1887

Abstract

Summary

A conventional pore pressure prediction workflow bases the prejob model on surface seismic data, assumes under-compaction is the primary pressure mechanism and that changes in pore pressure can be monitored while drilling using available log measurements. This workflow can perform well in the conditions where it applies but it is limited in that it ignores many other sources of information that can tell the analyst something about the current pore pressure regime to help constrain the uncertainties in the model and that can work in situations that are not caused by under-compaction alone. A more comprehensive approach considers the response of any available source of information while drilling that could be affected by changes in pore pressure. These include event gas peaks and their component ratios, annular pressure profiles, cavings analysis and the multitude of drilling parameters available at the wellsite. These can help the analyst determine if the well is under-balance or ballooning and can provide indications of pore pressure concerns before they may affect conventional log responses. The inclusion of these indicators in the analyst’s workflow can aid in managing risk and improve drilling safety.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900506
2019-05-19
2020-01-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bowers, G. L.
    , 1995. Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data; Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction. SPE-27488-PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowers, G. and Katsube, T.J.
    2002. The Role of Shale Pore Structure on the Sensitivity of Wire-Line Logs to Overpressure. American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Eaton, Ben A.
    , 1975. The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. SPE-5544-MS. Dallas, Texas, September - October 1975.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Malinverno, A., Sayers, C.M., Woodward, M.J., and Bartman, R.C.
    2004. Integrating Diverse Measurements to Predict Pore Pressure with Uncertainities While Drilling. SPE 90001-MS. Houston, Texas, 26–29 September
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Patel, N.,Penkar, S., BlythM
    2018. Managing Drilling Risk Using an Integrated Approach to Real-Time Pore Pressure Prediction, SPE-192692 MS, ADIPEC 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Sayers, C., den Boer, L., Nagy, Z., and Hooyman, P.
    2006. Well-constarined Seismic Estimation of Pore Pressure with Uncertainity. The Leading Edge, December 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ward, C., Clark, R.
    1998. Anatomy of a Ballooning Borehole using PWD Tool. Proceeding to the Overpressures in Petroloeum Exploration workshop, Pau, April 1998.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900506
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900506
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error