Pore-Pressure and Fracture-Gradient Predictions

Marc Lesage, SPE, Anadrill Engineering, and Peter Hall, .John R.A. Pearson, SPE, and Marc .J. Thlercelln, SPE,
Schlumberger Cambridge Research

Introduction
Drillers must, as far as possible, avoid kicks, wellbore instability, and loss of circulation through fractures, usually by selecting an appropriate mud weight. Knowledge of formation pore pressure and fracture gradient is essential for selection of a safe range of mud weights. If the mud pressure (mud weight times the vertical depth) falls below the local pore pressure in a highly permeable formation, then a kick is taken; if this happens in a soft but essentially impermeable formatiQn, the well may collapse. This consideration provides a lower limit on mud weight in terms of safety, although in many cases drillers will drill underbalanced to increase rate of penetration (ROP). If the mud pressure exceeds the local tensile breakdown pressure for the formation (fracture gradient times vertical depth), a fracture is formed. With loss of circulation, the fracture propagates if the mud pressure exceeds the minimum horizontal earth stress (more accurately, the least principal stress). This provides an upper limit on mud weight. Normally, the horizontal stresses are significantly larger than the pore pressure, so a suitable safe range of mud weight usually can be found, even though potential shear failure of the wellbore provides other constraints on mud weight, especially in highly deviated wells. Clearly, abnormally high pore pressures or weak formations present potential problems for drillers. Abnormally high or low earth stresses also can lead to unexpected difficulties.

"Clearly, abnormally high pore pressures or weak formations present potential problems for drillers."

Pore Prur.
In normal situations, pore fluids are assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium all the way from the surface to the depth attained. Apart from some uncertainty in pore-fluid density, this provides a simple prediction of the pore pressure (Le., for a water density of 9 Ibm/gal, the gradient will be 0.47 psi/ft) that will always lie below a realistic mud pressure gradient, because the mud will be more dense than water. In abnormal situations, however, pore fluids will not be in equilibrium hydrostatic
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers

contact with the surface, such as when a caprock provides a totally impermeable barrier isolating fluids beneath it or when relatively impermeable sedimentary rocks have not reached pore-pressure equilibrium. In such cases, pore pressures often are abnormally high and can exceed what otherwise are safe mud pressures. Drillers need warning of this situation. On what can they base their estimates of pore pressure? Clearly, periodic direct measurements are desirable. These'measurements are possible in sufficiently permeable formations where a wireline tool (e.g., a Formation TesterSM tool) can be placed in hydrostatic contact with the formation pore fluid long enough to reach pressure equilibrium. Well-testing techniques can be used to interpret the pressure transients sensed before full pressure equilibrium is reached, thereby speeding up the testing process. However, this technique. is not carried out during drilling. It clearly lacks accuracy in low-permeability formations,. especially when the pore fluid is multiphase. Additional direct information is provided when minor kicks are taken, particularly during tripping into or out of the hole. The formation pore pressure is roughly equal to the pressure of the mud adjacent to the formation from which the kick was taken (although deciding where this occurred takes some care). Strictly speaking, this provides only a lower bound on the pore pressure; in certain tight gas sands, for example, large overpressures can be sustained during drilling. The mud weight used to kill a kick may be several pounds per gallon greater than the pore pressure, and so using this system as a measure may result in a significant overestimation of pore pressure. More generally, the driller can use experience with what leads to overpressuring and indicators of its occurrence. These indicators are lithology-dependent and often are based on formation physical behavior (sonic, nuclear, electrical) measured by wireline logs. See Refs. 1 through 3 for discussions of overpressure and its causes: undercompaction, dehydration of gypsum, clay diagenesis or osmosis, gas generation, aquathermal expansion, or tectonic stresses.
June 1991 JPT

652

sPETechoology

Today

SERIES

Breakdown pressure

Propagation pressure

I'i~reISIP
Pore pressure

Flow rate

--..

Time
Fig. 1-Bottomhole pressure (BHP) and pump flow rate vs. time In a typical mlnlfracture. The Instantaneous shut-In prassure (ISIP) Is an upper bound to the minimum principal In-situ stress.

