gradient estimation 68
5-2-2 Normal compaction trend line (NCT) determination 75
5-2-3 Pore pressure gradient estimation 92
5-2-4 Fracture pressure gradient estimation 120
5-2-5 Wellbore Instability 130
5-3 Discussion 140
III
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6-1 Conclusions 149
6-2 Recommendations 150
REFERENCES 151
APPENDIX 155
IV
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table (1-1): Oil wells 8
Table (3-1): prediction methods of pore pressure 28
Table (5-1): NCT equations of dc-exponent 82
Table (5-2): NCT equations of 86
Table (5-3): NCT equations of 91
Table (5-4): The summery of overpressure zone depth by different 92
methods
Table (5-5): Upper and lower limits of mud weight in Lower Fars 140
formation
Table (5-6): Abnormal pressure zones 140
Table (5-7): Pore pressure gradient of Mb4 member in Lower Fars 142
Table (A-1):measured and estimated by different methods 155
Table (A-2):mechanical properties of rocks and RHO data for 156
AGCS-39
AGCS-42
AGCS-44
FQCN-37
V
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure (1-1) Iraqi oil fields map and location of Abu Ghirab, Fauqi 4
and Halfaya oilfields
Figure (1-2): Stratigraphic column of Abu Ghirab oilfield and Fauqi 5
oilfield
Figure (1-3): Stratigraphic column of Halfaya oilfield 6
Figure (1-4): AGCS-44, AGCS-42, and AGCS-39 locations on top of 9
Asmari reservoir in the AG south oilfield
Figure (1-5): FQCS-32 and FQCS-33 locations on top of Asmari 11
reservoir in the south structure dome of Fauqi oilfield
Figure (1-6): FQCN-37 location on top of Asmari reservoir in the 11
north structure dome of Fauqi oilfield
Figure (1-7): HF005, HF010, and HF013 locations in the top of Nahr 13
Umr B structural map Halfaya oilfield
Figure (2-1): Shale travel time ( ) VS depth and pore pressure 17
estimating by Hottmann and Johnson method
Figure (2-2): Time vs. depth of each well (T. S. Proehl study) 21
Figure (3-1): Overburden pressure calculation using Density method 30
by geology
Figure (3-2): Velocity-density relationships in rocks of different 31
lithology[
Figure (3-3): Normal compaction formation 34
Figure (3-4): Undercompaction formation 35
Figure (3-5): Overpressure caused by salt dome 36
Figure (3-6): Overpressure due to folding 37
Figure (3-7): overpressure due to density differences 38
Figure (3-8): Artesian effect 39
Figure (3-9): d-exponent monograph 43
Figure (3-10): Pore pressure estimating by dc-exponent Eaton’s 45
method
Figure (3-11): stresses underground 49
Figure (3-12): Hubbert and Willis method in geolog 52
Figure (3-13): Matrix stress coefficient of Matthews and Kelly 55
method
Figure (3-14): Poisson’s ratio estimation by geolog 59
Figure (3-15): Shear sonic estimation using IP software. 60
Figure (4-1): Pore and fracture Pressures evaluation workflow 63
Figure (4-2): References depths 64
Figure (4-3): Manual settings for NCT in geolog 65
Figure (4-4): Pore pressure window in geolog 66
Figure (5-1): Comparison between measured and estimated data 69
Figure (5-2): Bulk density correction chart ( Vs. .) 70
VI
Figure (5-3): Overburden pressure gradient of Abu Ghirab selected 71
wells
Figure (5-4): Arithmetic mean overburden pressure gradient of Abu 72
Ghirab oilfield
Figure (5-5): Overburden pressure gradient of Fauqi selected wells 73
Figure (5-6): Arithmetic mean overburden pressure gradient of 74
Fauqi oilfield.
Figure (5-7): overburden pressure gradient of Halfaya oilfield 75
Figure (5-8): Top of overpressure zone for AGCS-39 (dc-exponent 76
method)
method).
method)
Figure (5-11): Top of overpressure zone for FQCS-32 (dc-exponent 78
method)
Figure (5-12): Top of overpressure zone for FQCS-33 (dc-exponent 79
method).
Figure (5-13): Top of overpressure zone for FQCN-37 (dc-exponent 79
method)
Figure (5-14): Top of overpressure zone for HF005-M316 (dc- 80
exponent method).
Figure (5-15): Top of overpressure zone for HF010-N010 (dc- 81
exponent method)
Figure (5-16): Top of overpressure zone for HF013-M013 (dc- 81
exponent method)
Figure (5-17): Top of overpressure zone for AGCS-39 (sonic method) 83
Figure (5-18): Top of overpressure zone AGCS-42 (sonic method) 83
Figure (5-19): Top of overpressure zone for AGCS-44 (sonic method) 84
Figure (5-20): Top of overpressure zone for FQCS-32 (sonic method) 84
Figure (5-21): Top of overpressure zone for FQCS-33 (sonic method) 85
Figure (5-22): Top of overpressure zone for FQCN-37 (sonic method) 85
Figure (5-23): Top of overpressure zone for HF010-N010 (sonic 86
method)
Figure (5-24): Top of overpressure zone for AGCS-39 ( method) 87
Figure (5-27): Top of overpressure zone for FQCS-32 ( method) 89
Figure (5-28): Top of overpressure zone for FQCS-33 ( method) 89
Figure (5-29): Top of overpressure zone for FQCN-37 ( method) 90
Figure (5-30): Top of overpressure zone for HF010-N010 90
VII
( method)
Figure (5-31): Pore pressure, overburden pressure, normal 93
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for AGCS-39 by d-exp.
method
method
method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCS-32 by d-exp.
method
method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCN-37 by d-exp.
method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF005-M316 by d-exp.
method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF010-N010 by d-exp.
method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF013-M013by d-exp.
Method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for AGCS-39 by sonic
method
method
method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCS-32 by sonic
method
method.
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCN-37 by sonic
method
VIII
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF010-N010 by sonic
method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for AGCS-39 by method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCS-32 by method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCS-33 method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCN-37 by method
hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF010-N010 by
method
Figure (5-54): Validation of the pore pressure results predicted by 118
dc-exponent method in (HF013-M013)
Figure (5-55): fracture pressure gradient by Cesaroni I, Eaton, and 121
Christman methods for AGCS-39
Christman methods for FQCS-32
Figure (5-61): fracture pressure gradient by Eaton, and Christman 127
methods for HF005-M316
methods for HF010-N010
methods for HF013-M013
Figure (5-64): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for AGCS- 132
39
42
44
Figure (5-67): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for FQCS- 135
32
Figure (5-68): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for FQCS- 136
33
IX
Figure (5-69): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for 137
FQCN-37
HF005-M316
HF010-N010
Figure (5-72): Location of AGCS-44, FQCS-32, and HF013-M013 143
Figure (5-73): Easting VS Pore pressure gradient 143
Figure (5-74): Northing VS Pore pressure gradient 144
Figure (5-75): Pore pressure gradient with distance in Mb4 member 145
in Lower Fars
Figure (5-76): Fracture pressure gradient in HF010-N010 147
Figure (5-77): The comparison of fracture pressure gradient with 148
FIT in AGCS-39 well
X
Nomenclatures and abbreviations
Symbols Description unit

Air PRESS air pressure psi
CAL Caliper log in
Coefficient of internal friction -
D depth m
Hole diameter (bit size) in
d Drilling exponent -
dc Corrected drilling exponent -
dcn Normal dc -
dco Observed dc -
Mean sea level depth m
Depth of normal matrix stress ft
Elevation of measurement reference m
GR Gamma ray GAPI
The ratio of horizontal effective stress to -
vertical effective stress
Matthews and Kelly matrix stress -
coefficient
Normal mud weight gm/cc
Actual mud weight gm/cc
N Revolutions per minute RPM
NCT Normal compaction trend line -
P Pore pressure psi
Fracture pressure psi
PHIE Rock porosity -
Hydrostatic pressure psi
Water pressure gradient Psi/ft
R Rate of penetration m/hr
Observed resistivity data Ohm.m
Normal resistivity data Ohm.m
S In-situ stress psi
Minimum in-situ stress psi
Maximum horizontal stress psi
Minimum horizontal stress psi
Elevation of drilling surface m
STREN_TENS Tensile strength psi

UCS Unconfined compressive strength MPa
Compressional velocity ft/us
Shear velocity ft/us
W Weight on bit tons
XI
Water press Water pressure psi
Greek Symbols Description unit
Vertical stress (overburden pressure) psi
Horizontal effective stress in x direction psi
Horizontal effective stress in y direction psi
Vertical effective stress psi
Minimum effective stress psi
Superimposed tectonic stress psi
Poisson’s ratio -
Sonic compressional transit time us/ft
Normal transit time us/ft
Observed transit time us/ft
Shear transit time us/ft
tectonic stress factor -
Bulk density of rock gm/cc
Normal bulk density gm/cc
Observed bulk density gm/cc
Angle of Internal Friction DEG
XII
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Chapter one introduction
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1-1 Introduction
The general meaning of pore pressure (or so-called formation pressure)

is the pressure acting on the fluids contained in the pores of rocks. It is in
theory equal to hydrostatic pressure and it referred as normal pore
pressure; and practically it is may be equal, below or above that scale
depending on different circumstances. When pore pressure above the
normal pressure it is called overpressure or geo-pressure, and when below
the normal limit it is called sub-pressure, both of them considered as
abnormal pressure. They are the most difficult and important stage in well
planning, since it causes common drilling problems such as stuck pipe,
kicks of wells, fracturing, loss of circulation, blowout, lost hole; any
single or combination of these problems increase the non-productive time
(NPT) and therefore the total cost of drilling if not dealt professionally[1].
In worldwide oil fields, the problem of abnormal pore pressure is

common in different formations, and its causes are attributed to
combination of geological, geothermal and geochemical matters. The
early knowledge and exact value of formation pressure is important in
safe planning and drilling a well, because it is a primary factor in: mud
design, casing selection, cementing design, selection of well head, kick
control, and all rig valuation is depending on the magnitude of it[2].
1
1-2 Area of Case Study
The area of case study represented by three fields located on the southern-
east of Iraqi- Iranian borders.
1-2-1 Fields under study
Abu Ghirab oilfield located in the Missan governorate in southeastern

Iraq and close to the Iraq-Iran border about 175km north to the Basra city.
It ranges about 30km x 6km with north and south domes structurally.
From top to bottom, the strata drilled in Abu Ghirab oilfield include
Tertiary Upper Fars formation， Lower Fars formation, Tertiary Jeribe
formation to Cretaceous Nahr Umer Formation. The Lower Fars has 5
lithological members. Tertiary Asmari is the mainly reservoir in Abu
Ghirab oilfield, it has the geothermal gradient of 2.3 ℃/100m, The initial
formation pressure for Asmari reservoir is 4730psi which is equivalent to
pressure gradient of 1.1. The reservoirs belong to the normal pressure
system. The reservoir pressure drop due to the production and currently
the pressure coefficient is 1.03 gm/cc[3].
Fauqi oilfield is located in the Missan governorate in southeastern Iraq

and close to the Iraq-Iran border. It is about 175km north to the Basra
city. It was discovered in 1973 and put into operation in early 1979, Fauqi
oilfield ranges about 30km x 7km with two domes in the north and south
respectively, which is NW-SE long axis anticline. The development
target reservoirs are tertiary Asmari and Middle Cretaceous Mishrif,
which have been developed by natural flow and depletion drive.
The Asmari reservoir in Fauqi oilfield has the geothermal gradient of 2.3
℃/100m. The initial formation pressure for Asmari reservoir is 5000psi
which is equivalent to pressure coefficient of 1.08 gm/cc. The reservoir
belongs to the normal pressure system. The reservoir pressure drop due to
2
the production and currently the pressure coefficient is about 1.05

gm/cc[4].
Halfaya oilfield was discovered since 1976 by well (HF-1). The structure
was defined by 2D seismic data shot during 1976 and 1980. Up to June
2010, eight wells were drilled by Missan Oil Company (MOC). The
deepest well (HF-2) reached a depth of 4788m, down to the Lower
Cretaceous Sulaiy formation. Significant oil accumulations have been
discovered in multiple reservoirs of Tertiary and Cretaceous formations
and the re-estimated initially oil in place is about 18.179 billion barrels in
June 2017[5].
3D seismic acquisition was started in November 2010 and completed in

July 2011 covering a total area of 496 . The first new well was
initiated at the end of 2010 and a total of 197 new wells (not including 8
old wells by MOC). Figure (1-1) shows Iraqi oil fields map and locations
of Abu Ghirab, Fauqi and Halfaya oilfields[5].
3
Figure (1-1): Iraqi oil fields map and location of Abu Ghirab,
Fauqi and Halfaya oilfields.
4
1-2-2 Formations under study
1-2-2.1 Abu Ghirab oilfield, Fauqi oilfield
Figure (1-2) shows the stratigraphic column of Abu Ghirab and Fauqi
oilfields under study.
Figure (1-2): Stratigraphic column of Abu Ghirab oilfield and Fauqi

oilfield[3][4].
5
1-2-2.2 Halfaya oilfield
Figure (1-3) shows the stratigraphic column of Halfaya oilfield under

study.
Figure (1-3): Stratigraphic column of Halfaya oilfield[5].
6
Lower Fars Formation
The Lower Fars is the most focused formation in this study; it extends
widely in Iraq of the Miocene Middle age. The basis of this designation
(Lower Fars) was defined from Fars province in SW Iran and introduced
to Iraq by Busk and Mayo in 1918 later it has been changed to Fatha
formation[6]. Its depth and thickness is increasing in the eastern direction
close to the Iraq- Iran borders[7].
Lower Fars Formation is classified into five members: Mb5, Mb4, Mb3,
Mb2, and Mb1, the abnormally high pore pressure begins at Mb4 and
continues to Mb3 and Mb2[3][4][5]; and that’s possible to be attributed to
the type and characteristics of rock layers and other circumstance
conditions include pressures from both vertical and horizontal directions.
When tracing the layers sequence, the lithology of this formation
composed of shale intervene with anhydrite and salt layers which are
characterized as fully impermeable layers that prevented the fluids within
the pore space of shale from escaping out of it; then, during continued
deposition, and when the sediments were subjected to vertical stress
resulting from the overburden pressure and high horizontal stresses due to
the movement of the Arabian plate and shocked with the Eurasian plate
and due to the occurrence of the three fields mentioned above, the fluid
subjected to high external pressure caused abnormally increment in the
pore pressure[8].
1-2-3 Oil wells
The name and interval depth of selected wells to reach the objective of
the study are shown in Table (1-1).
7
Table (1-1): Oil wells.
Field name Well name Interval depth (m)
Abu-Ghirab oilfield AGCS-39 200 - 3166
AGCS-42 200 - 3226
AGCS-44 200 - 3219
Fauqi oilfield FQCS-32 200 - 3211
FQCS-33 200 - 3209
FQCN-37 200 - 3248
Halfaya oilfield HF005-M316 13 - 3740
HF010-N010 24 - 3803
HF013-M013 13 - 3184
1-2-3.1 Abu Ghirab oilfield
(A) AGCS-39
It is a vertical, development producer oil well located at x= 727064m; y=

3583070m coordinates with location name agcs-38 on map. The actual
vertical depth equal 3166.00 m.
(B) AGCS-42
It is vertical, development producer oil well located at X= 728426m; Y=

358 2951m coordinates with location name agcs-40 on map. The actual
vertical depth equal 3226.00 m.
8
(C) AGCS-44
It is a vertical, development producer oil well located X= 726439 m; Y=

3584470 m coordinates with location name agcs-42on map. The actual
vertical depth equal 3219.00 m. The locations of Abu Ghirab oilfield
wells are shown in Figure (1-4).
Figure (1-4): AGCS-44, AGCS-42, and AGCS-39 locations on top of

Asmari reservoir in the AG south oilfield[3].
9
1-2-3.2 Fauqi oilfield
(A) FQCS-32
It is a vertical, producer oil well. It is located at X=741865 m;

Y=3555520 m coordinates in the south structure dome. The actual
vertical depth is 3211.00m TVD RTKB.
(B) FQCS-33
It is a vertical, development oil well. It is located at X= 743514.50 m; Y=

3553981.50 m coordinates in the south structure dome. The actual
vertical depth is 3209.00m. The locations of Fauqi southern wells (FQCS-
32, FQCS-33) are shown in Figure (1-5).
(C) FQCN-37
It is a vertical, producer oil well. It is located at X= 738067 m; Y=

