This article was downloaded by: [Petroleum University of Technology ]

On: 22 April 2013, At: 05:25

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Petroleum Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpet20

Application of the dc-Exponent Method

for Abnormal Pressure Detection in
Ahwaz Oil Field: A Comparative Study
a b
M. Shajari & H. Najibi
a
Tehran Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Petroleum Research center, Petroleum University of Technology,
Ahwaz, Iran
Version of record first published: 10 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: M. Shajari & H. Najibi (2012): Application of the dc-Exponent Method for
Abnormal Pressure Detection in Ahwaz Oil Field: A Comparative Study, Petroleum Science and
Technology, 30:4, 339-349

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2010.483439

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Petroleum Science and Technology, 30:339–349, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-6466 print/1532-2459 online
DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2010.483439

Application of the dc-Exponent Method for

Abnormal Pressure Detection in Ahwaz Oil Field:
A Comparative Study

M. SHAJARI1 AND H. NAJIBI2

Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

1
Tehran Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
Petroleum Research center, Petroleum University of Technology, Ahwaz, Iran

Abstract There are different methods for detection of abnormal pressure during
drilling; one of these methods is the dc-exponent method. In this research, the ap-
plicability of the dc-exponent method is investigated for the detection of abnormal
pressure zones in Ahwaz oil field in Iran.
Two procedures exist to calculate the amount of abnormal pressure from dc-
exponent data: the Rehm-McClendon and Zamora methods. In some oil fields around
the world just one of these methods is applicable and the other one provides incorrect
results or is inaccurate. Therefore, in this work both methods are applied to six wells
in Ahwaz oil field and a comparison is made between the real pressure (detected on
the rig) and the results obtained.

Keywords abnormal pressure, dc-exponent, drilling rate, Rehm-McClendon method,

Zamora method

1. Introduction

1.1. Drilling Rate as a Pore Pressure Predictor

Jorgen and Shirley’s d-exponent:

log R
60N
d D
log 12W
106 db

For R (ft/hr), N (rpm), W (lbf), and db (in.), the term 106 ensures that d is positive.

1.2. d-Exponent
The d-exponent normalizes R and N and changes in response to a change in the drilling

Address correspondence to Mostafa Shajari, Tehran Petroleum Research Center, Shahid

Ghasemzadian St., South Khosrowst., Sattarkhan Ave., Tehran 1453953111, Iran. E-mail: mostafa
shajari@yahoo.com

339
 340 M. Shajari and H. Najibi

rate. With normal compaction, R should decrease with depth, which corresponds to an
increase in d. A decrease or flattening of the d-exponent indicates a transition into an
abnormal pore pressure region (if all other parameters, including drilling fluid density,
do not change in the interval).

1.3. dc-Exponent
Because differential pressure is dependent upon the mud density as well as formation pore
pressure, whenever there is any change in the mud density this will promote an unwanted
change in the d-exponent. Rehm and McClendon (1973) proposed this correction:
n
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

dc D d
eq

This correction was empirically derived but has been applied worldwide with much
success. The use of actual mud density in place of equivalent circulating density (ECD)

Figure 1. dc-exponent vs. depth for well 1 using Rehm and McClendon’s method. (color figure
available online)
 dc-Exponent Method for Abnormal Pressure Detection 341

has been found to be acceptable within normal limits of accuracy. The ECD should,
however, be used when available. The modified d-exponent is often used for a quantitative
estimate of formation pore pressure gradient as well as for the qualitative detection of
abnormal formation pressure. Numerous empirical correlations have been developed in
addition to the equivalent matrix stress concept; the two most important ones are the
Rehm-McClendon and Zamora methods.

1.4. Rehm and McClendon’s Method

Rehm and McClendon recommended using linear scales for both depth and d(mod) values
when constructing a graph to estimate formation pore pressure qualitatively. A straight-
line normal pressure trend line having intercept .dmod /o and slope m is assumed such
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

that:

.dmod /n D .dmod /0 C mD

The value of m is fairly constant with changes in geologic age. The following empirical
relation was presented for observed departure from the d(mod) plot and the formation

Figure 2. dc-exponent vs. depth for well 1 using Zamora’s method. (color figure available online)
 342 M. Shajari and H. Najibi

pressure gradient, gp :

gp D 7:65 logŒ.dmod/n .dmod / C 16:5

1.5. Zamora’s Method

Zamora recommended using a linear scale for depth but a logarithmic scale for dc values
when constructing a graph to estimate formation pore pressure quantitatively. A straight-
line normal pressure trend line having intercept .dmod /n and exponent m is assumed such
that:

