DAY 2 SESSION 8

GEOLOGY PAPER 11
SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF REAL-TIME PORE PRESSURE
AND FRACTURE GRADIENT MODELING IN
DEEPWATER EXPLORATION WELLS
Don S. Basuki
Baker Hughes

The accurate modeling of pre-drill, while-drilling and post-drill pore pressure and fracture gradients
(PPFG) for an exploration well is a very challenging process, particularly in deep water applications.
Erroneous PPFG predictions and estimations can be a source for unexpected non-productive time in drilling
operations due to wellbore integrity or pore pressure related problems resulting in significant cost overruns for
the well. In addition to preventing geopressure related problems while drilling, other benefits of real-time
PPFG modeling include identification of formation breathing, better hole cleaning, higher rates of penetration
and prevention of differential sticking.
This paper presents two case histories of successful PPFG modeling for deep water exploration wells
in North Africa and Southeast Asia. The pre-drill PPFG models were prepared using sparse offset well data. In
the drilling phases, the models were updated and calibrated based on mud weight, caving shape and leak-off
test information. Eatons resistivity PPFG method was used to estimate the PPFG model in real-time. In
addition to Eatons resistivity method, Matthews and Kellys method was also used in predicting the fracture
gradient. A hydraulics model was run in parallel to the drilling operation, so that real-time ECD (equivalent
circulating density) could be compared against theoretical values to detect anomalies and to ensure that the
annulus pressure stayed within the predicted PPFG window. At the end of the drilling phase, the real-time
PPFG model was found to be within 0.1 ppg of actual formation testing pressure readings.
Based on the two case histories, the paper will illustrate in detail the process steps required for realtime PPFG modeling and demonstrate the benefits of taking the proper actions to mitigate risks identified by
the PPFG model.
INTRODUCTION
The oil and gas industry suffers in particular in deep water exploration well drilling from costly nonproductive time (NPT) events due to geopressure problems. Some studies suggest these costs to exceed
several billion US$ on a global basis per year. The geopressure related problems include but are not limited to
kicks, loss circulation, stuck pipe and lost-in-hole events, sometimes forcing the operator to re-drill a well
section or even an entire well. Abnormally high formation pressures or over-pressured zones occur
worldwide in all sedimentary basins. An additional complication in deep water is that the formation strength
(or fracture gradient) is lower than in land or shallow water. As a result, the window between pore pressure
and fracture gradient is relatively narrow, leaving little margin for drilling related pressure changes such as
swab/surge effects or ECD increases.
Maintaining an accurate pore pressure and fracture gradient (PPFG) model while drilling is one way
to minimize the risk of geopressure related hole problems. The quality of pre-drill PPFG models relies on the
availability of offset well data and geological information of the proposed well, including quality seismic data.
The less data are available from offset wells, the more uncertainties are in the pre-drill model and the less
reliable it will be. However, more information and data become available as the well is drilled, for example
leak off test/formation integrity test, MWD/LWD data (gamma ray, resistivity, acoustic, images and formation
tests), connection gas, caving size and shape of the cavings; all valuable information to update and calibrate
the pre-drill PPFG model in parallel with the drilling process. With correct PPFG models, loss zones and
pressure ramps can be identified and anticipated in forward modeling, so that the rig can prepare for proper
risk mitigation actions and execute them with minimum time losses if necessary. Finally, in post-drilling the
PPFG models can be tied in with wireline formation testing data if available.
METHODOLOGY
The US Drilling Engineering Association (DEA) project 1191 classifies methods to predict pore
pressure into two general approaches: (1) direct methods, and (2) effective stress methods. The effective stress

March 2010

133

Petroleum Geology Conference and Exhibition 2010

29-30th March, 2010 V Kuala Lumpur Convention Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