3565453 m coordinates in the north structure dome with Surface pad
fqcn-47. The actual vertical depth is 3248.00m TVD RTKB. Figure (1-6)
shows the location of FQCN-37.
10
Figure (1-5): FQCS-32 and FQCS-33 locations on top of Asmari

reservoir in the south structure dome of Fauqi oilfield[4].
Figure (1-6): FQCN-37 location on top of Asmari reservoir in the

north structure dome of Fauqi oilfield[4].
11
1-2-3.3 Halfaya oilfield
(A) HF005-M316
The Well HF005-M316 was proposed as a vertical development well to

test the hydrocarbon potential in Mishrif and Nahr Umr B reservoirs. It is
located at southern part of the crest of the anticline with X= 732661.95
Easting and Y= 3507361.96 Northing. The total vertical depth is 3740.00
m MD and 3740m TVD.
(B) HF010-N010
It is a vertical Appraisal Well located on the northern side of Halfaya

anticline at X=735508.93 easting; Y=3508004.03 northing with total
depth equal 3803.00m MD / 3790.30m TVDss.
(C) HF013-M013
The Well HF013-M013 was planned as a vertical development well to

penetrate in to the Mishrif main reservoir. It is located at X=737332.95
easting; Y=3506843.84 northing with actual depth equal 3184.0m MD
and 3169.28m TVDss. Figure (1-7) shows the location of Halfaya oil
wells on top of Nahr Umr B structural map.
12
Figure (1-7): HF005, HF010, and HF013 locations in the top of Nahr
Umr B structural map Halfaya oilfield[5].
1-3 Problem statement
The abnormal pressure formation has impact on drilling operations,

which lead to several drilling problems; such as: kick, blow out, pipe
sticking, and lost circulation. This study provided comprehensive
investigation to detect the top and bottom of abnormal pressure. zones
1-4 Objectives
The main objectives of this study are;
 To predict pore and fracture pressure gradient for Abu Ghirab, Fauqi
and Halfaya oilfields from drilling and logging data of three wells
distributed in each field. The pressures are useful for designing future
drilling plan and completion operation.
13
 To determine formation pressure using dc-exponent, sonic, and

density methods and select the best method to detect the depth of
abnormal pressure zone and the most accurate value of pore pressure.
 To design the safe and optimum mud window of the drilling operation
with minimum problems.
14
CHAPTER two
Literature review
Chapter two Literature review
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2-1 Preface
The variety of hydraulic and tectonic phenomena in the

formation causes a wide variation in the subsurface formation
pressures. The early prediction of abnormally pressured zones
will prevent or at least reduce the problems encountered while
drilling[9].
While drilling, there are three types of pressures will be faced,

these pressures must be predefined, and there is must be a plan
to handle it, to ensure a successful drilling process. The
subsurface pressures are[10]:
 Overburden pressure.
 Pore pressure.
 Fracture pressure.
2-2 Previous Studies Interested in Identifying Subsurface Pressures
Researchers who’s dealt with this part of theoretical examination as

follows:
M. Hubbert and D. Willis (1957) studied the mechanics of hydraulic

fracturing of rocks based on theoretical examinations and experimental
tests. They predicted in normal faulting areas a fracture pressure gradient,
they stated that, the fracture pressure gradient dependents on three
variables: pore pressure gradient, overburden pressure gradient, and ratio
15
of Poisson In their study they considered that the Poisson’s ratio is a

constant value and equal to 0.25, and the overburden stress equal to 1
psi/ft. They concluded that in quiet areas (tectonically relaxed), when the
minimum stress is at horizontal direction; the fractures develop in vertical
direction with applied pressure less than the overburden stress, while with
tectonic movement, the minimum stress will be at the vertical direction
which is equal to the overburden pressure; the fractures will develop in
horizontal direction and the applied pressures must be equal to or greater
than the overburden stress[11].
C. E. Hottmann and R. K. Johnson (1965) were the first researchers

who interested with the estimating of pore pressure gradient in the
abnormal pressure formations. They applied their study in Upper Texas
and Southern Louisiana Gulf Coast and selected Miocene and Oligocene
shale. In their study, many properties of shale layers had been used to
detect the presences of overpressure formations. These properties were
derived from well logs data in shale section. According to electrical logs
(resistivity log); since rocks are more resistive than formation water,
compacted shale is more resistive than less compacted shale because the
water has been escaped, they derived a nonlinear relationship represent
the trend of resistivity data. Also they used sonic log in detection the
abnormal pressure formations and derived a linear relationship represents
the data of sonic log (transit time with negative slop or velocity with
positive slop ) from the concept, that the acoustic wave needs more time
to travel in less compacted formations[12]. Figure (2-1) shows shale
travel time ( vs depth and pore pressure estimating by Hottmann
and Johnson method.
16
Figure (2-1): Shale travel time ( vs depth and pore pressure

estimating by Hottmann and Johnson method[12].
J. R. Jorden and O. J. Shirley (1966) applied drilling data of 15

selected wells in Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast in detection abnormal
pressure zone. They developed the concept of using rate of penetration
and pressure differential by taking into account the other drilling
variables (weight on bit, rotary speed, and bit size) which affected
directly on rate of penetration value. They established a tool called d-
exponent which collected all drilling parameter[13].
W. Matthews and J. Kelly (1967) developed the concept of Hubbert and

Willis[11] which stated that the effective horizontal ( to vertical
( stresses ratio is a constant and equal 1/3, and proved that it is a
variable. Their fracture pressure prediction method incorporates this
17
variable concept of to ratio called Ki. They developed two

different relationships of Ki for versus depths. The first one for the Gulf
Coast of Louisiana (LGC) and the second is for the Gulf Coast of South
Texas (STGC); which consider the variable stress ratio subject to change
with depth. They conclude that, their fracture pressure gradient equation
give results greater than the actual value and they called it break down
gradient. [14].
B. A. Eaton (1969) developed Hubbert and Willis[11] method for

predicting the fracture pressure gradient by using inconstant overburden
pressure gradient and ratio of Poisson in Gulf Coast of Mexico; the
special features of this method are that, the overburden stress gradient
calculated using density log instead of assuming a constant value (1
psi/ft). He used a back calculation method for determining the Poisson’s
ratio using real fracture pressure data, formation pressure from well log,
and the overburden stress which calculated from density log and then
applied the following equation:
(2-1)
Where:
: Poisson’s ratio.
: Fracture pressure gradient (psi/ft).
: Pore pressure gradient (psi/ft).
: Overburden pressure gradient (psi/ft).
18
Eaton stated that, there are two weaknesses in Matthews and Kelly[14]
method: (1) The assumption of constant vertical stress and equal 1.0
psi/ft. (2) The Ki value used to calculate the fracture pressure in
overpressure zone equal to that of deepest normal pressure zone[15].
B. Rehm, R. Mcclendon, and M. Aime (1971) developed Jorden and

Shirley[13]method in detection overpressure formation using drilling
parameters by correct d-exponent for the effect of mud weight. That’s
because, during drilling and penetrating overpressure formation, inorder
to pass this zone successfully, the mud wight should be raised; thus, the
diffirential pressure will be constant and become insesitive for changing
in pore pressure gradient. They established an empirical equation for that
correction.
(2-2)
Where:
: Is the mud weight using in normal pressure formation
Is the mud weight in use in a specific depth.
After that correction, the d-exponent is an indicator of formation
pressure[16].
S. A. Christman (1973) predicted the fracture pressure gradient in

offshore; he observed that the fracture pressure gradient at a specific
depth in offshore wells is less than the fracture pressure gradient at
similar depth in onshore wells. He explains that the effect of increasing
water depth in offshore wells causes a decreasing in the overburden
gradient and therefore in fracture pressure gradient. He proved that low
fracture gradients can be associated with formations having low density
log value[17].
19
B. A. Eaton (1975) developed four equations used to predict

overpressure formation from drilling parameter (d-exponent) data and
well logs data (sonic, resistivity, and conductivity). The assumption of
Eaton’s method, as shown in Terzaghi’s equation (eq. (2-3)) that, the
overburden pressure is the combination of pore pressure and vertical
effective stress ( :
(2-3)
He proved the accuracy of his equations depending on the quality of the

input data and the proficiency of users[18].
S. R. Daines (1982) predicted fracture pressure gradient in offshore

exploration wells by applying Gulf coast-derived empirical equation. He
used physical properties of the sedimentary rocks from laboratory and
Hubbert and Willis [11] minimum fracture-pressure model as an initial
step. In his work, the knowledge of pore pressure, overburden gradient,
and the lithology of formation is the key of prediction fracture pressure
gradients. He concluded that, before drilling any exploratory well, the
accuracy of fracture gradient “which depend on the total minimum
horizontal stress which is the entirely stresses caused by gravity and a
tectonic stress) and the pore pressure” should not be less 95% for safe
drilling[19].
I. M. Breckels and H. A. van Eekelen (1982) developed fracture

pressure gradient relationships derived from formation integrity tests
(FIT) and hydraulic fracturing data from fields throughout the world
(North Sea, Gulf Coast, Venezuela, Brunei,). Their relationships are
based on the minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) and depth below
mudline[20].
20
R. C. Ransom (1986) described a method using well log data for

determining the pore pressures in abnormal pressure formation, the
optimum mud weight necessary to drill such zones with these pressures,
and the appropriate depth of casing seat. In his method, the main
requirements are the presence of shale, and the logs which had been used
to cover the shale section[21].
T. S. Proehl (1994) dealt with many problems faced while drilling three
wells (A, B, and C). All of them penetrated overpressure zone. The main
problem was the inaccurate prediction of both pores and fracture
pressures.
Figure (2-2): Time vs. depth of each well (T. S. Proehl study)[22].
Depending Figure (2-2), the problems started with wells B and C in spite
of the information which might be collected from well A. The main
21
trouble was, that the pore and fracture gradient are close together, and the
gap is too narrow which made the choice of mud weight is too critical. He
recommended being accurate in the dangerous decisions, and establish
better criteria for increasing or decreasing drilling fluid density. He
proved that, the well can be drill safely when the equivalent circulating
density (E.C.D) of drilling mud is maintained between the lower limit and
the upper limit represented by pore fracture pressures of this zone
respectively, and the best must be done to prevent the fluid leakage from
the formation.
R. K. Abbas (1996) evaluated the pore and fracture pressure gradient and
detected the top of overpressure zone in southern of Iraq, West Qurna
field, well number 15. In his study, he used sonic and density logs to
predict pore pressure gradient by Eaton, equivalent depth, Magara, and
sigma log methods. He concluded that, Magara method is the best in
prediction of pore pressure gradient but, Eaton method is the best one in
fracture pressure gradient prediction.
For overpressure zone detection, he used d-exponent, sigma log, dc-

exponent, delta temperature, flow line temperature, total gas, connection
gas, and sonic log methods. And for fracture pressure gradient, he used
Eaton, Matthews and Kelly, Terzaghi, Hubbert and Wills, and Agip
methods[23].
A. Draou and S. O. Osisanya (2000) developed two methods for

predicting pore and fracture pressure and determining the mud weight
suitable for the next wells by using well logs data. The first method
depends on the compaction concept principle where the variation of
porosity with vertical stress is an exponential relationship, and the second
one depends on the relationship of power-law. Their study applied using
22
sonic transit time logs data of five wells located in Garet El Bouib and
Ouargla fields. They concluded that, the sonic log method in estimating
pore pressure is accurate with an error of ± 0.05 psi/ft, and there is a
matching between the observed pressures and the one obtained from
repeated formation tests (RFT). The percentage error between the first
method and RFT varies from (3 to 6) %, while it is between (1to 3)% for
the second one[24].
X. Xie, et al. (2003) studied the evaluation of formation pressure and its
effect on fluid flow, hydrocarbon migration, and accumulation with
distribution of gas and oil in underpressured formations present in the
southeast uplift of the Songliao basin located in northeast China at depths
between 1540 and 3000 m. They concluded that the magnitude of sub
pressure is closely related to the reduction of the erosion rate of overlying
strata and geothermal gradient[25].
N. Jassim (2004) studied the fracture pressure gradient which is very

important factor in designing wells. The study was for seven deep wells
located in five fields in southern Iraqi oil fields. The prediction of fracture
pressure required the values of overburden and pore pressure, bulk
density data was used for calculating overburden pressure, and pore
pressure was obtained by using Magara, dc-exponent, and equivalent
depth method. Drilling data are used in dc-exponent method while log
data are used in Magara methods. Fracture pressure gradient obtained
from the best method of calculating pore pressure. The study conclude
that, Eaton’s method is the best in obtaining fracture pressure, Magara
method is the best in predicting pore pressure unless shale intervals
having a very small thickness, so the dc-exponent is the best in this
case[9].
23
J. S. Foshee (2009) predicted pore and fracture pressure gradient for the
area of Ewing Banks 910 using actual measured pressure and Petro-
physical data for the previously eight wells drilled in that area. He applied
two pore pressure prediction methods (W. R. Matthews and Ben Eaton),
and one fracture gradient prediction method (B. A. Eaton). The pore
pressure estimating by Eaton method was selected as the preferable
model for future operations implementation after comparing with the
actual pressure data got from previous eight wells[26].
S. Stunes (2012) studied the prediction of pore pressure gradient in two

North Sea wells in Norway by different methods: the first one is Eaton
and Zamora methods, both of them based on the dc-exponent data, and
the second one is the Bourgoyne-Young drilling method. He compared
his results with the actual pore pressure obtained from the final well
report presented by the drilling company, and it showed that all methods
gave an acceptable pore pressure results, however; the best method which
had the most accurate result was the Bourgoyne-Young drilling model.
The Matlab program was the calculator of pore pressure estimation[27].
M. Azadpour and N. S. Manaman (2015) used well log data (sonic log)
in estimating pore pressure within carbonate reservoirs as a credible mud
weight pressure. They applied the Weakley’s equation and compared
Eaton’s method with their pore pressure prediction results from at one of
south of Iran oil fields. In their study, Weakley’s approach gave better
results than Eaton’s method. However; Bowers’s method gave the best
compatibility with the average observed mud weight pressure. The
conclusion of their study is that, the calculation of formation pore
pressure from different methods such as Bowers’s or Eaton’s methods
will not give accurate results unless there is background knowledge about
the area under study before applying[28].
24
F. Khoshnaw, P. Jaf, and S. Farkha (2015) predicted the pore and

fracture pressure gradient by applying the equivalent matrix stress
method. There are two areas under study: the first one was the reservoir
of African sandstone located in Libya, and the second was the Trend of
south Texas Frio. The application of this method was by using a seismic
data of exploratory wells and a sonic log data for the other type of wells,
when there is a log data of the off-set wells are available. Seismic record
data had been chosen because in exploratory wells, it is the only data
available; and also, the early knowledge of fracture pressure gradient is
necessary before drilling wells in order to minimize drilling problems
resulting from fracturing of the penetrated zone and then select the
optimal mud weight and the right casing seat[29].
Z. Nie, et al. (2016) made a comprehensive study about the challenges

and problems which has been faced while drilling directionally through
Lower Fars formation which is the top of abnormal pressure in Halfaya
oilfield. The main objective of this study is to decrease the problems and
ensure a successful drilling directional hole through Lower Fars
formation. They summarized that, the major causes of overpressure in
Lower Fars is the undercompaction of claystone. They stated as well that,
and the reason of borehole instability is that the rapidly lithology changes
in Lower Fars, while the strong hydration of claystone causes borehole
collapse, shrinkage, and drags; the result collapsing the neighboring
anhydrite and salt, where the biggest risk of instability occurs at the
contact interface of claystone between anhydrite and salt. They concluded
that, to drill that formation successfully, one of the solutions is that, the
mud should be polyamine inhibitor, polymer thinner and optimizing the
compositions the weighting agents[30].
25
A. K. Hasan (2016) studied the distribution of abnormal formation

pressures and their effect on drilling operation. The area of study
extended from middle to south part of Iraq and 35 oil fields were
considered. The study was including the calculation of pore pressure and
its gradient. The distribution of pore pressure of each formation plotted as
a map depending on final well reports, final drilling reports and final
geological reports provided alongside wells under study. This map
separate the area under study into three regions (The geology of the desert
area to the SW, The geology of the Mesopotamian depression in the
central and The geology of central depression lies an area with lines of
hills with Zagros suture to the E). He concluded that nine formations are
considered as Abnormal or Subnormal formations in the region of study,
these formations are sequenced from shallow to deep are: Lower Fars,
Dammam, Umm Er Radhuma, Tayarat, Hartha, Shuaiba, Sulaiy, Gotnia
and Najmah Formations. The plotted maps determine either high
formations pressure such as (Lower Fars,Umm Er Radhuma, Tayarat,
Sulaiy, Gotnia and Najmah) or the low formations pressure such as
(Dammam, Hartha and Shuaiba) in middle and south of Iraq[7].
K. Elowe and K. Sherwood (2017) developed explanation of pore

pressure in the shelf of Chukchi area. Data were used to evaluate
formation pressure obtained from exploratory wells were drilled in that
area and the data of drilling parameters (d-exponent), Resistivity,
conductivity, sonic transit time and porosity). The pore pressure
calculations were based on the deviation of these data away (above or
below) from the normal compaction trend line (NCT) determined for each
dataset[31].
26
CHAPTER THREE
Theoretical
background
Chapter three Theoretical background.
CHAPTER THREE
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3-1 Preface
The estimation of pore pressure gradient and the prediction of abnormal
pressure zones considered to be a primary factor in well design. The Pore
pressure can be either measured (in permeable formations) using repeat
formation test (RFT), drill stem test (DST)….etc., or estimating by using
several methods as referred in Table (3-1) depending on the period of
obtaining certain data[32]:
 Before drilling using seismic data.