"The driller's greatest need, however, Is for reliable Indications of overpressure that are available during drilling."

The driller's greatest need, however, is for reliable indications of overpressure that are available during drilling. Drilling behavior, expressed in terms of the drilling parameters (ROP and torque for given weight on bit and drill rotation rate) is a good guide for determining overpressure in Tertiary shales (particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, where many overpressuring problems arise). In simple terms, overpressured shales tend to have higher porosity and to drill faster than shales that are not overpressured. Current improvements in downhole measurement and data transmission while drilling have allowed a continuous, real-time log of pore pressure to be provided at the surface on the basis of drilling parameters measured near the bit. These logs are updated as cuttings (with associated gas) reach the surface and can be analyzed immediately with mud logging data or, later, when formation data (resistivity, gamma ray, neutron porosity) measured with tools farther up the drillstring from the bit/rock interface become available. (See Ref. 4 for details.) Quantitative predictions require precise field calibration. Unfortunately, these methods are not univerJPT June 1991

sally applicable, so better, more robust techniques for on-line monitoring of pore pressure, including early detection and analysis of kicks, are still needed.

Fracture Gradient
Fracture gradient can be estimated directly with pressure records obtained during leakoff or rninifracture tests. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the breakdown (or initiation) pressure is a direct measurement of the fracture gradient, and the closure stress is the minimal earth stress. The difference between the breakdown and closure stresses is the stress needed to overcome any additional hoop stress at the wall plus the tensile strength of the formation rock. This difference may be small in many cases, including those involving overpressured, fractured, or ductile formations. As with pore pressure, such direct measurements of the fracture gradient are not routinely available; thus, estimates for the minimum principal in-situ stress and breakdown pressure based on other measurements are sought.
653

Authors

Pearson
.....L...... 1I1Magel' of Arwwer Producte at Aftadrllll
umberger 'In

the DI and P DrIlling MCtIona oUsIy worked

Sedco.Forex
andSChlum

eclentl.. at SeA, earned a PhD d In phy8lca from the U. of London 1973. He later did research on the lee and chemlWy of clays at Michiga State U. and Birmingham U. He Is editor of a book on c1ay/pore-.f1uld lAte actions. (Photo unavailable.) .I.R.A. P........ I. a sclentlftc adviser at SCR and a fOl'8Ign 8880CIete of the U.S. Natl. Acaclemyof EngIneering. He previously was a profaasor of chemleel engineer. Ing at Imperlel C., London, and taught

r Camb h (SeA) In CambrIdge, England. Leuge from the Ecole Natl. SuJMirteut a M6tle,. and from the U. of Berkeley. Peter ...., a eenIor

at Cambridge U. Pearson holds a BS cteg.... 1n mathematics, a PhD degree In applied mathematics, and a DSc degnte In engineering from Cambridge U., and an MS In applied science from Herv aro Thleroel'" heads the Strea8 a Fracturing Program at SCR. He previously worked for Dowell SChJum berger In St.-EtIenne, France, and Tulsa. He hold. an engineering degree from Ecole de Geologie de Nancy and a PhD degree In rock machenlc8 from the lnat. de Mecanlque de Grenoble.