.dmod /n D .dmod /0 e mD
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

Zamora reported that the slope of the normal pressure trend line varied only slightly and
without apparent regard to location or geological age. The slope of the normal trend was
reported to be the slope of line connecting dc values of 1.4 and 1.7 that were 5,000
ft apart. This corresponds to an m value of 0.000039 ft 1 . Zamora used the following

Figure 3. dc-exponent vs. depth for well 2 using both methods. (color figure available online)
 dc-Exponent Method for Abnormal Pressure Detection 343

empirical relation for the observed departure from the d(mod) plot and the formation
pressure gradient gp :
.d mod/n
gp D gn
d mod

2. Results and Discussion

As previously mentioned, six wells are analyzed in this article. The origin of abnormal
pressure in these six wells was different and was due to four different reasons.
Cases 1 and 2: These two cases are from two wells that suffered two abnormal pressures
during drilling; first an extreme abnormality was observed at the beginning of the
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

Gachsaran formation (the fourth formation from the surface in Ahwaz oil field) and
second, lower abnormality was at the top of the reservoir.
Case 3: This case refers to a well with abnormally high pressure in its reservoir in the
Asmari Formation (fifth formation of Ahwaz oil field).

Figure 4. dc-exponent vs. depth for well 3 using both methods. (color figure available online)
 344 M. Shajari and H. Najibi

Cases 4 and 5: These two cases are from two wells that suffered an abnormal pressure
in their shallow depths due to the existence of a gas pocket. In these two cases there
was another abnormal trend at the beginning of the Gachsaran Formation.
Case 6: This case refers to a well with a subnormal pressure situation; this means that
at some depths the pressure was less than normal pressure.

2.1. Case 1
Two abnormalities can be observed at depths of 4,700 and 6,500 ft, as shown in
Figures 1 and 2.
Method 1—Rehm and McClendon’s method: First the data should be plotted using
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

Cartesian coordinates and then a normal trend line with a slope of 0.000038 is
drawn through the data available in the normal pressure region. In this method (gp :
pressure gradient),

gp D 7:65 logŒ.dmod /n .dmod / C 16:5I P D 0:052  D  gp

Figure 5. dc-exponent vs. depth for well 4 using both methods. (color figure available online)
 dc-Exponent Method for Abnormal Pressure Detection 345

By this formula, the pressure amounts at abnormally pressured depths are measured
and the results are shown in Table 2.
Method 2—Zamora’s method: First the data should be plotted using semi-logarithmic
coordinates and then a normal trend line with a slope of 0.000039 is drawn through
the data available in the normal pressure region. In this method,

.d mod/n
gp D gn
d mod
The results obtained by this method are shown in Table 3.
The same procedure has been used for the other cases and the following results were
obtained by using the information of anomaly depth and dc-exponent amounts from the
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

figures (Figures 3–7).

Figure 6. dc-exponent vs. depth for well 5 using both methods. (color figure available online)
 346 M. Shajari and H. Najibi

Table 1
Abnormal pressure amount in well 1 using the Rehm-McClendon method

Real pressure
Depth, Pressure, (detected on rig),
ft (dmod) .dmod /n gp , ppg psi psi

4,700 1.3492 1.9 14.5186 4,048.347 5,150

6,500 1.5299 2 13.99226 5,429.382 6,720
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

Figure 7. dc-exponent vs. depth for well 6 using both methods. (color figure available online)
 dc-Exponent Method for Abnormal Pressure Detection 347

Table 2
Abnormal pressure amount in well 1 using Zamora’s method

Depth, Pressure,
ft (dmod) .dmod /n gp , ppg psi

4,700 1.3492 1.88 22.01864 5,381.355

6,500 1.5299 1.95 20.14098 6,807.65

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

A comparison between Rehm-McClendon and Zamora methods in Iran follows.