 While drilling using drilling parameter data.
 After drilling using well logs data.
Fracture pressure consider complementary factor in building a successful
and safe well plan, it can be measured directly by well tests such as leak
off test (LOT) for previously drilled wells or predicted depending on pore
pressure value in these region[33].
The knowledge of the overburden gradient of the formation under study

is the first step in building any drilling program or generally for all
geomechanical studies, since it is the major vertical stress
component )[15].
27
Table (3-1): Prediction methods of pore pressure[23].
Source of data Parameter Time of recording
Geophysical methods Formation velocity Period of

(Seismic). exploration
Gravity.
Magnetics.
Electrical prospecting
methods.
Drilling mud Gas content. While drilling
Flow-line mud weight
(kicks).
Flow-line temperature.
Chlorine variation.
Drill pipe pressure.
Pit volume.
Flow rate.
Hole fill up
Drilling parameters Drilling rate. While drilling
d, dc-exponent. delayed by time
required for sample
Torque. return
Drag.
Drilling cuttings Shale cuttings. While drilling
Bulk density. delayed by time
required for sample
Shale factor. return
Electrical resistivity.
Volume.
Novel geochemical,
physical techniques.
Well logging Electrical survey. After drilling
Resistivity.
28
Conductivity.
Shale formation factor.
Salinity variations.
Interval transit time.
Bulk density.
Hydrogen index.
Thermal neutron.
Capture cross section.
Nuclear magnetic.
Resonance.
Down-hole gravity
data.
Direct pressure Pressure bombs. When well is tested
measurement device. Drill stem test. or completed.
Wireline formation
test.
3-2 Overburden Pressure Gradient
It is the pressure exerted, on a specific point, by the total weight of both

the rock’s grains and fluids within the pores. The density of the
combination is called the bulk density (ρb)[1].
The overburden pressure gradient varies with depth because of the

variations of formation density; this is a result of the variations in the
types of rocks, the densities of fluids, and the compaction degree of
rocks[1]
In geolog software, the overburden pressure module computes

overburden pressure from integrating bulk density log values over depth
by the following equation[34]:
𝑝 𝑝 ∫ (3-1)
29
Where the water pressure is used for only offshore situation, and the
0.4334 factor is used for converting density (gm/cc) to pressure, air
pressure is calculated in onshore situation using the following
formula[34]:
𝑝 ( )
(3-2)
Where:
: Bulk density (gm/cc).
: Elevation of measurement reference (m).
: Elevation of drilling surface (m).
Figure (3-1) shows overburden pressure calculation using Density method

by geology software.
Figure (3-1): Overburden pressure calculation using Density method

by geolog[35].
30
If density log information is not available for all intervals, it is often

estimated from sonic transit time (P-wave velocity); in IP software there
are three methodologies those of Gardner[36], Bellotti et al[37] and
Lindseth[38].The following equations represented these methods
respectively:
(3-3)
Where a and b are constants, as shown in Figure (3-2), Gardner

suggested a fair average for a large number of laboratory and field
observations of different brine-saturated rock types (a=0.23, b=0.25)[36].
Figure (3-2): Velocity-density relationships in rocks of different

lithology[36]
31
(3-4)
(3-5)
Where, eq. (3-4) is for consolidated formations and eq. (3-5) for
unconsolidated formations.
(3-6)
Overburden gradient could be calculated for any point by dividing the

overburden pressure of this point by its depth.
3-3 Pore Pressure Gradient
It is the pressure exerted by the fluid inside the pores of the rock, it could
be either normal (equal hydrostatic pressure) or abnormal when it above
or below the normal limit which is usually equal 0.465 psi/ft[10]. The
deviation from the normal is due to several causes will be referred to in
the next paragraphs.
3-3-1 Causes and origin of abnormal pressure
The abnormal increase in pore pressure (which is more common than

abnormal decrease) is due to three main causes which are[1]:
1. Depositional effect.
2. Structural causes.
3. Thermodynamic processes.
3-3-1.1 Depositional effect
There are several circumferential conditions occur during deposition

causing abnormal increase in pore pressure, which are:
(A) Undercompaction of shale as deposits become buried deeper in

earth’s crust, and rock layers formed, overburden pressure increases and,
as a result, the layers are compacted and its porosity decrease. Therefore;
32
the fluid within the pore spaces escape from the compacted formation,
results in a normal compacted formation, Figure (3-3) shows the sequence
of normal compacted formation formed. In many cases, with rapid
sedimentation, in another meaning, there is no balance between the rate
of compaction of layers and the rate of escaping of water, the fluid could
not escape out of the pores, in addition of the possibility of cap rocks
existence with zero permeability. So, the fluid applies extra pressure and
the result is overpressure zone, Figure (3-4) shows the Undercompacted
formation[1].
So, The detection techniques for this type of pressure depends on the
determination of normal compaction trend line of clay section and any
deviation, above or below, from this line gives an indication of abnormal
high pore pressure or sub-pressure formation[1][32].
33
Normal compaction case:
Wet mud
Weight of sediments
Escape of water within pores
Overload over the matrix only
Figure (3-3): Normal compaction formation.
34
Undercompaction case:
Wet mud
Weight of sediments
Presence of impermeable rocks prevent interstitial water from escaping
Over pressure formation
Figure (3-4): Undercompaction formation.
35
(B) Deposition of evaporites
The presence of evaporites (such as salt) results an overpressure

formation due to several causes; the first one, the uplifting of salt
resulting from its low density (in comparison with surrounding rock
layers) creates additional tectonic stress which leads to fold, fault, and
break out the nearby layers, also the flow of salt upward may shut the
broken rocks of above formations (usually limestone and dolomite) and
that leads to capture the pressure within these formations; thus, pressure
increases from its normal limit and is defined as overpressure
formation[1]. Figure (3-5) shows the uplifting of salt dome.
Figure (3-5): Overpressure caused by salt dome[1].
(C) Diagenetic processes
Diagenetic is any physical or chemical changes on sediments as a result

of high pressure and temperature, it may be due to volume changes and
water generation, recrystallization and lithification of the rocks, and the
formation of new minerals which lead to abnormal pressure formation[1].
36
(D) Tectonic effects
Folding, faulting, and uplifting of underground layers is a results of

tectonic effects. Folding is happening by compression of rocks and
applied an additional horizontal stress which compact the clay laterally;
in case of water cannot escape, abnormal pressure will result[1]. Figure
(3-6) shows the overpressure due to folding.
Figure (3-6): Overpressure due to folding[1].
Faulting is a break of beds with movement upward, downward, or

twisted. The fault may act as impermeable zone and prevent water from
escaping and then causing abnormal pressure formation. If the fault is a
permeable media, it will transmit fluid from deeper formation to
shallower causing abnormality in shallower zone pressure. The abnormal
pressure due to uplifting of normal pressure formation from deeper to
shallower depth since, that pressure will appear high as compared to that
shallow depth[1].
37
3-3-1.2 Structural causes
Pore pressure gradient is affected by the underground structure; the

following paragraph shows the effect of hydrocarbon column, and the
Water table and artesian on it.
(A) Hydrocarbon column
In dipping reservoir, the distribution of fluids (water, oil, gas) is

according of their densities. Therefore; the pressure gradient of water will
appear as abnormal in hydrocarbon column as compared with oil and
gas[1] as shown in Figure (3-7).
Figure (3-7): Overpressure due to density differences[1].
(B) Water table and artesian effect
Water table is the level of ground water which will rise in a well. As
shown in Figure (3-8), the existence of aquifer with higher elevation than
the well site causes an abnormality in the reservoir pressure due to the
difference of topographic nature (outcrop of aquifer is higher than the
drilling site)[1].
38
Figure (3-8): Artesian effect[1].
3-3-1.3 Thermodynamic processes
(A) Organic matter transformation (thermal cracking)
If thermal cracking of kerogen to form a simpler hydrocarbon compound

at 90 degrees centigrade in sealed environment, the result is high pore
pressure reservoir[1].
(B) Aquathermal effects
The expansion of fluid within the rocks due to the increase of temperature
with depth (geothermal gradient) will increase the pore pressure if the
environment is totally sealed[1].
(C) Permafrost
In freezing areas, the pressure around the well bore developed as a result
of thawing and re-freezing of permafrost causing collapse in surface
casing[1].
39
3-3-2 Methods of prediction pore pressure and detection abnormal

pressure zones
3-3-2.1 Predictive techniques
The surface measurement is the mainly source of data to predict the

presence of abnormal pressure formation in that area, or from the data of
previous wells which had been drilled there. The analyzing of
geophysical data gives a full imagination about the geological condition
underground which might indicate the existence of abnormal pressure
zone, for example, the high pressure formation is a result of salt dome
presence. Seismic record data is used to determine the presence and
locations of transition zones and fluid type such as the presence of gas.
Final well reports of previous drilled wells give information about mud
weights, problems faced such as pipe sticking, loss of circulation or the
incidence of the kick. Any logs data or information of mud-log is also
important in prediction of abnormal pressure formation[10].
3-3-2.2 Detection techniques
The information collected while drilling a well is make sure there is

abnormal pressure zone, there are three sets of data:
(1) Drilling parameter
(A) Rate of penetration (ROP)
The basic concept of using ROP in detecting abnormal pressure formation

summarized in two points:
 The compaction of any formation increases with depth due to the

effect of overburden pressure, thus, ROP is decreasing with depth
(assuming the other parameters are constant).
 The rocks are less compacted (more porous) in transition zone as
compare with normal case, therefore; ROP will increase with depth
40
and gives an indication of overpressure zone presence.
The rate of penetration increment is because of the decreasing of the

differential pressure (the difference between the drilling fluid pressure
and formation pressure)[23].
(B) d-exponent
Rate of penetration concept in detection of abnormal pressure zone is

difficult to apply in practice since; the other drilling parameter (weight on
bit, rotary speed, and bit size) cannot assume constant. A normalized
ROP produced from an empirical equation used to detect abnormal
pressure formations instead of ROP technique.
Bingham (1964)[39], suggest the following generalized drilling rate

equation:
( ) (3-7)
Jordan and Shirley arranged equation (3-3) to be expressed in ”d”. The

assumption of this equation based on the simplification of the drilled
rocks value that doesn’t change and its value (a equal to one) and the
rotary speed exponent (e equal to one). This number concluded by
experiments to be so close to one. The lithology and rotary speed variable
dependencies were removed from this equation; according to above, the
application of this formula only to a single type of lithology at the
assumed single rotary speed. When the value approximately equal one
based on the assumed values with the limitations of the equation, then it’s
not very restricted[13] .
The following equation was produced based on these assumptions and
accepting these limitations:
41
( )
(3-8)
( )
( )
(3-9)
( )
Where
d: drilling exponent.
R: rate of penetration.
N: revolution per minute.
W: weight on bit.
: hole diameter (bit size).
Equations (3-8) for imperial units and (3-9) for metric units, they are
known as the “d-exponent” equation. Since the values of penetration rate,
rotary speed, weigh on bit and bit size are can be measured at surface or
it’s known. The d-exponent value determination by the depth of entire
well plotted against it. Values of “d” can be found by using the
nomograph on Figure (3-9) which represent the solution of d-exponent
equation.
Observed that, the d-exponent value varies oppositely by the drilling rate
(R), when the bit penetrate an overpressure zone, there will be a decrease
in differential pressure leads to increase in the rate of penetration and
obviously, d-exponent will be decreased. Therefore; the plotting of d-
exponent versus depth gives an indication of overpressure zone presence.
42
Figure (3-9): d-exponent monograph[13].
(C) Modified d-exponent (dc-exponent)
Rehm and McClendon corrected d-exponent for the effect of drilling mud
weight (dc-exponent); it can be calculated by applying equation (3-10):
(3-10)
Where:
dc: corrected drilling exponent.
: mud weight used in drilling normal compacted formation (gm/cc).
: observed mud weight used in drilling a specific formation (gm/cc).
43
They proved that dc-exponent versus depth plot gives a better graphical
presentation than d-exponent against depth[16].
Eaton (1975) established an empirical equation to predict overpressure

zone and calculate pore pressure gradient using dc-exponent data[18].
* ( ) +( ) (3-11)
Where:
: Pore pressure gradient (psi/ft).
: overburden pressure gradient (psi/ft).
𝑛: dc-exponent normal and supposed at a specific depth.
𝑜 : observed dc-exponent at the same depth.

In order to apply Eaton’s method in estimating pore pressure using dc-
exponent data, As shown in Figure (3-10), dc-exponent VS depth plotted
on semi-log paper and a trend line determined by experience and trial and
error represent the normal compacted shale; the horizontal ratio of the
observed data and normal case is equal the formation pore pressure [32].
44
Figure (3-10): Formation pore pressure estimating by using dc-

exponent Eaton’s method.
(D) Other drilling parameters
Torque of drill pipe can give an indication of abnormal pressure

formation. Since, in overpressure zone, the reduction in differential
pressure causes increasing in ROP; which increase the accumulation of
drilled cuttings in the annulus; therefore, the torque of drill pipe will
increase. That reason also increase drag, although the increments in drag
is difficult to identify[10].
(2) Drilling mud parameters
As an over-pressured zone is encountered, many changes happen in

drilling mud[10]; these changes are:
 Increasing in temperature of flow lines.
 Decreasing in mud weight.
45
 Increasing gas cutting of mud.

(3) Drilled cuttings
The degree of cuttings compaction gives an indication of overpressure
formation due to the overpressure zone associated with undercompacted
shale with high fluid contents[10].
3-3-2.3 Confirmation techniques
After the well bore drilling operation has been finished successfully,
electric logs data and pressure test analysis are confirming the presence of
abnormal pressure. The logs which are particularly sensitive to abnormal
pressure are: sonic, resistivity, density and neutron logs. If a permeable
interval has been penetrated then the pressure in that interval can be
measured directly with a repeat formation tester or by conducting a well
test[1].
(A) Sonic log
In normal shale compacted, the travel time decreases (velocity increases)

with increasing burial depth as a result of decreasing shale porosity with
continuity of matrix compression and that represented by fixed slop trend
line varies from one region to another; the pressure of fluids within pores
in this case called normal pore pressure. When an abnormal pore pressure
formation penetrated, the data set of transit time will diverge toward
abnormally high transit times for a given burial depth in case of high
pressure formation, since the porosity is higher, or abnormally low transit
time in sub-pressure formations. The amount of divergence of a given
point from the established “normal compaction trend” is related to the
observed pressure in adjacent shale formation[40].
Eaton (1975) established an equation for determination the top of
overpressure formation and estimating pore pressure gradient according
to the ratio of observed transit travel time and normal transit time for a
46
given depth[18].
* ( ) +( ) ... (3-12)
Where:
: Normal and supposed sonic transit time in a specific depth (us/ft).
: Observed sonic transit time at the same depth (us/ft).

Sonic transit time verses depth plotting on semi-log paper, and the normal
compaction trend line for that area. By using equation (3-12) pore
pressure gradient is calculated for a given depth.
(B) Resistivity log (R)
Hottman and Johnson (1965) developed a relationship between shale

resistivity and abnormal pressure formations. They improved that less
compacted shale rocks (high porosity) is less resistive than compacted
shale due to high water content in the first type. They concluded that the
normally compacted sediments have resistivity normal trend line increase
with depth in shale section and any deviation from this trend gives
indicate of abnormally pressure shale formation[12].
Eaton (1975) established an equation used resistivity log data to calculate

pore pressure gradient[18].
* ( ) +( ) ... (3-13)
Where:
Ro: Normal and supposed formation resistivity in a specific depth

(ohm.m).
Rn: Observed formation resistivity at the same depth (ohm. m)
47
(C) Density log ( )
Using density log in estimating pore pressure gradient depends on the

degree of shale compaction. Normally compacted sediment is denser than
less compacted case, so that, the normal compaction trend line for density
log increase with depth; when penetrated an overpressure formation, the
data set of bulk density deviate toward less than the normal trend due to
high porosity and fluid content there.
Eaton’s empirical equation for calculating pore pressure gradient from

density log is as below.
* ( ) +( ) (3-14)
Where:
: Normal and supposed bulk density in a specific depth (gm/cc).
: Observed bulk density at the same depth (gm/cc).

If density log data is unavailable, it can be estimated from P-wave sonic
log as mentioned in overburden pressure gradient section (3-2).
3-3 Fracture Pressure Gradient
It’s the injection pressure required to rupture a formation. While

penetrating an abnormal formation pressure, the mud density should be
increased to maintain the well bore stability and continue safe drilling.
However, the mud pressure should be remained below the pressure that
causes formation damage; that’s why the estimation of fracture gradient is
complementary in well design. The underground stresses which resist
formation fracture can be defined as as shown in Figure (3-
11).
48
Figure (3-11): Stresses underground[33].
The origin of these stresses is that; during sedimentation, grains will

ensue one on the other; over time, and with continuing sedimentation the
layers above a specific points causes an overburden pressure ( which
is a combination of matrix weight and pressure of fluid within pores.
Thus, the effective vertical stress ( is equal to overburden pressure
above a specific point subtracted the pore pressure at this point from it.
The increment of grain to grain loading due to the vertical stress will
expand the grains laterally but, that prevented by the nearby grains so that
horizontal stresses and will develop[33].
The fracture direction is perpendicular to the least stress axis. In

tectonically relaxed areas, the least stress is the horizontal stress (
or ), therefore; the fracture direction will be vertical and the pressure
causes this fracture is less than the overburden pressure; while in active
tectonic areas, the least stress is the vertical which is the overburden
pressure; the fracture will develop horizontally with injection pressure
equal or greater than the overburden pressure[11].
The technique that can be taken to calculate the fracture pressure for a
specific formation is in two steps; the first one is called predictive
methods which depend on the empirical equation and data from the
49
previous drilled wells, the second step is the actual field data after drilled
the well and complete the necessary tests to record the actual fracture
gradient for that formation[33][41].
3-3-1 Predictive methods
These methods required the estimation of the minimum stress value;

according to Terzaghi’s equation, the minimum effective stress value
could be found from the following equation:
(3-15)
Where:
: Minimum effective stress (psi).
: Minimum stress (psi).
: Pore pressure (psi)
Since, the minimum stress ( is the required value, equation (3-15)

could be written in term of it as follow:
(3-16)
Where:
: The Ratio of the effective stresses (horizontal to vertical)
To calculate the minimum stress for a specific formation, the value

of should be estimated. There are two methods for
estimating[34]: (1) using of Poisson’s ratio (2) empirical methods.
3-3-1.1 Poisson’s ratio methods
These methods require an input Poisson’s ratio values of the rocks

forming the formation.
(A) Hubbert and Willis method
Hubbert and Willis method in fracture pressure gradient estimation

50
depends on three variables: pore pressure, overburden stress, and

Poisson’s ratio. Thus, Hubbert and Willis equation for estimating fracture
pressure gradient is as follow[11]:
( ) ( ) (3-17)
Where:
: Fracture pressure gradient (psi/ft).
: Poisson’s ratio.
In their method, they assumed constant overburden gradient equal 1 psi/ft

and constant Poisson’s ratio equal 0.25; therefore, their equation will be
as equation (3-14):
( ) (3-18)
In geolog software[34],as shown in Figure (3-12), there are two options

available:
 Input Poisson’s ratio value manually (Constant or Curve).

 Bounds values (minimum 1/3 and maximum 1/2).
If the second option is selected, a minimum and maximum fracture
pressures gradient are estimated.
51
Figure (3-12): Hubbert and Willis method in geolog[34].
(B) Cesaroni method
Cesaroni method estimated fracture pressure gradient depending on the

mechanical behavior of rocks; and there are three formulas available[42]:
I. For elastic rocks behavior with little or no mud filtrate because of

rapid mud cake forming or low permeable formation, the differential
pressure is totally supported by the borehole wall. Fracture pressure
gradient is estimating by the following equation:
( ) ( ) (3-19)
II. For elastic rocks behavior with high mud filtrate invasion; the
following equation is used:
( ) (3-20)
III. For plastic rocks behavior like shale, marl, and salt; the equation of
fracture pressure gradient is:
52
(3-21)
(C) Eaton method
Eaton method for estimating fracture pressure gradient suggest the same
equation of Hubbert and Willis method (equation (3-17)) but with
variable Poisson’s ratio modeled as a function of depth for Deep Gulf of
Mexico and Shelf (shallow water) formations[15].
(D) Daines method
Daines equation is the same as Eaton equation (equation (3-17)) by

adding Superimposed tectonic stress term, the equation will be as
follow[19]:
( ) ( ) (3-22)
Where:
: Superimposed tectonic stress.
Daines suggested that the determination of from the first leak-off test
while drilling and kept constant, the principle of the tectonic stress
remaining constant in the entire well section. Therefore; in geolog
software[34] is a function of effective vertical stress and can be
expressed as the following equation:
(3-23)
Where:
: Daines tectonic stress factor.
The final equation of Daines’s method in geolog is as follow:
( ) ( ) (3-24)
53
3-3-1.2 Empirical methods
Empirical methods are based either on empirical depth relationship or use

of an input stress coefficient.
(A) Matthews and Kelly method
Mathews and Kelly developed Hubbert and Willis method by using a

variable stress ratio between the effective horizontal and vertical stresses,
not a constant value of 1/3[14].
To calculate a fracture gradient by this method one must use the

following procedure:
1. Estimate the formation pore pressure.