GEOLOGY PAPER 11
methods are classified into vertical, horizontal and other methods. In total there are 15 methods to predict pore
pressure according to DEA Project 119 classification. The methods applied while drilling for the two projects
described in this paper are Eatons resistivity and Eatons Dxc (corrected drilling exponent). In the postdrilling phase after receipt of acoustic data from wireline logging, the Eatons method based on acoustic data
was applied. All three methods are described in detail by Eaton. 2
For estimating the fracture gradient, the DEA projects classifies into four categories, depending on the
consideration of fracture creation: (1) minimum stress methods (losses if long cracks developed against the
minimum principle in-situ stress), (2) hoop stress methods (losses if short cracks are created at the borehole
wall), (3) fracture mechanics methods (based on the theory of fracture propagation for all length cracks), and
(4) direct methods (no underlying theoretical model). Based on these classifications, there are 25 methods to
predict the fracture gradient.3 In addition to Eatons fracture gradient method4, in the projects described
below also the Matthews and Kellys5 method was used.
The overburden gradient (OBG) is defined as the stress created by the weight of the materials above
the depth of interest divided by the vertical depth (lithostatic pressure). The prediction of the overburden
gradient is not straightforward and typically has to be approximated in an exploration well scenario, since the
density of the overlaying sediments is still unknown in the pre-drill phase. Traugotts empirical relation
method6 also known as Amocos method was applied to calculate the overburden gradient for the two
projects below.
Important calibration information such as Leak-Off Test (LOT) and Formation Integrity Test (FIT)
results, occurrence of cavings including size and shape, connection gas volumes, as well as torque and drag
trends were also taken into consideration to verify and update the PPFG model in real-time. In addition, a
hydraulics model was prepared and updated in parallel to the drilling operation to compare predicted results
with real-time ESD (equivalent static density) and ECD (equivalent circulating density) derived from
downhole annulus pressure measurements. The comparison of theoretical vs. actual numbers helps to identify
anomalies in the drilling process at an early stage.
Real-time PPFG service is not a stand-alone service, rather it gathers all data and information from
various sources. The engineers who perform the service have to take all available data into account to identify
what is going on down hole from the geopressure-related perspective. There are two approaches to perform
PPFG model updates in real-time: (1) at the rig site, and (2) from remote location with real-time data
streaming from rig site. Some disadvantages of being remotely located to perform the PPFG model update are:
it relies on data transmission quality from the rig site, and the inability to directly check physical evidence of
drill cuttings and cavings for indications of overpressure. For remotely located services someone
knowledgeable and competent to describe physical conditions of drill cuttings and cavings is needed at the rig
site. High quality digital cameras directed on the shaker tables might improve the situation in the long run,
however, they also need to be supported by sufficient data bandwidth to shore.
In both projects, two dedicated engineers were on location to perform the service in 24 hours coverage
while drilling. They gathered various data and information mainly from mudloggers, MWD/LWD engineers,
mud engineers, directional drillers, drillers, and wellsite geologists. The engineers made real-time models
from these data and compared them with pre-drill model. The updated PPFG models were reported on a
regular basis, typically as contribution to the morning meeting. If elevated risks of geopressure related
problems were detected from physical evidence and an updated PPFG model in between, the dedicated
engineers would notify the operator representatives immediately with recommended actions to mitigate the
identified risks.
CASE HISTORY #1
This near vertical exploration well (Fig. 1) was drilled offshore North Africa in a water depth of
slightly more than 2000 meters (6562 feet). The main cause for overpressure formations in this area is tectonic
stress with compaction disequilibrium as secondary cause. In pre-drill PPFG modeling, a pressure ramp was
prognosed at a certain depth, however, was not detected while drilling. As a result, the planned mud weight
increase was not necessary at this point. Without the real-time PPFG modeling, the mud weight would have
been increased as per program, which would have resulted in elevated risk of differential sticking and
probably reduced rate of penetration (ROP) due to high overbalance.