3.1. Detecting the Pressure Zone

The accuracy of Zamora’s method using a semi-log coordinate system to detect the
anomaly’s depths in Ahwaz oil field is greater than the Rehm-McClendon method, which
uses a Cartesian coordinate system. This result can be observed clearly from the graphs
of all six wells, because whenever there was an anomaly, the deviation dc from the
normal trend line using Zamora’s method was approximately twice that found using
the Rehm-McClendon method for the same situation. But one important point about the

Table 3
Results for six wells: Rehm and McClendon’s method, Zamora’s method,
and the actual pressure detected on the rig

Depth of Rehm and Real

Well abnormality, McClendon’s Zamora’s pressure,
no. ft method, psi method, psi psi

1 4,700 4,048.347 5,381.355 5,150

1 6,500 5,429.382 6,807.65 6,720
2 4,100 3,192.562 4,244.399 4,100
2 6,300 4,342.977 6,082.779 5,960
3 6,500 5,700.497 7,997.368 7,810
3 8,100 6,880.334 8,397.468 8,200
4 2,850 2,064.561 3,193.837 3,070
4 4,700 3,412.769 5,144.061 5,090
5 2,700 2,095.568 3,563.038 3,400
5 4,300 3,027.957 4,589.731 4,440
6 4,100 2,482.313 4,259.677 4,200
6 5,200 No resulta 3,865.863 3,850
a “Because the logarithmic term in g (pressure gradient) in subnormal conditions
p
becomes negative and logarithm of negative numbers is undefined, so the amount
of subnormal pressure cannot be determined by this method.” gp D 7:65 
logŒ.dmod/n .dmod/ C 16:5.
 348 M. Shajari and H. Najibi

Zamora graph is that the low amount of deviation—about one unit—cannot be considered
a source of anomaly, because these deviations result in less than 100 psi overpressure
and cannot be considered serious overpressure zones.

3.2. Calculating the Abnormal Pressure Amount

The accuracy of these two methods used to calculate the amount of overpressure is
different. As observed from the results of the wells, the results obtained using Zamora’s
method are closer to actual, which is clear upon comparison of the results obtained and
the actual amount of pressure calculated on the rig.
If the aim is to determine the depth of high-pressure zones, the anomalies are clearer
on Zamora’s graph, but if the purpose is to determine the amount of excess pressure,
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

using Zamora’s method for future applications of the dc-exponent method in Ahwaz
oil field is recommended. However, we cannot determine the applicability of these two
methods in other oil fields, because same research similar to that performed in this article
must be conducted to ensure the accuracy of each method in each field.

References
Ahmadi, M. (1993). Abnormal pressure detection while drilling. Paper No. SPE 22207, Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans,
LA, September 30–October 3, pp. 1–6.
Bolt, D. B. (1989). How to detect overpressure in drilling worldwide. World Oil; Petroleum Geology
of Louisiana, USA. Academic Press, pp. 1697–1712.
Borel, W. J., and Lewis, R. L. (1979). Ways to Detect Abnormal Formation Pressures. Houston,
TX: Gulf Professional Publishing Company.
Bowers, G. L. (1984). Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: Accounting for overpressure
mechanisms besides undercompaction. Paper No. SPE 13247, SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Houston, TX, September 16–19, pp. 1–9.
Cunningham, R. A., and Eenink, J. G. (1980). Origins of Abnormal Presssure While Drilling—
Origins, Detection & Controlling. Oxford, UK: Gulf Professional Publishing.
Daines, S. R., Mouchet, J. P., Lewis, R. L., and Michell, A. (1977). Prediction of Fracture Pressures
for Wildcat Wells. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Press.
Fetrel, W. H., and Chilingarian, G. V. (1975). Abnormal Formation Pressures, Implications to Ex-
ploration, Drilling and Production of Oil and Gas Resources. Houston, TX: Gulf Professional
Publishing Company.
Gretener, P. E., and Fetrel, W. H. (1987). Fluid pressure in porous media and its importance in
geology: A review. Bull. Petrol. Geol. Louisiana, USA. 37:1255–1295.
Harkins, K. L. (1982). Geological significance of abnormal formation pressures and Graphical
method predicts geopressures. American Association of Petroleum Geology of New Orleans,
October 21–25, pp. 1–8.
Rehm, B., and McClendon, R. (1973). Measurement of formation pressure from drilling data. Paper
No. SPE 3601.
Schapery, R. A. (1962). Approximate methods for detection of abnormal pressure. Proceedings
of the 4th U.S. National Congress on Applied Mechanics, Oxford, UK: Gulf Professional
Publishing, pp. 1075–1085.

Nomenclature
D depth
d d-exponent method
 dc-Exponent Method for Abnormal Pressure Detection 349

dc dc-exponent method
Gp formation pore pressure gradient
gn normal pressure gradient
N rotation per minute
P fluid pressure
P pore pressure
Pf formation pressure
P differential pressure
R penetration rate

Greek Letters
Downloaded by [Petroleum University of Technology ] at 05:25 22 April 2013

 drilling fluid density

c drilling fluid density while circulating
eq equivalent circulation density
f normal formation fluid density
n normal pore pressure gradient