2. Determine the effective stress. Since, the overburden gradient is equal
to 1 psi/ft as their assumption, therefore; the effective stress calculate
from the following equation:
(3-25)
3. Determine the depth Di which is the depth of the normal matrix
stress from the following equation:
(3-26)
(3-27)
4. Determine from value and Figure (3-13).

5. Calculate fracture pressure gradient from Matthews and Kelly method
using the following equation:
( ) ( ) (3-28)
In geolog software[34], the overburden gradient could be calculated or

put as fixed value equal 1psi/ft.
54
Figure (3-13): Matrix stress coefficient of Matthews and Kelly

method[14].
(B) Christman method
Christman method in prediction fracture pressure gradient is depend on

the empirically estimation stress ratio ( ; thus, the fracture pressure
gradient equation is[17]:
( ) (3-29)
Where:
: Christman stress ratio coefficient.
In geolog, the stress ratio estimation is valid either from density log or
water depth.
55
3-3-2 Verification methods
It is the actual value of fracture pressure for the next section obtained
from test at the casing shoe of previous section after it had been
cemented; the important of that test is to verify that the cement of casing
and the formation below can endure the wellbore pressure required to
complete drilling safely to the next target depth[33].
Formation integrity test (FIT) is usually used to identify the fracture

gradient for a specific formation; In fact, FIT has more than meaning
including:
 Limit test which is carried out to a specific point below the fracture
pressure of that formation.
 Leak off test which is carried out to the point that the formation leak
off.
 Formation break down test which is carried out to the point that the
formation fracture.
 Fracture gradient test it is Continue after the formation fracture, the
importance of this test is to determine the minimum horizontal stress
of earth.
Full FIT gives a complementary fracture data of the formation[41].
3-4 Wellbore Instability
Wellbore instability which is a borehole wall failure especially in shale

section considered a major problem in worldwide petroleum industry; it is
the cause of several drilling problems such as pipe sticking, dogleg
severity resulting from instability of drill-string in enlarged hole sections,
parting of drill pipe due to over pull ... etc. that requires fishing, washing
over or plugging back, an extra time and cost required for reaming back
to bottom after solve that problems[43].
56
The causes of borehole instability back to combination of factors affect

together or individually, including mechanical, chemical, and erosion
effect. Mechanical instability occurs during drilling when the effective
stresses ( be Unbalanced like the previous state (after drilling).
mechanical instability is affected by factors can be classified into two
groups: (1) Natural factors that’s mean it is out of control. (2) Controlled
effects and that by some mechanical techniques which enhance stability
during drilling the hole[44].
The natural factors include those which are due to the nature of the
formation and the natural of external influences. These are:
 Naturally fractured or faulted formations.

 Tectonically-stressed formation.
 Highly in-situ stress.
 Mobile formations.
 Unconsolidated formations.
 Naturally over-pressured shale collapse.
 Induced over-pressured shale collapse.
Wellbore instability resulting from tectonic stresses in shale formation
(sometimes leads to over-pressure formation) is because of the near
wellbore stresses are higher than stress applied by drilling fluid; as a
result, the rocks will extend outward into the wellbore and collapse. In
this case, the pressure applied by drilling fluid should be high enough to
support these stresses. Therefore; drilling mud consider the force that
make the in-situ stresses underground in equilibrium state and it is the
primary well control; so that, optimum mud selection need a deep
integrated study of rocks mechanics and surrounding area to complete
the drilling process successfully and with least problems[44].
57
3-4-1 Stresses underground
There are three types of underground stresses (one of them is vertical

( and the two other are horizontal ( )
3-4-1.1 Vertical stress
The vertical stress is equal the overburden pressure and it was explained
in detail in paragraph (3-2).
3-4-1.2 Horizontal stresses (maximum horizontal stress and
minimum horizontal stress ))
As referred in fracture pressure gradient section (3-3), there are three

stresses for each point underground; one of them is vertical ( and the
two other are horizontal ( , determination the value of the two
horizontal stresses and their direction is a primary factor in wellbore
stability analysis and select the suitable mud weight that Balancing these
stresses. They can be estimated from analyzing the leak off test (LOT)
data which represent the minimum and maximum strain and using the
isotropic poroelastic horizontal strain model. When the LOT is not
available then the effective stress ratio (ESR) method can be used to
estimate minimum and maximum horizontal stresses where the ESR of
minimum horizontal stress and vertical effective stress is a constant value
and equal 0.95, and ESR of maximum horizontal stress and vertical
effective stress is equal 1.1; thus, the following equations are used for
calculating and as follow[44]:
Shmin= 0.95 * ( - P) + P (3-30)

SHmax= 1.1 * ( - P) + P (3-31)
3-4-2 Rock’s mechanical properties
There are four main properties of rock, which are studied as follows.
58
3-4-2.1 Poisson’s ratio
Poisson’s ratio “is the ratio of the shortening in the transverse direction to
the elongation in the direction of applied force in a body under tension
below the proportional limit”[45] it is an important rock mechanical
property in many applications; one of them is the elastic rock deformation
and prediction fracture pressure gradient as referred above. The Poisson’s
ratio values of materials vary in a narrow range and in general it is limited
between 0 and 0.5. It can be measured in laboratory either by dynamic
method using pules velocities of longitudinal and shear waves which is
called the indirect method or directly by static method[46].
In geolog software[35], Poisson’s ratio can be calculated either from

velocities, VpVs ratio, or using moduli (bulk modulus and shear
modulus) as shown in Figure (3-14).
Figure (3-14): Poisson’s ratio estimation by geolog[35].
If the velocity option selected, the inputs required are compressional

transit time ( ), shear transit time ( s), and bulk density ( ). Then the
following equation is used in calculation:
59
(3-32)
Where:
: Compressional velocity (ft/us).
: shear velocity (ft/us).
When s data is not available for a specific depth, it could be estimated

from compressional transit time using the Greenberg -Castagna[47]
empirical relationships for different minerals in IP software as shown in
Figure (3-15).
Figure (3-15): Shear sonic estimation using IP software[48].
3-4-2.2 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
Is one of rock properties; it is the maximum compressive stress in axial

direction that rocks can Withstand under unconfined conditions. It can be
measured using core laboratory tests; however, the cores of formation
60
understudy are not available always especially when it is not the primary
target (shale rocks); so that, empirical relations and numerous methods
established by many authors from similar rock types that relate
unconfined compressive strength to log data (transit time or velocity,
porosity) and Young's Modulus[35].
Horsrud (2001) developed an equation for calculating the UCS in North

Sea; his equation is suitable for high porosity tertiary shales using P-wave
data from several sources of the P-wave velocity (sonic wireline, sonic
measurement while drilling ) or effective porosity data as follows[49]:
( ) (3-33)
(3-34)
Where:
UCS: Unconfined compressive strength (Mpa).
DT: Sonic transit time (us/ft).
PHIE: effective porosity.
3-4-2.3 Coefficient of internal friction
The internal friction is an internal force between the particles of a

material that resists its movement. In wellbore wall stability analysis, the
coefficient of internal friction is an important input parameter because the
friction is takes place between wall of wellbore and drilling fluid, the
interaction between drilling fluid and shale causing instability in shale
section by decreasing the strength of the rock and increasing the pore
pressure as fluid enters the shale; it is consider a time dependent
parameter and the change in rock strength take place after a period of
time. As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, rock strength determines
from core laboratory tests; however, the determination on a foot-by-foot
61
basis presents more of a challenge; thus, it is desirable to develop

relationships from wire line data.
Since, shale physics affected by three factors: clay mineralogy, clay

content, and the degree of compaction which consider the dominant
factor; therefore, strength can be correlated to water content, porosity,
sonic velocity, and density[50].
Lal (1999)[50] developed a correlation to determine internal friction

angle between shale rock and drilling fluid from compressional sonic
velocity using an extensive shale database as follow:
in (3-35)
The coefficient of internal friction is calculated from the following

equation[50]:
n (3-36)
3-4-2.4 Tensile strength
It is one of rock properties and knows its value is important in determine

the suitable mud weight required. It is the ability of a rock to withstand a
pulling force. In geolog, it is either input as constant value of multiplier a
constant by the UCS[35].
62
CHAPTER four
Methodology
Chapter four Methodology
CHAPTER FOUR
METHODOLOGY
Pore and fracture pressure gradients prediction by geolog software[34]
Workflow for running Geolog Pore and fracture Pressures module is

shown in Figure (4-1) as follows:
Figure (4-1): Pore and fracture Pressures evaluation workflow[34].
63
4-1 Hydrostatic pressure
 The first step in prediction pore pressure gradient is calculating

hydrostatic pressure; equation (4-1) is used to calculate hydrostatic
pressure.
𝑝 𝑝
(4-1)
Air pressure could be calculated by equation (3-2) for onshore case,

and water pressure calculated for offshore case only.
Equation (4-1) assumes that, the porosity is interconnected and

extends back to the surface through the overlying sediments; water
pressure gradient is 0.465 psi/ft as default. Figure (4-2) shows the
references depths[34].
Figure (4-2): References depths[34].
64
4-2 Overburden pressure
Calculate the true overburden pressure which significantly affects pore

pressure calculations.
4-3 Normal compaction trend line
After calculating hydrostatic and overburden pressure, the next step is

determining the normal compaction trend lines (NCT) for input electrical
logs (sonic transit time, velocity, density, and resistivity) and drilling data
(d-exponent, sigmalog); this line could be determined by empirical
methods (Hottman, Eaton, Miller, Bowers, and Zhang) or manually
according to the trend of data set in normal compacted shale
formation[34]. Figure (4-3) shows the manual settings for NCT in geolog.
Figure (4-3): Manual settings for NCT in geolog[34].
65
4-4 Pore pressure
To predict pore pressure and its gradient from several data sets, there are
two approaches in geology: the first one is called direct method and it
represented by Hottman and Johnson method and the second is the
effective stress methods include Equivalent Depth, Eaton horizontal ratio
and Bowers methods. The best method is that which gives a best match
with the actual field results[34]. Figure (4-4) shows the pore pressure
window in geolog.
Figure (4-4): Pore pressure window in geolog[34].
66
4-5 Fracture pressure
The fracture pressure requires evaluation of the value of S3, the minimum
component of in-situ stress. Based on Terzaghi definition of effective
stress (eq. (3-15)). Methods to calculate S3 requires the evaluation of the
K3 parameter (horizontal to vertical effective stress ratio), and there are
two major approach methods:
- Empirical methods.
- Use of Poisson’s ratio as a proxy.
Safe mud window (minimum and maximum mud weight limits) is

estimate depending on stresses underground ( , Shmin, SHmax) and
Rock’ mech nic l proper ie , UCS, Ten ile
reng h
67
CHAPTER five
Results and
discussion
Chapter five results and discussion
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5-1 Preface
This chapter summarizes the results of calculations using the available
data of each well. Overburden gradient is calculated using density log
method, Eaton method is used in estimating Pore pressure gradient by
applying d-exponent, and data on Eaton’s equations, while
fracture pressure gradient is calculated by using several methods such as
Hubbert and Willis, Cesaroni, Eaton, Daines, Matthews and Kelly, and
Christman. The safe drilling mud window is the objective of these
calculations.
5-2 Calculations and Results
5-2 -1 Overburden pressure gradient estimation
The overburden pressure is calculated using equation (3-1). The water

pressure is neglected because they are onshore wells, and the air pressure
is calculated using equation (3-2), the surface elevation and elevation of
measurement reference is defined for each well in well header. In these
cases, data is not available for whole depth so, it is estimated using
sonic log data by applying Gardner method (eq. (3-3)), which gives
minimum average percentage error equal 3.6% as comparison with
measured data of a specific interval, Figure (5-1) shows the
comparison between measured and estimated data . The results of
overburden gradients for each well are showed in Figures (5-3), (5-5) for
Abu Ghirab and Fauqi wells, and the results of overburden pressure
gradient are shown in Figures (5-4), (5-6), and (5-7) for Abu Ghirab,
Fauqi, and Halfaya oil fields respectively.
68
Figure (5-1): Comparison between measured and estimated data.
The calculated bulk density ( , using Gardner method, has been

corrected depending on measured bulk density. When they are plotted on
a Cartesian paper, as shown in Figure (5-2), equation (5-1) consider the
correction equation.
(5-1)
69
𝜌𝑏𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝜌𝑏𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑
Figure (5-2): Bulk density correction chart ( Vs. .).
(A) Abu Ghirab oilfield
For the three wells (AGCS-44, AGCS-42, AGCS-39) the overburden

pressure gradient is show in Figure (5-3).
70
Figure (5-3): Overburden pressure gradient of Abu Ghirab selected

wells.
By taking the arithmetic mean for overburden pressure gradient of the

three wells, the result is the overburden pressure gradient of Abu Ghirab
oilfield as shown in Figure (5-4).
71
Figure (5-4): Arithmetic mean overburden pressure gradient of Abu

Ghirab oilfield.
(B) Fauqi oilfield
The overburden gradient of the three wells selected from Fauqi oilfield
(FQCS-32, FQCS-33, and FQCN37) is shown in Figure (5-5).
72
Figure (5-5): Overburden pressure gradient of Fauqi selected wells.
The arithmetic mean of the overburden pressure gradient for the three
wells gives a better overburden gradient curve suitable for Fauqi oilfield
as shown in Figure (5-6).
73
Figure (5-6): Arithmetic mean overburden pressure gradient of

Fauqi oilfield.
(C) Halfaya oilfield
In Halfaya oilfield, the full depth data of using in estimated is

available only in HF010-N010 well; therefore, the result of overburden
pressure gradient of HF010-N010 will take as overburden pressure
gradient curve of Halfaya oilfield represented by the curve shown in
Figure (5-7).
74
Figure (5-7): overburden pressure gradient of Halfaya oilfield.
Summary:
The Figures (from (5-3) to (5-7)) showed that, the overburden pressure
gradients of Abu Ghirab, Fauqi, and Halfaya oilfields vary and increase
with depth and it reaches more than 1 psi/ft. By observing Figure (5-4)
for example, from depth 500 m the overburden pressure gradient
increasing with depth at a rate of 0.0000341 psi/ft/m, while this rate
decrease in Lower Fars formation and reach 0.0000184 psi/ft/m; the
decreasing in overburden pressure gradient in this formation gives an
evidence of abnormally increasing in porosity and the same shown in
other fields.
5-2-2 Normal compaction trend line (NCT) determination
(1) dc-exponent method
By applying equation (3-9) on drilling parameters data (ROP, RPM,

WOB, Bit size) the d-exponent is calculated; then, it is corrected for the
75
effect of mud weight using equation (3-10). The value of normal mud
weight ( used is 1.08 gm/cc as referred in final well reports[3][4][5].
The dc-exponent results are obtained and plotted versus depth on semi-
log paper. The interval of normal compacted shale is determined from
final geological reports. In normal formation pressure zone, the dc-
exponent increases with depth as a result of decreasing ROP; so, the
equation of NCT is estimated from the trend of dc-exponent in normal
compaction shale interval as a function of depth with positive slop. This
equation is unique for each field.
(A.1) AGCS-39
Figure (5-8): NCT and top of overpressure zone for AGCS-39 (dc-
exponent method).
76
(A.2) AGCS -42
exponent method).
(A.3) AGCS-44
exponent method).
77
(B) Fauqi oilfield
(B.1) FQCS-32
Figure (5-11): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCS-32 (dc-
exponent method).
78
(B.2) FQCS-33
Figure (5-12): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCS-33 (dc-
exponent method).
(B.3) FQCS-37
Figure (5-13): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCN-37 (dc-
exponent method).
79
(C.1) HF005-M316
Figure (5-14): NCT and top of overpressure zone for HF005-M316

(dc-exponent method).
80
(C.2) HF010-N010
Figure (5-15): NCT and top of overpressure zone for HF010-N010

(C.3) HF013-M013
Figure (5-16): NCT and top of overpressure zone for HF013-M013

81
Table (5-1) is content NCT equations of dc-exponent for Abu Ghirab,

Fauqi, and Halfaya oilfields.
Table (5-1): NCT equations of dc-exponent
Field NCT equation

Abu Ghirab oilfield
Fauqi oilfield
Halfaya oilfield
By using equations in Table (5-1) for Abu Ghirab, Fauqi, and Halfaya
oilfields, and plotting the results of dc-exponent for the three wells of
each field with depth on semi-log paper, the abnormal pressure zones will
appear as shown in Figures [(5-8): (5-16)].
(2) Sonic log ( method
The data set of ∆t decreasing with depth when plotting on semi-log paper;
so, the trend of NCT for sonic log in normal compacted shale interval is
with negative slop, and there is one equation for each field for NCT as a
function of depth.
82
(A.1) AGCS-39
TOP OF OVERPRESSURE ZONE
Figure (5-17): NCT and top of overpressure zone for AGCS-44 (sonic
method).
(A.2) AGCS-42
method).
83
(A.3) AGCS-44
method).
(B) Fauqi oilfield
(B.1) FQCS-32
Figure (5-20): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCS-32 (sonic
method).
84
(B.2) FQCS-33
Figure (5-21): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCS-33 (sonic
method).
(B.3) FQCS-37
Figure (5-22): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCN-37 (sonic
method).
85
(C.2) HF010-N010

(sonic method).
Table (5-2) is shown the NCT equations of ∆t for Abu Ghirab, Fauqi, and
Halfaya oilfields.
Table (5-2): NCT equations of .
Field NCT equation

Abu Ghirab oilfield
Fauqi oilfield
Halfaya oilfield
By using equations in Table (5-2) for Abu Ghirab, Fauqi, and Halfaya
oilfields, and plotting ∆t of each well with depth on semi-log paper, the
abnormal pressure zones will appear as shown in Figures [(5-17): (5-23)].
86
In Halfaya oilfield, the top of overpressure zone is appeared only by