One method of estimating the minimum principal in-situ stress is to use simple "universal" correlations between vertical depth and the minimum principal in-situ stress 5 based on experience. These correlations can be improved, particularly at shallow depth and in young sediments, if the weight of the overburden, estimated from density or porosity logs, and known porepressure values are included. 6-8 For component rocks where the breakdown pressure can be significantly greater than the propagation pressure, various analytical models 9 ,l0 based on linear elasticity and simple failure criteria have been advanced to try to relate breakdown pressure (1) to the far-field (in-situ) earth stresses and pore pressure and (2) to the wellbore inclination and direction. Unfortunately, estimates based on these models can be significantly in error, 11 both because the models are oversimplified in terms of material behavior and because the in-situ earth stresses and pore pressure are seldom well known. In practice, most effort is put into predicting the minimum principal in-situ stress. Direct measurement has shown that this stress depends on the lithology within a given basin, with a 20% variation between layers of different lithology not atypical. 12 In "relaxed" areas where the formation is lightly constrained horizontally, such as the U .S. gulf coast, higher values of Poisson's ratio for the rock (an elastic parameter) correspond to higher values of the minimum principal in-situ stress. Thus, the minimum principal in-situ stress values in shales are usually higher than those in neighboring sandstones. This has led some authors 13 to use estimated values of Poisson's ratio in their models for predicting fracture gradients. However, in areas under compressive tectonic stress, this type of relationship may not be appropriate. 14 Higher-than-normal values of the minimum principal in-situ stress are often found in overpressured formations. This can be accounted for in part by using effective stress -i.e., the in-situ stress minus the pore pressure-instead of in-situ stress and correlating between the effective overburden stress and the effective minimum stress. Unfortunately, even this approach is not always consistent with field observations, especially in highly overpressured formations. As for pore pressure, universal, robust techniques are not available, so estimation of earth stresses and prediction of fracture gradient also represent challenges.

Reference.
1. "Abnonnal Fonnation Pressures," Developments in Petroleum Science, W.H. Fertl (ed.), Elsevier Publishers (1976) 2, New York City. 2. Mouchet, J.P. and Mitchell, A.: "Abnonnal Pressures While Drilling," Manuels Techniques, Elf Aquitaine, Paris (1989) 2. 3. Hottman, C.E., Smith, J.H., and Purcell, W.R.: "Relationship Among Earth Stresses, Pore Pressure, and Drilling Problems Offshore Gulf of Alaska," lPT (Nov. 1979) 1477-84; Trans., AlME, 267, 4. Aldred, W. et at.: "Real-Time Overpressure Prediction," Oilfield Review (1989) 1, No. 3, 17-27. 5. Breckels, I.M. and van Eekelen, H.A.M.: "Relationship Between Horizontal Stress and Depth in Sedimentary Basins," lPT (Sept. 1982) 2191-99. 6. Matthews, W.R. and Kelly, J.: "How to Predict Fonnation Pressure and Fracture Gradient from Electric and Sonic Logs," Oil & Gas 1. (Feb. 1967) 92-106. 7. Eaton, B.A.: "Fracture Gradient Prediction and its Application in Oilfield Operations," lPT (Oct. 1969) 1353-60. 8. Constant, W.D. and Bourgoyne, A.T.: "Fracture-Gradient Prediction for Offshore Wells," SPEDE (June 1988) 136--40; Trans., AlME,285. 9. Fairhurst, C.: "Methods for Determining insitu Rock Stresses at Great Depth," TRI-68, Missouri River Div., Corps of Engineers (1968). 10. Bradley, W.: "Failure of Inclined Boreholes," 1. Energy Resources Tech. (Dec. 1979) 232-39; Trans., ASME, 101. II. Aadnoy, B.S. and Larsen, K.: "Method for Fracture-Gradient Prediction for Vertical and Inclined Boreholes," SPEDE (June 1989) 99-103; Trans., AIME, 287. 12. Whitehead, W.S., Hunt, E.R., and Holditch, S.A.: "Effects of Lithology and Reservoir Pressure on the In-Situ Stresses in the Waskom (Travis Peak) Field," paper SPE 16403 presented at the 1987 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Syrnposiwn, Denver, May 18-20. 13. Coates, G.R. and Denoo, S.A.: "Log Derived Mechanical Properties and Rock Stress," paper presented at the 21 st Annual SPWLA Logging Symposium, June 1980. 14. Evans, K.F., Engalder, T., and P1wnb, R.: "Appalachian Stress Study 1. A Detailed Description of In-Situ Stress Variations in Devonian Shales in the Appalachian Plateau," 1. Geophys. Res. (1989) 94, B6, 7129-54.
This paper is SPE 21607. Technology Todey Serle. articles provide useful summary information on both classic and emerging concepts in petroleum engineering. Purpose: To provide the general reader with a basic understanding of a significant concept, technique, or development within a specific area of technology.

JPT

654

June 1991 JPT