134

Geological Society of Malaysia

DAY 2 SESSION 8
GEOLOGY PAPER 11
One of the objectives in this well was to maintain bottom hole pressure within 100 psi from the actual
pore pressure while drilling. Based on the real-time PPFG model the mud weight was adjusted on a regular
basis. All objectives of the well were successfully achieved. Hole cleaning was not an issue since this well
was near vertical and mud flow was enough to clean the hole. Compared with the actual pressure data from a
wireline pressure tester, the pore pressure model established while drilling was found to be accurate within 0.1
ppg difference.
CASE HISTORY #2
This vertical exploration well (Fig. 2) was drilled in offshore Southeast Asia, in a water depth of over
4000 feet (1219 meters). The main cause for overpressure formations for this area is compaction
disequilibrium with clay diagenesis as secondary cause. This project only used Eatons resistivity method for
pore pressure estimation in both pre-drill and real-time models. Fracture Gradient estimations were based on
Eatons method and Matthews and Kellys methods. Several pressure ramps were identified in the predrilling phase. These ramps were present in the drilling phase, though at slightly different depths compared to
prediction. As the model was adjusted in real-time for these depth-differences, the mud weights were
successfully adjusted. The bottom hole pressure while drilling was successfully maintained less than 300 psi
above actual pore pressure while drilling.
The pressure ramp at point A in the model in Figure 2 was confirmed in the drilling phase by the
detection of concave and splintery cavings (Fig. 3 and 4) at the shaker tables on the rig site. These types of
cavings are created by tensile failure along the wellbore, which usually occurs when the pore pressure in shale
exceeds the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid column. The mud weight was planned to be gradually
increased; however, due to a sudden drop in ECD and a sharp increase of the pore pressure in the real-time
updated PPFG model, the mud weight was increased immediately. From post-drill wireline pressure test
results, the presence of the pressure ramp was confirmed. It can be concluded that the timely reaction to the
predicted pore pressure increase was successful in avoiding a potentially costly NPT event including well
control measures. After finishing the well, the PPFG model updated in real-time was found to be within 0.1 to
0.2 ppg of the actual pressure readings taken by a wireline pressure testing tool.
CONCLUSIONS
Drilling exploration wells in deep water is very challenging with many unknown parameters,
includingriskfromgeopressurerelatedchallenges.DevelopinganaccuratePPFGmodel in the predrill phase is a key requirement for minimizing these geopressure related risks. However, with limited
offset well information available in exploration drilling, the model has a high degree of uncertainty
and a lot of assumptions must be made.
MonitoringandupdatingthepredrillPPFGmodelinthedrillingphasecanreducethisuncertainty
significantly. Utilizing the proper LWD tools in realtime, such as resistivity, acoustic, images and
formation tests for a realtime, proactive PPFG and wellbore stability analysis can provide a fully
calibrated model which fully informed decisions can be made on optimizing the drilling fluids
program thereby reducing the non-productive time associated from geopressure.
Two case histories of exploration are presented in which dedicated resources were put in charge of
updating the PPFG model. In the first case, no NPT due to geopressure events were encountered. In
the second case, a potential NPT due to geopressure problem was successfully avoided based on
accurate PPFG real-time monitoring and immediate reaction to mitigate the risk.
NOMENCLATURE
DEA = Drilling Engineering Association
Dxc = Corrected Drilling Exponent
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density
ESD = Equivalent Static Density
FG = Fracture Gradient
FIT = Formation Integrity Test
LOT = Leak-off Test

March 2010

LWD = Logging While Drilling

MW = Mud Weight
MWD = Measurements While Drilling
NPT = Non-Productive Time
OBG = Overburden Gradient
PP = Pore Pressure
PPFG = Pore Pressure and Fracture Gradient

135

Petroleum Geology Conference and Exhibition 2010

29-30th March, 2010 V Kuala Lumpur Convention Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

GEOLOGY PAPER 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Author wishes to thank Dr. Ing. Gerald Heisig (Baker Hughes, Kuala Lumpur), Dr. Stefan
Wessling (Baker Hughes, Celle), Michael Reese (Baker Hughes, Lafayette) and Christopher Wolfe (Baker
Hughes, Houston) for reviewing this paper and Baker Hughes for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
Bowers, G., 1999, State of the Art in Pore Pressure Estimation, DEA Project 119 Report No. 1.
Eaton, B. A., The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. SPE 5544, 1975.
Bowers, G., 1999, State of the Art in Fracture Gradient Estimation, DEA Project 119 Report No. 3.
Eaton, B. A., Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its Application in Oilfield Operations, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, Oct., 1969, pp. 1353-1360.
Matthews, W. R., and Kelly, J., How to Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture Gradient, The Oil and Gas
Journal, Feb. 20, 1967, pp. 92-106.
Traugott, M. O., 1997, Pore/Fracture Pressure Determinations in Deep Water, World Oil Deepwater
Technology Supplement, August 1997, pp. 68-70.

Figure 1 Pore Pressure and Fracture

Gradient Model from Well #1, Offshore
North Africa.

Figure 3 Concave caving from Well #2, side view.

136

Figure 2 Pore Pressure and Fracture

Gradient Model from Well #2, Offshore
Southeast Asia.

Figure 4 Splintery caving from Well #2, top view..

Geological Society of Malaysia