HF010-N010 as referred above (section 5-2-1.C). It is the only well
conclude full depth data of ∆t; so, it would be the well that represents
Halfaya oilfield in calculations based on logs data, the top of overpressure
zone of HF010-N010 is shown in Figure (5-23).
(3) Density log ( ) method
The data set of has a positive slop trend line; since, in normal
compacted interval, the density of rocks increases with depth due to the
increasing of compaction and reduction of porosity.
(A) Abu-Ghirab oilfield
(A.1) AGCS-39
Figure (5-24): NCT and top of overpressure zone for AGCS-39

( method).
87
(A.2) AGCS-42

( method).
(A.3) AGCS-44

( method).
88
(B) Fauqi oilfield
(B.1) FQCS-32
Figure (5-27): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCS-32

( method).
(B.2) FQCS-33
Figure (5-28): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCS-33

( method).
89
(B.3) FQCN-37
Figure (5-29): NCT and top of overpressure zone for FQCN-37

( method).
(C.2) HF010-N010

( method).
90
The NCT eqiations of as a function of depth for Abu Ghirab, Fauqi,

and Halfaya oilfields are inserted in Table (5-3).
Table (5-3): NCT equations of
Field NCT equation

Abu Ghirab oilfield
Fauqi oilfield
Halfaya oilfield
The bulk density of formation vary when an abnormal pressure formation

is penetrated; so, the plotting of versus depth with the normal
compaction trend line represents by equations in Table (5-3) on a
Cartesian paper gives a presentation of the presence and depth of
abnormal pressure formations as shown in Figures [(5-24): (5-30)].
Summary:
The final geological reports[3][4][5] shows that, the actual depth of

overpressure zone start from the top of Mb4 member in Lower Fars
formation. The depth of this member changes from one well to another;
in reality, there is a transition zone between the normal and abnormal
pressure formations. The detection of abnormal pressure formation using
these methods (dc-exponent, , ) is started from the transition zone;
so, there is an percentage error between the actual an predictive abnormal
pressure zone vary from one method to another. Table (5-4) summarized
the results shown in Figures [(5-8): (5-30)] and compare it with the actual
depth of overpressure zones.
91
Table (5-4): The summery of overpressure zone depth by different

methods.
field Well Actual Dc-exp. Error% Sonic Error% Error%

no. depth method method method
Abu AGCS39 2518 2230 12.9148 2300 9.478261 2300 9.478261
Ghirab AGCS42 2544 2300 10.6087 2350 8.255319 2350 8.255319
oilfield AGCS44 2531 2240 12.99107 2300 10.04348 2300 10.04348
Fauqi FQCS32 2543 2200 15.59091 2300 10.56522 2300 10.56522
oilfield FQCS33 2511 2170 15.71429 2350 6.851064 2350 6.851064
FQCN37 2502 2250 11.2 2300 8.782609 2300 8.782609
Halfaya HF005 1593 1300 18.3 - - - -
oilfield HF010 1589 1470 8.095238 1450 9.586207 1450 9.586207
HF013 1606 1400 14.71429 - - - -
Table (5-4) shows that, dc-exponent method is more sensitive to the

presence of overpressure formation than logs methods. and
methods give the same percentage error; since, is estimated from
so, it has the same behavior.
5-2-3 Pore pressure gradient estimation
Pore pressure value will be estimated using Eaton equations (which was
explained in details in chapter 3, section 3-3-2) and depending on the
normal compaction trend line for each field using three methods (dc-
exponent, , ).
(1) dc-exponent method
Pore pressure gradient by dc-exponent method is calculated using

equation (3-11). The overburden pressure gradient results attached in
section (5-2-1) for each well, the normal pore pressure gradient is
calculated using equation (4-1). The observed dc-exponent is calculated
using equations (3-9) and (3-10). The normal dc-exponent represented by
normal compaction trend line as a function of depth was plotted. Its
92
equations for each field are inserted in Table (5-1). Geolog 8.0 will be
used as calculations tool.
(A.1) AGCS-39
Figure (5-31): Pore pressure, overburden pressure, normal

method.
Figure (5-31) shows that:
1. Upper Fars formation represents a normal pore pressure zone about

(0.4- 0.46) psi/ft.
2. Lower Fars formation begins from Mb5 which is a transition zone;
93
Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2 represent an abnormal high pressure zone about
(0.75-0.8) psi/ft; Mb1 is a transition zone.
3. Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk are abnormal low pressure zones.
4. Middle-Lower Kirkuk formation is a normal pore pressure zone about
(0.46) psi/ft.
(A.2) AGCS-42

method.
1. Upper Fars and Middle- Low Kirkuk formations are normal pore
pressure zones about (0.46) psi/ft.
94
2. Lower Fars formation begins from Mb5 which is a transition zone;

Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2 are an abnormal high pressure zones about (0.7-
0.8) psi/ft and Mb1 is a transition zone.
3. Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk formations represent an abnormal
low pressure zones.
(A.3) AGCS-44

method.
1. Upper Fars and Middle-Low Kirkuk formations are normal pressure

zones about 0.46 psi/ft.
95
2. Lower Fars formation is abnormal high pressure zone where Mb5 and
Mb1 are transition zones; Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2 are overpressure zones
about (0.75-0.85) psi/ft.
3. Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk formations are abnormal low
pressure zone (lost circulation zone).
(B) Fauqi oilfield
(B.1) FQCS-32

method.
96
Figure (5-34) summarizes the results of FQCS-32 and it shows that:
1. Upper Fars and Middle-Low Kirkuk are in normal limit about (0.46)
psi/ft.
2. Lower Fars is divided into five members: Mb5 and Mb1 are transition
zones; Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2 are overpressure zones about (0.65-0.79)
psi/ft.
3. Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk are subpressure formations.
(B.2) FQCS-33

method.
97
Figure (5-35) summarizes the results of FQCS-33 and it shows that:
psi/ft.
psi/ft.
3. Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk are sub-pressure formations.
(B.3) FQCN-37

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCN-37 by d-exp.
method.
98
Figure (5-36) summarizes the results of FQCN-37 and it shows that:
psi/ft.
psi/ft.
3. Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk are subpressure formations.
(C.1) HF005-M316

method.
99
Figure (5-37) shows the results of HF005-M316 as follow:
1. Abnormally high pressures show in Lower Fars formation (Mb4, Mb3,

and Mb2) reach (0.7-0.73) psi/ft, Sadi, Tanuma, Khassib, and Mishrif
formations reach (0.6-0.65) psi/ft.
2. Abnormally sub-pressures appear in Jeribe-Euphrat, and Uppre Kirkuk
and Jaddala formation.
3. Upper Fars, Middle Kirkuk, Lower Kirkuk, Aaliji, Shiranish, and
Hartha, are approximately in normal pore pressure.
(C.2) HF010-N010

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF010-N010 by d-exp.
method.
100
The result of pore pressure gradient is shown in Figure (5-38) as follow:
1. Abnormal high pressure show in Lower Fars formation (Mb4, Mb3,

and Mb2) about (0.6-0.65) psi/ft, Sadi, Tanuma, Khassib, and Mishrif
about (0.5-0.6) psi/ft.
2. The pore pressures of Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk appear as
abnormal low pressure due to the problem of unconsolidated
sandstone.
3. The other formations appear as normal pore pressure about (0.46)
psi/ft.
4. Abnormally sub-pressures appear in Jaddala formation.
(C.3) HF013-M013

Method.
101
Figure (5-39) explains the results of HF005-M316 as follow:
1.Abnormally high pressures show in Lower Fars formation (Mb4, Mb3,

and Mb2) about (0.65-0.7) psi/ft, Sadi, Tanuma, Khassib, and Mishrif
formations about (0.6) psi/ft.
2. Abnormally sub-pressures appear in Jeribe-Euphrat, and Uppre Kirkuk

and Jaddala formation.
3. Upper Fars, Middle Kirkuk, Lower Kirkuk, Aaliji, Shiranish, and

Hartha, are in normal pore pressure about (0.46) psi/ft.
(2) Sonic log method
Pore pressure gradient by sonic method is calculated using equation (3-

12). The overburden pressure gradient results attached in section (5-2-1)
for each well, the normal pore pressure gradient is calculated using
equation (4-1). The normal transit time represented by normal
compaction trend line plotted as a function of depth, its equations for
each field inserted in Table (5-2).The results are obtained by geolog 8.0
software.
102
(A.1) AGCS-39

method.
Figure (5-40) shows the pore pressure gradient by sonic method and it
gave the same presentation as the dc-exponent method in Figure (5-31).
1. Pore pressure gradient in Lower Fars formation which is the abnormal

high pressure zone (Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2) is ranging (0.6-0.8) psi/ft.
2. Sub-pressure formation (Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk) which
content unconsolidated sand layers looks like there is an error in sonic
103
device; it is a good results comparison with dc-exponent method, but

with less accuracy.
(A.2) AGCS-42

method.
The result of pore pressure by sonic method for AGCS-42 is shown in

Figure (5-41). It is match with the result obtained by dc-exponent method
(Figure (5-32)).
104
1. The transition zone to abnormal high pressure zone starts from Lower
Fars formation (Mb5) with less sharpness in comparison with dc-
exponent method.
2. The abnormal high pressure zone (Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2) is with pore
pressure range (0.7-0.8) psi/ft.
3. Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk formations which are loss
circulation formations appear as sudden drop in pore pressure and it
consider as abnormal subpressure formation.
(A.3) AGCS-44

method.
105
Figure (5-42) shows the result of pore pressure for AGCS-44 estimated
using data and it approximately give a good match with the pore
pressure estimated by dc-exponent method in terms of prediction the
abnormal pressure zones, and estimating the values of pore pressure,
where it showed that, the pore pressure gradient of abnormal high
pressure zone (Lower Fars Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2) is approximately (0.7-
0.85) psi/ft.
(B) Fauqi oilfield
(B.1) FQCS-32

method.
106
Pore pressure gradient estimation by sonic log method of FQCS-32 is

shown in Figure (5-43). It gives a good matching with the results
obtained by dc-exponent method (Figure (5-34)), on one hand the
determination of abnormal pressure zones on the other hand the values of
pore pressure in the overpressure zone (Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2 of Lower
Fars formation) where it ranges (0.7-0.75) psi/ft and it reaches 0.8 psi/ft
as peak point in Mb4.
(B.2) FQCS-33

method.
107
Figure (5-44) shows the result of pore pressure gradient by sonic method
of FQCS-33 and it gives a good matching with the result obtained by dc-
exponent method.
(B.3) FQCN-37

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCN-37 by sonic
method.
Pore pressure gradient estimation of FQCN-37 is shown in Figure (5-45).

It gives a good matching with the pore pressure estimated by dc-exponent
method. It shows that, there is an overpressure zone started from the top
of Lower Fars (Mb5) as transition zone, and increase gradually until it
108
reaches the overpressure zone (Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2) with pore pressure
gradient equal (0.7) psi/ft and reaches (0.77) psi/ft as peak point, until the
top of Mb5 which consider a transition zone, and the pore pressure
decrease gradually. It is shows that, there is a lost circulation zone appear
as sub-pressure formation at Jeribe-Euphrate and the top of Upper Kirkuk
formation.
(C.2) HF010-N010

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF010-N010 by sonic
method.
109
Figure (5-46) shows the result of pore pressure gradient in HF010-N010

by sonic method. It gives the same indication about the presence of
abnormal pore pressure as dc-exponent method (Figure (5-38)) such as:
Lower Fars, Sadi, Khasib, and Mishrif as overpressure formations, and
Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk as sub-pressure formations; but, with
exaggerated values of pore pressure comparison with the actual pressure
and the results seems too scattered; so that, the result of dc-exponent is
better in estimated pore pressure gradient in Halfaya oilfield.
(3) Density log method
Pore pressure gradient by method is calculated using equation (3-14).

The overburden pressure gradient results attached in section (5-2-1) for
each well, the normal pore pressure gradient is calculated using equation
(4-1). The normal equations represented by normal compaction trend
line plotted as a function of depth, its equations for each field inserted in
Table (5-3). The results are obtained by geolog 8.0 software.
110
(A.1) AGCS-39

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for AGCS-39 by method.
Figure (5-47) shows the result of pore pressure in AGCS-39. The pore
pressure represented by density method is equivalent with that by dc-
exponent and sonic methods for the same well and it gives an indication
about the existence of abnormal pore pressure zones; such as, the
abnormally high pressure in Lower Fars formation, and abnormal
subpressure in Jeribe-Euphrate and the top of Upper Kirkuk formations.
The pore pressure gradient in Lower Fars formation (Mb4, Mb3, and
Mb2) is equal to (0.6) psi/ft at the top of Mb4 and increases to reach
111
(0.73) psi/ft as peak point in that formation; while, it range (0.75-0.8)

psi/ft by the two other methods (dc-exponent and sonic).
(A.2) AGCS-42

Figure (5-48) shows the result of pore pressure gradient by method.

This method is less accuracy than dc-exponent and sonic methods, and it
give less value than the reality; but, it is a good method in determine the
abnormal pressure zones. It shows there is a presence of abnormal high
pressure in Lower Fars formation, and abnormal sub-pressure in Jeribe-
Euphrate and the top of Upper Kirkuk formations, as well as the gradual
112
increasing and decreasing in pore pressure (transition zones) is very clear

in Lower Fars (Mb5) and Lower Fras (Mb1) respectively.
(A.3) AGCS-44

Figure (5-49) gives a representation of pore pressure gradient by

method of AGCS-44 for Upper Fars, Lower Fars, Jeribe-Euphrate, and
the Upper part of the Upper Kirkuk formations. It is match with that
determined by dc-exponent and sonic methods; the Upper Fars formation
is in normal pore pressure, the Lower Fars formation (Mb4, Mb3, and
Mb2) is abnormal high pressure zone with pore pressure gradient range
(0.6-0.7) psi/ft and reaches (0.8) psi/ft as peak point in a little meters at
113
Mb4, and it is less than the pore pressure estimated by the other two
methods (dc-exponent and sonic), it shows there is an abnormal sub-
pressure in Jeribe-Euphrate and the top of Upper Kirkuk.
(B) Fauqi oilfield
(B.1) FQCS-32

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCS-32 by method.
Figure (5-50) shows the pore pressure gradient by of FQCS-32

method. It gives the same pore pressure representation as dc-exponent
and sonic methods in Figures (5-34) and (5-43), pore pressure gradient in
Lower Fars formation which is the abnormal high pressure zone (Mb4,
Mb3, and Mb2) is range (0.65-0.75) psi/ft, and the subnormal formation
114
(Jeribe-Euphrate and Upper Kirkuk) which content an unconsolidated

sand layers causing lost circulation, it is a good results comparison with
dc-exponent and sonic methods, but with less accuracy.
(B.2) FQCS-33

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCS-33 method.
Figure (5-51) shows the result of pore pressure gradient by method of

FQCS-33. This method is less accuracy and gives less value than dc-
exponent and sonic methods (Figures (5-35) and (5-44)); but, it is a good
method in determine the abnormal pressure zones, and here it shows there
is a presence of abnormal high pressure in Lower Fars formation and
115
abnormal subpressure in Jeribe-Euphrate and the top of Upper Kirkuk

formations and as well as the gradual increasing and decreasing in pore
pressure (transition zones) is very clear in Lower Fars (Mb5) and Lower
Fras (Mb1) respectively.
(B.3) FQCN-37

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for FQCN-37 by method.
Figure (5-51) shows the result of pore pressure in FQCN-37; in this well,
the pore pressure representation by density method is not equivalent with
that by dc-exponent and sonic methods (Figures (5-35) and (5-44)),
however, it give an indication about the existence of abnormal pore
pressure zones such as the abnormally high pressure in Lower Fars
formation and abnormal sub-pressure in Jeribe-Euphrate and the top of
Upper Kirkuk formations, the pore pressure gradient in Lower Fars
formation (Mb4, Mb3, and Mb2) is equal to (0.6) psi/ft at the top of Mb4
116
and increases to reach (0.7) psi/ft as peak point in that formation; while, it
range ( 0.7-0.79) psi/ft by the two other methods (dc-exponent and sonic).
(C.2) HF010-N010

hydrostatic pressure and their gradients for HF010-N010 by
method.
117
The pore pressure gradient of HF010-N010 by method is shown in

Figure (5-53). It shows that, this method is inaccurate to be applied in this
field, and the using of drilling parameters (dc-exponent method) gives
better matching with the results in the previous study (Field Development
Plan Revision No.1 of Halfaya Contract Area, Iraq/ by PetroChina
Company for Missan Oil Company[5]). Figure (5-54) shows the
validation of the pore pressure results predicted by dc-exponent method
in (HF013-M013), compared to the previous studies adopted in the
design.
Figure (5-54): Validation of the pore pressure results predicted by

dc-exponent method in (HF013-M013).
118
Summary:
The estimating of pore pressure using the methods (dc-exponent and )

give approximated results and the method gives the less accurate
results; but, the results of dc-exponent method will be taken into account
in this study for the following reasons:
 It considers a real time record data and it inevitable presence in every

well.
 The data of sonic log dose not presence in the whole interval in some
well also the data of density log presence for only reservoirs intervals
to achieve the total cost optimization.
 Logs data records are for every (0.1 m); thus, these huge data cannot
be handled issue only after pruning it, and this is not always be true.
But it can be used as confirmation methods as referred in chapter
three.
By observing Figures (5-31) to (5-53), it can be inferred that:
1. In Abu Ghirab oilfield, the deviation of pore pressure from the normal
limit starts from Mb5 member in Lower Fars formation and increases
gradually until it reaches the peak point in Mb4 about (0.85 psi/ft);
and, continues in the same limit until Mb1, which consider a pressure
transition zone. The sub-pressure zone, represented by Jeribe-Euphrate
and Upper Kirkuk. The normal limit equal approximately (0.468
psi/ft) at Middle-Lower Kirkuk formation.
2. In Fauqi oilfield, the same behavior of underground pore pressure as
Abu Ghirab oilfield; however, the peak point is reaches (0.79 psi/ft) at
Mb4 member in Lower Fars formation.
3. In Halfaya oilfield, the Lower Fars formation is shallower than Abu
Ghirab and Fauqi oilfields; the pore pressure gradient is the lowest
there and reaches (0.73 psi/ft) as peak point at Mb4. There are another
119
abnormal high pore pressure zones in Sadi, khasib, and Mishrif

formation and abnormal low pressure in Jeribe- Upper Kirkuk and
Jaddala formations.
5-2-4 Fracture pressure gradient estimation
There are several methods could be used to calculate fracture pressure

gradient; they are classified into two groups: the first group depends on
Poisson’s ratio of the rocks, and the second is fully empirical methods. In
this study, the methods selected are: Huubert and willis, Cesaroni ,
Cesaroni II, Cesaroni III, Eaton, and Daines where Poisson’s ratio is
considered essential here. The empirical methods selected are Matthews
and Kelly, and Christman.
As referred above, the Poisson’s ratio is a necessary input in calculating

fracture pressure gradient. This ratio is calculated using well log data for
each well, and geolog and IP software as a tool.
Poisson’s ratio is calculated using equation (3-32). Vp is the

compressional velocity which can be obtained from sonic transit time
after converting it to velocity. Vs is shear velocity which estimated from
compressional velocity sonic log using Greenberg-Castagna empirical
relationships and the results of DTshear, Poisson’s ratio, and VpVs ratio
are shown in appendix A. The general fracture pressure gradient equation
(eq. (3-16)) required two inputs which are overburden pressure gradient
and pore pressure gradient. The overburden pressure gradient results are
inserted in section (5-2-1) for each well and the pore pressure gradient
results are taken from dc-exponent method which inserted in section (5-2-
3) in part (1) for each well. The methods that give results approximately
match the results of the previous fields studies (Field Development Plan
Revision No.1 of Halfaya Contract Area, Iraq/ by PetroChina Company
120
for Missan Oil Company[5] , final well report of Abu Ghirab and Fauqi
oilfields by CNOOC Company [3][4]) are Cesaroni , Eaton, and
Christman.
(A.1) AGCS-39
Figure (5-55): Fracture pressure gradient by Cesaroni I, Eaton, and

Christman methods for AGCS-39.
121
Figure (5-55) shows that, in the shallower formations Cesaroni I gave a

good match with the previous study and the fracture pressure gradient
range (0.9-1.0) psi/ft, while in the deep formation, Cesaroni I, Eaton, and
Christman gave a good match with it (1.0-1.03) psi/ft.
(A.2) AGCS-42

122
The result of fracture pressure gradient for AGCS-42 is shown in Figure

(5-56). The three methods (Cesaroni I, Eaton, and Christman) are selected
to be the equations that match with the previous studies. The fracture
pressure gradient for AGCS-42 range (0.9) psi/ft in the shallow
formations and it reach (1.02) psi/ft in the deep formations.
(A.3) AGCS-44

123
Fracture pressure gradient of AGCS-44 shown in Figure (5-57). It ranges

(0.9-1.03) psi/ft calculated by Cesaroni I, Eaton, and Christman methods
which are chosen to be Abu-Ghirab oilfield equations of fracture pressure
gradient. Depending on the results in Figures (5-55), (5-56), and (5-57),
the fracture pressure gradients of this field are (0.9-1.0) psi/ft for shallow
formations and increasing with depth to reach (1.03) psi/ft for deep
formations.
(B) Fauqi oilfield
(B.1) FQCS-32

Christman methods for FQCS-32.
124
Figure (5-58) shows that, in the shallower formations, Cesaroni I gave a

good match with the previous study and the fracture pressure gradient
range (0.9-1.0) psi/ft, while in the deep formation, Cesaroni I, Eaton, and
Christman gave the same results with a good match with it and it reaches
(1.0-1.02) psi/ft in FQCS-32.
(B.2) FQCS-33

Christman methods for FQCS-33.
Figure (5-59) shows the fracture pressure gradient results of FQCS-33 by

Cesaroni I, Eaton, and Christman methods which are chosen to be the
125
best methods to be used as comparison with the pervious study. The

fracture pressure gradient ranges (0.9-1.03) psi/ft.
(B.3) FQCN-37

Christman methods for FQCN-37.
Figure (5-60) shows the fracture pressure gradient results of FQCN-37

and the three methods (Cesaroni I, Eaton, and Christman) are selected to
be the equations that match with the previous studies. The fracture
pressure gradient for FQCN-37 range (0.9) psi/ft in the shallow
formations and it reach (1.02) psi/ft in the deep formations.
126

(C.3) HF005-M316
Figure (5-61): Fracture pressure gradient by Eaton, and Christman

methods for HF005-M316.
In Figure (5-61), fracture pressure gradient of HF005-M316 is calculated

by Eaton and Christman methods only since, there is no data available
to estimate Poisson’s ratio. The Poisson’s ratio in Eaton method is
modeled as a function of depth for Deep Gulf of Mexico and shallow
water formations, these two methods gave a good match with the
previous study. The fracture pressure gradient of Halfaya oilfield
depending on this well ranges (0.9-1.0) psi/ft.
127
(C.2) HF010-N010

methods for HF010-N010.
Figure (5-62) shows that, as comparison with previous study, the results
of Eaton and christman methods at the deepest formations (about 2000 m
and deeper) gave a good match, and Cesaroni I gave the best match for
the all formations.
128
(C.3) HF013-M013

methods for HF013-M013.
Fracture pressure gradient results of HF013-M013 are shown in Figure

(5-63) and it is calculated by Eaton and Christman methods only because
of the unavailability of data. They gave a good match with the
previous study. The fracture pressure gradient of Halfaya oilfield
depending on this well ranges (0.9-1.03) psi/ft.
129
5-2-5 Wellbore instability
As referred in section (3-4), mud weight considers the primary well

control and the right choice of it, as the first step to complete the drilling
process safely. In this study, the Lower Fars formation is selected as
unstable formation and its depth varies from one well to another. To
determine the safe mud weight window, several variables must be taken
into account. These variables classified into two groups, the first is the
surrounding stresses, and the second is the mechanical properties of rocks
forming the formation. The surrounding stresses are the vertical stress
which equals to overburden pressure; the overburden pressure gradient
results listed in section (5-2-1) for each well, the second type of stresses
is the horizontal stresses from two directions (x,y). One of them considers
the maximum stress (SHmax), and the second is the minimum stress
(Shmin). These two stresses are estimated using equations (3-30) and (3-
31) for minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal stress
respectively, the pore pressure using in these equations was taken from d-
exponent method for each well. The rock mechanical properties required
are Poisson’s ratio, unconfined compressive strength (UCS), coefficient
of internal friction, and tensile strength. Poisson’s ratio was calculated in
section (5-2-4). The UCS is calculated using equation (3-33). The
coefficient of internal friction is calculated by equation (3-36), and the
tensile strength is estimated by multiplying the UCS by 0.1. The results of
rock mechanical properties are inserted in appendix A. The direction of
maximum horizontal stress is depending on the location of field for the
collision point (the collision of Arabian plate with the plate of Eurasia).
The safe mud window for Lower Fars formation for each well is shown in
Figures ((5-64): (5-71), the limits of mud weight window are defined as
follow:
130
The lower limits are: the dark blue limit which defines as PRESS_KICK
in (psi) units and MW_KICK in (LBG) units, they are the pore pressure
and pore pressure coefficient which consider the limit between safe
drilling and kick incidence. The purple line which define as
PRESS_BREAKOUT and MW_BREAKOUT are the pressure and
pressure coefficient that develop a bore hole breakout if the drilling mud
weight was below it.
The upper limits are: the dark pink limit which defines as PRESS_LOSS
and MW_LOSS are the pressure and pressure coefficient that equal the
minimum in-situ stress; if the mud weight exceeds that limit, a fracture
will develop in the formation and lost circulation may occur. The green
limits which defined as PRESS_TENSILE and MW_TENSILE; if the
drilling mud weight is above that limit, a tensile fracture will develop in
the formation. If this limit is below the MW_LOSS tensile fractures will
form but without propagation into the formation. If this value is larger
than MW_LOSS fractures will propagate and hydraulic fracturing will
occur.
131
(A.1) AGCS-39
0 2000 0 40
Figure (5-64): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for AGCS-
39.
Figure (5-64) shows that, the top of Lower Fars formation depth in
AGCS-39 is (2152) m with (771) m thickness and the unstable zone
started from depth (2212.5) m, the estimated lower limit of safe mud
weight is equal (13.6) ppg or (1.63) gm/cc and the upper limit is equal
(19.25) ppg or (2.31) gm/cc; however, the mud weight used in drilling
this section which recorded in final well report is equal (2.26) gm/cc.
132
(A.2) AGCS-42
0 2000 0 40
42.
started from depth (2222) m, the estimated lower limit of safe mud
133
(A.3) AGCS-44
0 2000 0 40
44.
started from depth (2144.6) m, the estimated lower limit of safe mud
134
(B) Fauqi oilfield

(B.1) FQCS-32
0
2000 0 40
Figure (5-67): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for FQCS-
32.
FQCS-32 is (2156) m with (820) m thickness and the unstable zone
135
(B.2) FQCS-33
0 2000 0 40
Figure (5-68): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for FQCS-
33.
FQCS-33 is (2087) m with (898) m thickness and the unstable zone
136
(B.3) FQCN-37
0 2000 0 40
Figure (5-69): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for FQCN-
37.
FQCN-37 is (2163) m with (831) m thickness and the unstable zone
137
(C.1) HF005-M316
0 2000 0 40
Figure (5-70): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for HF005-
M316.
HF005-M316 is (1374) m with (545) m thickness and the unstable zone
(20.5) ppg or (2.46) gm/cc; however, the mud weight used in drilling this
section which recorded in final well report is equal (2.2) gm/cc.
138
(C.2) HF010-N010
0 2000 0 40
Figure (5-71): Safe mud window of Lower Fars formation for HF010-
N010.
HF010-N010 is (1371) m with (550) m thickness and the unstable zone
139
Summary:
In this study, the results show that, the mud weight limits are too narrow
with each other in Lower Fars formation, and the selection of mud weight
must be too accurate. To penetrate formations like Lower Fars, the safely
drilling is more important than fast drilling; so, the highest lower limit
and lowest upper limit from every three well in each field has be taken as
mud weight limits for each field.
The Figures from (5-64) to (5-71) show the results of mud weight for
each well which summarized in Table (5-5):
Table (5-5): Upper and lower limits of mud weight in Lower Fars
formation.
field Mw limits (LBG) Mw limits (gm/cc)

Abu Ghirab oilfield 17.3 – 19.28 2.07 - 2.31
Fauqi oilfield 16 – 19.35 1.9 - 2.32
Halfaya oilfield 15.61 – 20.1 1.87 - 2.4
5-3 Discussion
 The main abnormal pressure zones are summarized in Table (5-6).
Table (5-6): Abnormal pressure zones.

Field Overpressure zone Sub-pressure zone
Abu Ghirab oilfield Lower Fars Jeribe-Euphrate
Upper Kirkuk
Fauqi oilfield Lower Fars Jeribe-Euphrate
Upper Kirkuk
140
Halfaya oilfield Lower Fars Jeribe-Euphrate
Sadi Upper Kirkuk
Tanuma Jaddala
Khassib
Mishrif
 Table (5-4) shows that, the average percentage error between the
actual top of overpressure formation and observed depths from sonic
and bulk density methods are identical and the reason is that the
data is estimated from ; so that, the behavior of log will be quite
similar to log behavior.
Since the depth and thickness of Lower Fars formation is increasing in
the area under study (the area close to the Iraq-Iran borders), the
abnormal high pore pressure is exist in this region and the reason is
due to the increasing of vertical stress. The high thickness of Lower
Fars makes the formation is more sensitive to the lateral stresses. The
pore pressure gradient reaches the peak point at Mb4 member in this
formation according to the geological reports and confirming by
results that inserted in section (5-2-3). This value varies from well to
another according to the extent of the causative effect of this
abnormality. Table (5-7) shows the value of pore pressure gradient of
Mb4 member in Lower Fars for the nine wells
141
Table (5-7): Pore pressure gradient of Mb4 member in Lower Fars

Field Well no. Pore pressure gradient
Psi/ft
Abu Ghirab oilfield AGCS-39 0.8
AGCS-42 0.8
AGCS-44 0.856
Fauqi oilfield FQCS-32 0.79
FQCS-33 0.78
FQCN-37 0.78
Halfaya oilfield HF005 0.73
HF010 0.65
HF013 0.7
The above Table shows that the peak point of Mb4 pore pressure
gradient concentrated in AGCS-44 well in Abu Ghirab oilfield at
X= 726439 m; Y= 3584470 m coordinates, FQCS-32 well in
Fauqi oilfield at X=741865 m; Y=3555520 m coordinates , and
HF005-M316 at X=737332.95; Y=3506843.84m coordinates.
When these wells are dotted according to their location on the same
paper, the locations of well according each other are shown in
Figure (5-72).
142
Figure (5-72): Location of AGCS-44, FQCS-32, and HF013-M013.
When the pore pressure gradient of each well plotted versus easting
and northing, the behavior of pore pressure in the area under study
as shown in Figures (5-73) and (5-74).
Figure (5-73): Easting VS Pore pressure gradient.
143
Figure (5-74): Northing VS Pore pressure gradient.
Figures (5-73) and (5-74) proved that, the main reason of pore
pressure increasing after the nature of sedimentation in this area
and the depth of the formation comes from the north, the Taurus
and Zacros Mountains which are the result of the movement of
Arabian plate and its collision with the Eurasian plate (convergence
of two continental plates). This reaction began to fade gradually in
the southern direction forming anticlines and domes turned into oil
traps with the impact of lateral high pressure on their layers. That
impact is represented in the 3D direction and the Z direction
represents the pore pressure gradient for Mb4 member in Lower
Fars formation as shown in Figure (5-75).
144
North
Figure (5-75): Pore pressure gradient with distance in Mb4

member in Lower Fars.
Comparison of this map with the map of Iraqi fields at Figure (1-1),
this direction represents the point of convergence with the
aforementioned collision zone.
 Jeribe-Euphrate formation consists mainly of dolomite intercalated

with anhydrite, shale, and sandstone; while, the Upper Kirkuk
formation is consisted mainly of limestone interspersed with layers of
sandstone, shale, and argillaceous limestone. Sandstone here is poorly
consolidated and poorly sorted[3][4][5], so, they appear as abnormally
low pressure causes a problem of lost circulation while drilling. This
problem handled carefully by using mud weight with lower density
and a cement plug if necessary.
 The results of pore pressure gradient obtained by sonic log (Figures
(5-40): (5-46)) show that, there is an overpressure at the top of Upper
Fras formation. The reason is due to the fact that this zone is consists
145
80% of clay with high water content and 20% of sandstone according
to geological reports of these fields. It is not subjected to a sufficient
overburden pressures; so that, transit time reading is high, giving
unreality increasing in pore pressure. This method is invalid in that
zone and prefers to use dc-exponent method here because it gives
results closer to reality.
 The best method in estimating fracture pressure gradient to avoid

problems that may develop in a formation, and design an optimal
drilling fluid program with right casing seat, is the leak-off test. It is
the only one way that gives exact values of fracture pressure gradient.
However, for economic reasons the empirical methods are the
alternative selection. Every method have a weak point must be taken
into account and they are summarized as follow:
1. Hubbert and Willis method imposes a constant overburden
pressure gradient and constant Poisson’s ratio.
2. Matthews and Kelly method suggest a constant overburden
pressure gradient equal 1.0 psi/ft and the stress ratio used in
formations with high pore pressure is equal the normal pore
pressure in deepest depth.
3. Christman method depends on empirical techniques in estimating
stress ratio.
4. The tectonic stress factor in Daines method is assumed.
5. In Eaton’s method, Poisson’s ratio modeled as a function of depth
for Deep Gulf of Mexico and Shelf (shallow water) formations and
it may be equivalent with the formation under study or not.
Figure (5-76) shows comparison among other methods which selected

to estimate fracture pressure gradient in Hafaya oilfield.
146
Figure (5-76): Fracture pressure gradient in HF010-N010.
The fracture pressure gradient estimated for each well by the best three
selected methods is matching the limited formation integrity test (FIT)
from final well report. That’s mean, the estimated fracture pressure
gradient in this study represents a minimum value that may causing a
fracture in the formation, and the actual fracture pressure gradient should
be higher than the overburden pressure since it is an active tectonic area
147
as referred above. Figure (5-77) shows the comparison of fracture

pressure gradient with FIT in AGCS-39 well.
Figure (5-77): The comparison of fracture pressure gradient

with FIT in AGCS-39 well.
 By follow-up the daily drilling reports[3][4][5] of the mentioned
wells, it is found that, the Lower Fars formation was drilled using
drilling mud with density equal ( 2.26, 2.27, and 2.2) gm/cc for
Abu Ghirab oilfield, Fauqi oilfield, and Halfaya oilfield
respectively, which is matching with the results obtained in Table
(5-5).
148
CHAPTER six
Conclusions and
recommendations
Chapter six Conclusions and recommendations
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6-1 Conclusions
After reviewing the results obtained from this study, the following points
were concluded:
1. The main abnormal pressure formations in this area are;

 Lower Fars formation. Pore pressure gradient value of this formation
varies from one location to another. The causes of abnormally
increasing in pore pressure at Lower Fars formation are the nature of
sedimentation layers in this formation and the external pressures
applied from the vertical and lateral directions. The lateral stresses are
the results of the movement of Arabian plate and its shock with the
Eurasian plate.
 There is an abnormally high pressure appears at khasib and Mishrif
formations in Halfaya oilfield.
 There is an abnormally sub-pressure appear in Jeribe-Euphrate and
Upper Kirkuk formations.
2. The drilling parameter method (dc-exponent) is better than logs

method in estimating pore pressure gradient. The methods that gave
the best results of fracture pressure gradient in this region are Cesaroni
, Eaton, and Christman.
3. The safe mud window in Lower Fars formation is too narrow and the
upper and lower limits of mud are (2.07-2.31), (1.9 - 2.32), and (1.87-
2.4) gm/cc for Abu Ghirab, Fauqi, and Halfaya oilfields respectively.
149
Chapter six Conclusions and recommendations
6-2 Recommendations
1. It is recommended to apply this study on more wells to give a detailed
imagination on the pressure gradient map of each field. It is
recommended as well, to apply this study on all southern-east border
Iraqi oil fields and observe the effect of external influences which
cause the abnormally increment of pore pressure gradient .
2. Estimate the rock’s mechanical properties from laboratory tests should
be done for equivalent rocks from different locations in the same field.
3. At least a one leak-off test should be implemented on each field to
estimate the actual fracture pressure gradient.
4. Estimate the optimum casing seat selection and cement program
designing as a part of building a future complete well construction
using off-set well data.
150
REFERENCES
References
[1] H. Rabia, “Wellbore Pressure,” in Surface Well Control - Theory

and Equipment, 2017, pp. 9–64.
[2] G. V. Chilingar, V. A. Serebryakov, and J. O. Robertson Jr, Origin
and Prediction of Abnormal Formation Pressures. Elsevier, 2002.
[3] BHDC Engineering Company Limited Iraq Branch, “Final Well
Report, Final Geological Repore of Abu Ghirab oilfield,” Missan,
unpublished report, 2015.
[4] China France Bohai Geoservices Co. Ltd, “Final Well Report, Final
Geological Repore of Fauqi oilfield,” Missan, unpublished report,
2015.
[5] PetroChina (Halfaya), “Field Development Plan Revesion No.1 of
Halfaya Contract Area, Iraq,” Missan,unpublished report, 2017.
[6] S. Z. Jassim and J. C. Goff, Geology of Iraq. 2006.
[7] A. K. Hasan, “A Study of Abnormal Formation Pressures
Distribution and Their Effect on Drilling Operation in Middle &
South Iraqi Oil Fields,” MS.C Thesis, University of Baghdad, 2016.
[8] G. W. Montgomery, “Fundamentals of Geology,” ime Mirror High.
Educ. Group, WCB, USA, vol. 3, p. 412, 1997.
[9] N. Jassim, “A Study of Fracture Pressure Gradient for Deep Wells
in southern Iraqi oil fields,” MS.C Thesis, University of Baghdad,
2004.
[10] “formation pressure,” in Drilling Engineering, Department of
Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, 2005.
[11] M. Hubbert and D. Willis, “Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing,” J.
Pet. Technol., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 153–166, 1957.
[12] C. E. Hottmann and R. K. Johnson, “Estimation of Formation
Pressures from Log-Derived Shale Properties,” J. Pet. Technol., vol.
17, no. 06, pp. 717–722, 1965.
[13] J. R. Jorden and O. J. Shirley, “Application of Drilling Performance
Data to Overpressure Detection,” J. Pet. Technol., vol. 18, no. 1, pp.
1387–1394, 1966.
[14] W. Matthews and J. Kelly, “How to Predict Formation Pressure and
Fracture Gradient,” Oil Gas J., 1967.
151
[15] B. A. Eaton, “Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its Application in
Oilfield Operations,” J. Pet. Technol., vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1353–
1360, 1969.
[16] B. Rehm, R. Mcclendon, and M. Aime, “Measurement of
Formation Pressure from Drilling Data,” spe, 1971.
[17] S. A. Christman, “Offshore Fracture Gradients,” J. Pet. Technol.,
vol. 25, no. 08, pp. 910–914, 1973.
[18] B. A. Eaton, “The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well
Logs,” Fall Meet. Soc. Pet. Eng. AIME, 1975.
[19] S. R. Daines, “Prediction of Fracture Pressures for Wildcat Wells,”
J. Pet. Technol., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 863–872, 1982.
[20] I. M. Breckels and H. A. M. van Eekelen, “Relationship Between
Horizontal Stress and Depth in Sedimentary Basins,” J. Pet.
Technol., vol. 34, no. 09, pp. 2191–2199, 1982.
[21] R. C. Ransom, “A Method for Calculating Pore Pressure From Well
Log,” LOG Anal., pp. 72–76, 1986.
[22] T. S. Proehl, “Pore Pressures, Fracture Gradients, and Drilling
Economics,” Proc. SPE/IADC Drill. Conf., pp. 563–571, 1994.
[23] R. K. Abbas, “Pridiction of Abnormal Formation Pressures in
Southern Iraq,” MS.C Thesis, university of baghdad, 1996.
[24] A. Draou and S. O. Osisanya, “New Methods for Estimating of
Formation Pressures and Fracture Gradients from Well Logs,” spe,
2000.
[25] X. Xie, J. J. Jiao, and Z. Tang, “Evolution of Abnormally Low
Pressure and its Implications for the Hydrocarbon System in the
Southeast Uplift Zone of Songliao Basin, China,” Am. Assoc. Pet.
Geol. Bull., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 99–119, 2003.
[26] J. S. Foshee, “The Development of a Pore Pressure and Fracture
Gradient Prediction Model for the Ewing Banks 910 Area in the
Gulf of Mexico,” MS.C Thesis, Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2009.
[27] S. Stunes, “Methods of Pore Pressure Detection from Real-time
Drilling Data,” MS.C Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, 2012.
[28] M. Azadpour and N. S. Manaman, “Determination of Pore Pressure
152
from Sonic Log : a Case Study on One of Iran Carbonate Reservoir
Rocks,” Iran. J. Oil Gas Sci. Technol., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 37–50,
2015.
[29] F. Khoshnaw, P. Jaf, and S. Farkha, “Pore , Abnormal Formation
and Fracture Pressures Prediction,” Int. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. Res.,
vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 51–59, 2015.
[30] Z. Nie, H. Luo, Z. Zhang, and Y. Chen, “Challenges and
Countermeasures of Directional Drilling Through Abnormal High
Pressure Salt / Anhydrite / Calystone Layer in HFY Oilfield of Iraq
, A Case Study,” Soc. Pet. Eng., 2016.
[31] K. . Elowe and K. . Sherwood, “Abnormal Formation Pressure in
the Chukchi Shelf , Alaska,” Am. Rock Mech. Assoc., 2017.
[32] N. Soufi, Shale Pressure Measurements Methods. NTNU, 2009.
[33] A. Bourgoyne Jr., K. Millheim, M. Chenevert, and F. Young Jr.,
“Formation Pore Pressure and Fracture Resistance,” in Applied
Drilling Engineering, 1991, pp. 246–299.
[34] Paradigm, “Geolog 7.4 - Pore Pressure Prediction User Guide,”
Paradig. 15.5, 2015.
[35] Paradigm, “geolog software 8.0.” .
[36] G. H. F. Gardner, L. W. Gardner, and A. R. Gregory, “Formation
Velocity and Density- The Diagnostic Basics for Stratigraphic
traps,” Geophysics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 770–780, 1974.
[37] P. Bellotti, V. Di Lorenzo, and D. Giacca, “Overburden Gradient
from Sonic Log Trans,” SPWLA, 1979.
[38] R. O. Lindseth, “Synthetic Sonic Logs – a Process for Stratigraphic
Interpretation,” Geophysics, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 3–26, 1979.
[39] M. Bingham, “A New Approach to Interpreting Rock Drillability,”
pp. 62, 46, 173–179, 1964.
[40] G. V. Chilingar, V. A. Serebryakov, and J. O. Robertson JR,
“SEISMIC METHODS OF PRESSURE PREDICTION,” in Origin
and Prediction of Abnormal Formation Pressure, 2002, pp. 169–
188.
[41] H. Rabia, “Formation Integrity Test,” in Surface Well Control -
Theory and Equipment, 2017, pp. 181–204.
153
[42] R. Cesaroni, D. Giacca, E. Possamai, and A. Schenato, “Experience
in Overpressure Detection and Evaluation in the Mediterranean
Offshore,” IEOC, Cairo, 1982.
[43] D. C. Woodland, “Borehole Instability in the Western Canadian
Overthrust Belt,” SPE Drill. Enineering, pp. 27–33, 1990.
[44] N. Mohammed, S. Maki, A. Hasan, S. Mahmood, and E. Rhida,
“Well Bore Instability at Shale Section,” Petroleum Research and
Development Center , Baghdad.
[45] ISRM, Terminology (English, French, German). Lizbon: ISRM,
1975.
[46] H. Ã. Gercek, “Poisson’s Ratio Values for Rocks,” Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci., vol. 44, pp. 1–13, 2007.
[47] M. L. Greenberg and J. P. Castagna, “Shear-Wave Velocity
Estimation in Porous Rocks: Theoretical Formulation, Preliminary
verification and Applications,” Geophys. Prospect., vol. 40, no. 2,
pp. 195–209, 1992.
[48] “IP Software.”
[49] P. Horsrud, “Estimating Mechanical Properties of Shale From
Empirical Correlations,” SPE Drill. Complet., vol. 16, no. 02, pp.
68–73, 2001.
[50] M. Lal, “Shale Stability: Drilling Fluid Interaction and Shale
Strength,” SPE Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf. Exhib., 1999.
154
APPENDIX A
Table (A-1):measured and estimated
ρb by different methods
AGCS-39
DEPTH ρb RhoAgip RhoGard RhoLind
3.980507 3.668259 4.40739 % error
M gm/cc gm/cc gm/cc gm/cc
2867.6 2.014 2.2572 2.3547 2.2419
2871.2 2.008 2.3032 2.3819 2.2871
2894.2 2.954 2.7236 2.7418 2.7001
2921.5 2.816 .7443 2.7679 2.7204
2938.1 2.865 2.7425 2.7656 2.7187
2958 2.814 2.7651 2.7955 2.7409
2976.4 2.837 2.6348 2.6421 2.6129
2997.9 2.711 2.6081 2.6155 2.5867
2999 2.667 2.6844 2.6956 2.6616
3014 2.552 2.601 2.6087 2.5797
3035.2 2.736 2.6946 2.7072 2.6716
3050.8 2.669 2.6591 2.6676 2.6367
3070.4 2.615 2.6396 2.6471 2.6176
3088.7 2.422 2.3894 2.4376 2.3717
3109.5 2.617 2.3776 2.4296 2.3602
3122.6 2.579 2.4188 2.4581 2.4007
3135.8 2.686 2.4963 2.5168 2.4768
3139.8 2.594 2.4633 2.4909 2.4443
3148.9 2.4 2.3976 2.4432 2.3798
3151 2.278 2.341 2.4056 2.3242
155
Table (A-2):mechanical properties of rocks and
RHO data for AGCS-39
AGCS-39/ Lower Fars formation
DEPTH RHOB POIS STREN_TENS UCS COF_INTERNAL
M US/Ft US/Ft gm/cc - psi psi -
2218.041 78.8562 141.5686 2.4407 0.27508 586.6662 5866.662 0.7287
2240.52 67.538 118.5745 2.5371 0.25989 923.7274 9237.274 0.8268
2255.15 77.1491 137.4094 2.4541 0.269827 625.5192 6255.192 0.7423
2271.762 53.3869 92.5405 2.6907 0.25058 1839.655 18396.55 0.9854
2287.23 75.1444 134.3145 2.4703 0.272196 675.683 6756.83 0.7587
2299.727 54.5332 94.609 2.6765 0.251224 1728.635 17286.35 0.9706
2305.67 99.5488 198.451 2.3026 0.33188 296.3975 2963.975 0.5892
2314.129 55.3783 96.1797 2.6662 0.252032 1652.476 16524.76 0.9599
2327.083 98.238 192.5854 2.3102 0.324139 308.1351 3081.351 0.5969
2341.561 98.068 194.6746 2.3112 0.329967 309.7027 3097.027 0.5979
2365.564 93.9692 181.5136 2.336 0.31693 350.972 3509.72 0.6229
2375.622 62.4767 109.45 2.587 0.258336 1160.556 11605.56 0.878
2382.632 94.2693 182.5255 2.3342 0.318111 347.7083 3477.084 0.621
2411.741 76.5012 136.8747 2.4593 0.272849 641.1685 6411.686 0.7475
2462.033 58.2082 101.1677 2.6332 0.252568 1427.961 14279.61 0.9257
2549.511 112.6706 237.7006 2.2324 0.355107 206.2125 2062.125 0.5184
2619.31 67.9042 119.9102 2.5337 0.263963 909.2074 9092.074 0.8233
2685.299 99.5991 192.1961 2.3023 0.316428 295.9591 2959.591 0.5889
2728.047 106.2619 219.0196 2.2653 0.346071 244.8126 2448.126 0.5516
2829.622 104.7555 214.1694 2.2734 0.34276 255.2713 2552.713 0.5598
2898.888 80.4203 146.7897 2.4288 0.28556 553.8583 5538.583 0.7166
2900.259 88.6011 169.1381 2.3707 0.310908 416.988 4169.88 0.6578
2903.612 63.3253 110.9219 2.5783 0.258241 1115.575 11155.75 0.8691
2908.032 52.4974 91.0666 2.7021 0.251138 1932.486 19324.86 0.9973
2909.022 52.6666 91.6789 2.6999 0.253716 1914.352 19143.52 0.995
2909.098 52.6617 91.6863 2.6999 0.253844 1914.874 19148.73 0.9951
2909.784 52.5076 91.5253 2.7019 0.254704 1931.387 19313.86 0.9971
2909.86 52.4956 91.577 2.7021 0.255283 1932.68 19326.8 0.9973
2910.013 52.4812 91.7022 2.7023 0.256475 1934.234 19342.34 0.9975
2911.613 52.6926 91.8818 2.6995 0.254974 1911.585 19115.85 0.9947
2913.213 54.6515 95.2325 2.675 0.254475 1717.695 17176.95 0.9691
2916.642 53.2637 93.0359 2.6923 0.256213 1852.151 18521.51 0.9871
2925.71 68.5612 121.0454 2.5276 0.263819 883.9147 8839.147 0.8171
2928.606 69.3137 122.5407 2.5207 0.264764 856.0916 8560.915 0.8101
2943.998 70.3912 124.461 2.511 0.264849 818.2601 8182.601 0.8002
2944.303 71.6597 126.8237 2.4998 0.265502 776.541 7765.41 0.7888
2953.37 78.404 139.2091 2.4442 0.267715 596.6356 5966.356 0.7323
156
DEPTH RHOB POIS STREN_TENS UCS COF_INTERNAL
m US/Ft US/Ft gm/cc psi psi
2232.6 65.919 114.8912 2.5526 0.254632 991.7885 9917.884 0.8426
2242.1 57.433 100.0415 2.642 0.254197 1485.173 14851.73 0.9348
2268 76.689 137.2835 2.4578 0.273199 636.5788 6365.788 0.746
2281.3 55.176 95.9455 2.6686 0.252936 1670.29 16702.9 0.9624
2332.8 61.129 106.4552 2.6012 0.25403 1237.13 12371.3 0.8926
2369.7 101.674 203.0907 2.2905 0.332769 278.6089 2786.089 0.5769
2414.9 60.349 105.9547 2.6095 0.259902 1284.567 12845.67 0.9012
2443.1 106.852 211.8512 2.2622 0.329406 240.8723 2408.723 0.5484
2479.6 79.892 144.4344 2.4328 0.27958 564.658 5646.58 0.7206
2492.2 96.26 187.9435 2.322 0.322196 327.0572 3270.572 0.6087
2561.4 119.087 257.7663 2.2017 0.36432 175.3225 1753.225 0.4874
2586.5 57.738 101.1126 2.6385 0.258082 1462.303 14623.03 0.9312
2613 52.726 92.5192 2.6991 0.259503 1908.039 19080.39 0.9942
2642.2 67.92 119.9842 2.5335 0.264229 908.5879 9085.879 0.8232
2656.4 115.102 234.2901 2.2205 0.340929 193.7079 1937.079 0.5064
2671.7 110.009 222.0569 2.2458 0.337371 221.1747 2211.747 0.5319
2712.2 57.417 100.2625 2.6422 0.256011 1486.386 14863.86 0.935
2727.4 121.667 272.0988 2.19 0.375049 164.6508 1646.508 0.4755
2751.5 55.319 96.823 2.6669 0.257685 1657.671 16576.71 0.9606
2801.8 64.211 112.7913 2.5694 0.260255 1071.086 10710.86 0.8599
2845 77.534 139.5736 2.4511 0.276843 616.4645 6164.645 0.7392
2877.9 69.093 122.1619 2.5227 0.264828 864.1285 8641.285 0.8121
2883.4 68.587 121.2234 2.5274 0.264578 882.9409 8829.408 0.8169
2891.7 67.087 118.4524 2.5414 0.263876 942.0408 9420.407 0.8312
2902.5 67.058 118.4552 2.5416 0.264193 943.2349 9432.35 0.8315
2902.6 67.06 118.4588 2.5416 0.264193 943.1525 9431.525 0.8314
157
DEPTH DT DTs RHOB POIS STREN_TENS UCS COF_INTERNAL
2144.6 67.352 117.9351 2.5389 0.257997 931.222 9312.22 0.8286
2182.3 75.681 135.2258 2.4659 0.271961 661.7419 6617.419 0.7543
2213.8 58.149 101.1273 2.6339 0.253024 1432.225 14322.25 0.9263
2235.9 54.45 92.429 2.6775 0.234257 1736.386 17363.86 0.9717
2263.5 76.936 138.5422 2.4558 0.277053 630.6094 6306.094 0.744
2285.7 91.22 174.1281 2.3535 0.31088 382.8743 3828.742 0.6404
2316.9 58.325 101.9301 2.6319 0.256595 1419.599 14195.99 0.9243
2339.8 85.103 157.3787 2.3946 0.293372 469.2255 4692.255 0.682
2358.2 99.32 194.1743 2.3039 0.322831 298.4025 2984.025 0.5905
2381.5 89.326 169.0719 2.3658 0.30639 407.1505 4071.504 0.6529
2411.1 54.294 94.5799 2.6794 0.254245 1751.045 17510.45 0.9737
2443.6 96.099 184.4056 2.323 0.313588 328.6653 3286.653 0.6097
2460.2 74.149 131.9776 2.4786 0.269376 702.6055 7026.054 0.7671
2485.6 92.916 177.656 2.3426 0.311731 362.7563 3627.562 0.6295
2519.6 62.168 108.7842 2.5902 0.257511 1177.522 11775.22 0.8813
2580.3 74.729 132.868 2.4737 0.268655 686.7472 6867.472 0.7622
2626.7 64.491 113.6068 2.5666 0.262268 1057.518 10575.18 0.857
2656.2 111.839 229.657 2.2366 0.344561 210.7375 2107.375 0.5226
2716.3 69.152 122.0692 2.5222 0.263709 861.97 8619.7 0.8116
2745.8 54.59 94.8369 2.6758 0.252238 1723.371 17233.71 0.9699
2765.4 92.464 175.4644 2.3455 0.307772 367.9766 3679.767 0.6324
2785.1 53.97 94.0984 2.6834 0.25489 1782.024 17820.24 0.9778
2808.8 97.813 192.3865 2.3128 0.3257 312.0743 3120.743 0.5994
2854.9 58.545 102.5673 2.6294 0.258372 1404.026 14040.26 0.9217
2873.3 68.275 120.6711 2.5302 0.264573 894.8151 8948.15 0.8198
2874 68.371 120.846 2.5294 0.264603 891.1386 8911.387 0.8189
2875.3 68.189 120.5145 2.531 0.264546 898.1255 8981.256 0.8206
158
RHO data for FQCN-37
FQCN-37/ Lower Fars formation
DEPTH DT DTs RHOB POIS STREN_TENS UCS COF_INTERNAL
2218.041 78.8562 141.5686 2.4407 0.27508 1505.263 15052.63 0.7287
2245.244 76.7103 136.7236 2.4576 0.270297 1560.152 15601.52 0.7458
2279.077 70.3154 123.9633 2.5117 0.262812 1743.592 17435.92 0.8009
2313.519 52.5136 91.6635 2.7018 0.255721 2489.535 24895.35 0.9971
2357.791 67.1698 117.9899 2.5406 0.260262 1846.641 18466.4 0.8304
2391.548 85.5528 159.9782 2.3915 0.299732 1351.678 13516.78 0.6789
2421.342 87.5709 162.2056 2.3776 0.294318 1310 13100 0.6648
2441.688 98.8146 194.6936 2.3069 0.326512 1108.955 11089.55 0.5935
2462.262 58.3079 101.1938 2.6321 0.251489 2196.738 21967.38 0.9245
2498.38 90.2131 169.0298 2.36 0.300848 1258.251 12582.51 0.647
2524.365 92.0919 174.7579 2.3479 0.307771 1223.26 12232.6 0.6348
2542.348 64.8312 114.0455 2.5632 0.261278 1929.733 19297.33 0.8535
2563.607 97.1039 187.9581 2.317 0.317963 1136.541 11365.41 0.6036
2581.362 105.6013 217.5828 2.2689 0.345932 1008.324 10083.24 0.5552
2595.84 69.3767 122.5831 2.5201 0.264374 1773.365 17733.65 0.8095
2611.994 68.8212 121.502 2.5252 0.263805 1791.367 17913.67 0.8147
2671.888 59.2854 103.4327 2.6211 0.255361 2152.986 21529.86 0.9132
2705.873 107.2596 220.6429 2.2601 0.345279 985.6711 9856.71 0.5463
2733.076 85.7477 158.7008 2.3901 0.29385 1347.567 13475.67 0.6775
2761.423 100.7813 197.105 2.2955 0.323011 1078.399 10783.99 0.582
2815.525 52.4065 91.2586 2.7032 0.253978 2495.556 24955.56 0.9985
2839.451 68.3455 120.685 2.5296 0.263937 1807.015 18070.15 0.8191
2898.049 57.8592 100.4022 2.6371 0.251394 2217.317 22173.17 0.9298
2905.593 53.734 93.9877 2.6864 0.257217 2422.617 24226.16 0.9809
2931.044 70.1482 124.056 2.5132 0.264986 1748.836 17488.36 0.8024
2952.532 72.8893 129.0951 2.4892 0.266009 1665.888 16658.88 0.7779
2953.37 78.404 139.2091 2.4442 0.267715 1516.58 15165.8 0.7323
2953.447 78.404 139.2091 2.4442 0.267715 1516.58 15165.8 0.7323
159
‫اػطذ ٔزبئظ رذسط اٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ رظ‪ٛ‬سا ؽ‪ٛ‬ي ر‪ٛ‬صٌغ رذسط اٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ ػٕذ رى‪ٌٓٛ‬‬
‫اٌفبسط االسفً (‪ (Lower Fars‬فً ٘زٖ إٌّطمخ ‪ٚ ،‬رُ اصجزبد أْ اٌؼغؾ ٌضادا فً إٌّبؽك‬
‫اٌمشٌجخ ِٓ ٔمطخ رظبدَ اٌظفٍؾٗ اٌؼشثٍٗ ِغ اٌظفٍؾٗ اال‪ٚ‬ساسٍٗ‪.‬‬
‫رُ رمذٌش رذسط ػغؾ اٌىسش ثبسزخذاَ صّبٍٔخ ؽشق ً٘‪Huubert and willis, Cesaroni , :‬‬
‫‪Cesaroni II, Cesaroni‬‬ ‫‪III, Eaton, Daines, Matthews and Kelly and‬‬
‫‪ Christman.‬إْ أفؼً اٌطشق اٌزً اػطذ رطبثمب عٍذا ِغ اٌذساسبد اٌسبثمخ ً٘‬
‫‪. CesaroniI, Eaton, Christman‬‬
‫رّضٍذ اٌّؾظٍٗ إٌ‪ٙ‬بئٍخ ٌ‪ٙ‬زٖ اٌذساسخ فً رظٍُّ ثشٔبِظ ؽٍٓ اٌؾفش األِضً ‪ٚ‬آَِ ٌؾفشرى‪ٌٓٛ‬‬
‫اٌفبسط االسفً )‪, (Lower Fars‬اٌزي ٌؼزجش ؽجمٗ غٍش ِسزمشٖ‪ٌ ,‬زّضً ثبٌؾذ‪ٚ‬د اٌذٍٔب ‪ٚ‬اٌؼٍٍب‬
‫ٌ‪ٛ‬صْ اٌطٍٓ اٌّسّ‪ٛ‬ػ ثٗ ٌىً ؽمً اػزّبدا ػٍى اٌخظبئض اٌٍّىبٍٔىٍخ ٌٍظخ‪ٛ‬س ‪ٚ‬اٌؼغ‪ٛ‬ؽ‬
‫اٌّؾٍطٗ ‪ٚ‬إٌزٍغخ ً٘ ٔبفزح ؽٍٍٕخ ػٍمخ ٌٍغبٌخ ِسّ‪ٛ‬ػ ث‪ٙ‬ب‪.‬‬
‫الخالصه‬
‫فً اٌظٕبػخ اٌجزش‪ٌٍٚ‬خ ‪ ،‬رشىً اٌّؼشفخ اٌّجىشح ي "رذسط اٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ" األسبط فً رظٍُّ‬
‫االثبس‪ِٕ .‬ز رٌه اٌؾٍٓ ‪ٌ ،‬ؼزّذ رظٍُّ وضبفخ ؽٍٓ اٌؾفش ‪ٚ‬اخزٍبس ِغّ‪ٛ‬ػخ اٌغالف ‪ٚ‬رظٍُّ‬
‫ثشٔبِظ األسّٕذ ػٍى رٍه اٌمٍّخ ؛ ٌى‪ ْٛ‬اسزخالص ٘زٖ اٌّؼٍ‪ِٛ‬بد فً رظٍُّ اٌجئش ثظ‪ٛ‬سح‬
‫ِجبششٖ اوضش ػٕذِب ٌى‪ ْٛ‬رذسط اٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ ِسب‪ٌٚ‬ب ٌٍزذسط اٌطجٍؼً‪ِٚ .‬غ رٌه ‪ ،‬سزى‪٘ ْٛ‬زٖ‬
‫اٌّسأٌخ أوضش رؼمٍذا إرا أؾشفذ ٘زٖ اٌمٍّٗ ػٓ اٌؾذ اٌطجٍؼً‪.‬‬
‫إْ أؾشاف رذسط ػغؾ اٌّسبَ ثؼٍذا (ف‪ٛ‬ق أ‪ ٚ‬رؾذ) رذسط اٌؼغؾ اٌ‪ٍٙ‬ذس‪ٚ‬سزبرً ٌسّى‬
‫"اٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ غٍش اٌطجٍؼً" ‪ ،‬إرا ٌُ ٌزُ ‪ٚ‬ػغ ٘زا اٌّزغٍش فً ٔظش االػزجبس ‪ ،‬ػٕذ٘ب‬
‫سٍؾذس اٌؼذٌذ ِٓ ِشبوً اٌؾفش لذ ٌؤدي إٌى فمذاْ وبًِ ٌٍجئش ؛ ِضبي ػٍى رٌه‪ِ،‬شىٍخ اٌشفسٗ‪،‬‬
‫فمذاْ د‪ٚ‬سح سبئً اٌؾفش‪ ،‬اسزؼظبء االٔبثٍت‪ ،‬أ‪ٍٙ‬بس اٌغذاس‪ ،‬ػذَ اسزمشاس اٌجئش‪ ،‬اٌخ ‪....‬‬
‫ٌزمذٌش رذسط اٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ ٕ٘بن ػذح ؽشق ‪ ،‬فً ٘زٖ اٌذساسخ ؛ رُ اخزٍبس ؽشٌمخ إٌز‪ْٛ‬‬
‫ٌزخٍّٓ ثشاِظ اٌؼغ‪ٛ‬ؽ اٌزؾذ سطؾٍٗ ثبسزخذاَ ثٍبٔبد اٌؾفش (‪ٚ )d-exponent‬ثٍبٔبد‬
‫اٌسغالد (سغً اٌظ‪ٛ‬د ‪ٚ‬اٌىضبفخ)‪.‬‬
‫رغطً ٘زٖ اٌذساسخ صالصخ ؽم‪ٛ‬ي ِٓ ؽم‪ٛ‬ي ٔفؾ ٍِسبْ (أث‪ ٛ‬غشة ‪ ،‬فىٗ ‪ ،‬اٌؾٍفبٌب) رمغ ثبٌمشة ِٓ‬
‫اٌؾذ‪ٚ‬د اٌغٕ‪ٛ‬ة ششلٍخ ٌٍؼشاق ‪ٚ‬ثٍبٔبد صالصخ آثبس ٌىً ؽمً ‪AGCS-42 ،AGCS-39 :ً٘ٚ‬‬
‫‪HF010- , HF005-M316 ,FQCN-37 , FQCS-33 , FQCS-32 ,AGCS-44,‬‬
‫‪.HF013-M013 ٚ, N010‬‬
‫اظ‪ٙ‬شد إٌزبئظ أٔٗ ٌ‪ٛ‬ؽع اسرفبع اٌؼغؾ ثشىً غٍش ؽجٍؼً فً رى‪ ٌٓٛ‬اٌفبسط االسفً )‪Lower‬‬
‫‪ (Fars‬اٌزي ٌجذأ ِٓ إٌّطمٗ ‪ Mb5‬وّٕطمخ أزمبٌٍخ ‪ٌٚ‬ضداد رذسٌغٍب ؽزى ٌظً إٌى إٌّطمٗ‬
‫‪ٌٚ Mb4‬سزّش إٌى ‪ Mb2 ٚ Mb3‬اٌزً رؼزجش ِٕطمخ اٌؼغؾ اٌؼبًٌ صُ ٌجذأ ثبالٔخفبع ِٓ‬
‫‪ Mb1‬اٌزً رؼزجش ِٕطمخ االٔزمبي ثٍٓ ِٕطمخ اٌؼغؾ اٌّشرفغ ‪ِٕٚ‬طمخ اٌؼغؾ إٌّخفغ اٌّزّضً‬
‫ثزى‪ ًٌٕٛ‬عٍشٌجً ‪ٚ‬وشو‪ٛ‬ن االػٍى ( ‪ٌٚ (Upper Kirkuk, Jeribe-Euphrate‬ؼ‪ٛ‬دح إٌى ػغؾ‬
‫اٌّسبًِ اٌطجٍؼً ػٕذ رى‪ .Middle-Lower Kirkuk ٌٓٛ‬فً ؽمً ؽٍفبٌب إٌفطً رُ ِالؽظخ‬
‫‪ٚ‬ع‪ٛ‬د ػغؾ ػبًٌ غٍش ؽجٍؼً فً رى‪ ٌٓٛ‬سؼذي ‪ٚ‬اٌخظٍت ‪ ٚ‬اٌّششف ثبإلػبفخ إٌى اٌؼغؾ‬
‫اٌؼبًٌ غٍش اٌطجٍؼً فً رى‪ ٌٓٛ‬اٌفبسط االسفً‪ .‬رُ اخزٍبسؽشٌمخ ثٍبٔبد اٌؾفش وأفؼً ؽشٌمخ فً‬
‫ؽسبة رذسط اٌؼغؾ اٌّسبًِ ِمبسٔخ ثطشق ثٍبٔبد اٌسغالد‪.‬‬
‫تم انجاز هذاالبحث بالتعاقد مع مركز‬
‫البحث والتطوير النفطي‬
‫عبِؼخ ثغذاد‬
‫وٍٍخ اٌ‪ٕٙ‬ذسٗ‬
‫لسُ ٕ٘ذسخ إٌفؾ‬
‫تقدير تأثير الضغط المسامي غير الطبيعي على‬

‫عمليات الحفر‪ /‬مىطقة الدراسه‪ :‬الحقول الىفطيه‬
‫الشرقيه لميسان‬
‫سسبٌخ‬
‫ِمذِخ اٌى وٍٍخ اٌ‪ٕٙ‬ذسٗ ‪ -‬عبِؼخ ثغذاد‬
‫‪ ً٘ٚ‬عضء ِٓ ِزطٍجبد ًٍٔ دسعخ اٌّبعسزٍش‬
‫فً ػٍ‪ٕ٘ َٛ‬ذسخ إٌفؾ‬
‫ِٓ لجً‬
‫وعم فائق حسيه‬
‫(ثىٍ‪ٛ‬سٌ‪ٛ‬ط ٕ٘ذسخ ٔفؾ ‪)2012‬‬
‫ثأششاف‬
‫أ‪.َ.‬د‪ .‬فبٌؼ ؽسٓ دمحم اٌّ‪ٙ‬ذا‪ٚ‬ي‬
‫‪َ ٨٤٠٢‬‬ ‫‪۱٤٤٤‬ﮬ‬

Estimation The Effect of Abnormal Pore Pressure On Drilling Operations/ Case Study: Eastern Missan Oil Fields

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimation The Effect of Abnormal Pore Pressure On Drilling Operations/ Case Study: Eastern Missan Oil Fields

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Baghdad

Estimation the Effect of Abnormal Pore

NEAAM FAIK HUSSAIN

ASST. PROF. Dr. FALEH H. M. ALMAHDAWI

2018 A.C. 1400 A.H

‫اٌطشف األ‪ٚ‬ي ‪ٚ:‬صاسح إٌفؾ ‪ِ /‬شوض اٌجؾش ‪ٚ‬اٌزط‪ٌٛ‬ش إٌفطً‪.‬‬

‫اٌطشف اٌضبًٔ ‪:‬عبِؼخ ثغذاد ‪/‬وٍٍخ اٌ‪ٕٙ‬ذسخ‪ /‬لسُ ٕ٘ذسخ إٌفؾ‪.‬‬

‫ِٓ خالي سسبٌخ ؽبٌت اٌّبعسزٍش ( ٔؼُ فبئك ؽسٍٓ) ‪ ٚ‬اٌّ‪ٛ‬س‪ِٛ‬خ‪:‬‬

‫ثؼذ اسزؾظبي ِ‪ٛ‬افمخ اٌطشف اال‪ٚ‬ي‪.‬‬

To a woman who taught me sacrifice and tenderness,

To my soul mate, my husband Osama, you complete

Symbols Description unit

STREN_TENS Tensile strength psi

The general meaning of pore pressure (or so-called formation pressure)

In worldwide oil fields, the problem of abnormal pore pressure is

1-2 Area of Case Study

1-2-1 Fields under study

Abu Ghirab oilfield located in the Missan governorate in southeastern

Fauqi oilfield is located in the Missan governorate in southeastern Iraq

the production and currently the pressure coefficient is about 1.05

3D seismic acquisition was started in November 2010 and completed in

1-2-2 Formations under study

1-2-2.1 Abu Ghirab oilfield, Fauqi oilfield

Figure (1-2): Stratigraphic column of Abu Ghirab oilfield and Fauqi

1-2-2.2 Halfaya oilfield

Figure (1-3) shows the stratigraphic column of Halfaya oilfield under

Figure (1-3): Stratigraphic column of Halfaya oilfield[5].

Lower Fars Formation

1-2-3 Oil wells

Table (1-1): Oil wells.

Field name Well name Interval depth (m)

Abu-Ghirab oilfield AGCS-39 200 - 3166

AGCS-42 200 - 3226

AGCS-44 200 - 3219

Fauqi oilfield FQCS-32 200 - 3211

FQCS-33 200 - 3209

FQCN-37 200 - 3248

Halfaya oilfield HF005-M316 13 - 3740

1-2-3.1 Abu Ghirab oilfield

It is a vertical, development producer oil well located at x= 727064m; y=

It is vertical, development producer oil well located at X= 728426m; Y=

It is a vertical, development producer oil well located X= 726439 m; Y=

Figure (1-4): AGCS-44, AGCS-42, and AGCS-39 locations on top of

1-2-3.2 Fauqi oilfield

It is a vertical, producer oil well. It is located at X=741865 m;

It is a vertical, development oil well. It is located at X= 743514.50 m; Y=

It is a vertical, producer oil well. It is located at X= 738067 m; Y=

Figure (1-5): FQCS-32 and FQCS-33 locations on top of Asmari

Figure (1-6): FQCN-37 location on top of Asmari reservoir in the

1-2-3.3 Halfaya oilfield

The Well HF005-M316 was proposed as a vertical development well to

It is a vertical Appraisal Well located on the northern side of Halfaya

The Well HF013-M013 was planned as a vertical development well to

1-3 Problem statement

The abnormal pressure formation has impact on drilling operations,

The main objectives of this study are;

 To determine formation pressure using dc-exponent, sonic, and

The variety of hydraulic and tectonic phenomena in the

While drilling, there are three types of pressures will be faced,

Researchers who’s dealt with this part of theoretical examination as

M. Hubbert and D. Willis (1957) studied the mechanics of hydraulic

of Poisson In their study they considered that the Poisson’s ratio is a

C. E. Hottmann and R. K. Johnson (1965) were the first researchers