Digitized Uncertainty Handling of Pore Pressure and Mud-Weight Window Ahead of Bit: North Sea Example
- Ane Lothe (SINTEF Industry) | Pierre Cerasi (SINTEF Industry) | Manuel Aghito (SINTEF Industry)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- April 2020
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 529 - 540
- 2020.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- pressure prediction, pressure modelling, uncertainty, ahead of bit, update while drilling
- 8 in the last 30 days
- 114 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
A digitized workflow from predrill pore-pressure modeling with a Monte Carlo approach until update of the pressure prognosis while drilling from (for example) sonic or resistivity data is described. The approach has the potential to reduce the uncertainty in the predicted mud-weight window ahead of the bit.
For the 3D pressure modeling, a basin modeling software is used, where the pressure compartments in the study area are defined by faults interpreted from seismic. Pressure generation and dissipation are calculated for the study area over millions of years, as the basin was subsiding and compaction was taking place. Key input parameters such as minimum horizontal stress, vertical stress, and frictional coefficients for failure criteria are varied. The output is pore-pressure profiles along the planned well path, with uncertainties.
The work presented in this paper was carried out on a North Sea data set. The results show that the uncertainty in the pore pressures will highly influence the uncertainty span in both the fracture gradient and the collapse gradient. Representing the mud-weight window in terms of the most likely collapse and fracturing curve, with corresponding minimum and maximum pore-pressure-derived limits on each side, makes for a more realistic prediction. It presents the uncertainty in the result in a simple visual form, using a “traffic light” approach.
While drilling, log data will automatically be used to update the pressure and mud-weight prognosis ahead of bit. The digital updated prognosis can help the drilling crew in decision making during drilling campaigns.
|File Size||12 MB||Number of Pages||12|
Andrews, J. S., Fintland, T. G., and Helstrup, O. A. 2016. Use of Unique Database of Good Quality Stress Data to Investigate Theories of Fracture Initiation, Fracture Propagation and the Stress State in the Subsurface. Paper presented at the 50th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 26–29 June. ARMA-2016-887.
Borge, H. 2000. Fault Controlled Pressure Modelling in Sedimentary Basins. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (February 2000).
Borge, H. and Sylta, Ø. 1998. 3D Modelling of Fault Bounded Pressure Compartments in the North Viking Graben. Energy Explor Exploit 16 (4): 301–323. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40158902.
Bowers, G. L. 1995. Pore Pressure Estimation from Velocity Data: Accounting for Overpressure Mechanisms Besides Undercompaction. SPE Drill & Compl 10 (2): 89–95. SPE-27488-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/27488-PA.
Darwin, C. M., da Fontoura. S., Grøver, A. et al. 2013. Pore Pressure Prediction from a Basin Modelling Point of View: Case Study in the Guajira Basin, Colombia. In CT&F—Ciencia, Tecnología y Futuro. Piedecuesta, Colombia: Instituto Colombiano del Petróleo.
Dutta, N. C. 2012. Geopressure Prediction Using Seismic Data: Current Status and the Road Ahead. Geophysics 67 (6): 2012–2041. https://doi/org/10.1190/1.1527101.
Eaton, B. A. 1972. Graphical Method Predicts Geopressures Worldwide. World Oil 182 (6): 51–56.
Eaton, B. A. 1975. The Equation for Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE-AIME, Dallas, Texas, USA, 28 September–1 October. SPE-5544-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/5544-MS.
Eck-Olsen, J., Pettersen, P.-J., Rønneberg, A. et al. 2005. Managing Pressures During Underbalanced Cementing by Choking the Return Flow; Innovative Design and Operational Modeling as Well as Operational Lessons Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23–25 February. SPE-92568-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/92568-MS.
Fjær, E., Holt, R. M., Horsrud, P. et al. 2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, Vol. 53, second edition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Fjær, E., Holt, R. M., Nes, O.-M. et al. 2002. Mud Chemistry Effects on Time-Delayed Borehole Stability Problems in Shales. Paper presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Conference, Irving, Texas, USA. SPE-78163-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/78163-MS.
Grauls, D. 1998. Overpressures Assessment Using a Minimum Principal Stress Approach. Overpressures in Petroleum Exploration. Paper presented at the Bulletin du Centre de recherches Elf Exploration Production Pau, France, 7–8 April, 137–147.
Hillis, R.R. and Nelson, J. 2005. In Situ Stresses in the North Sea and Their Applications: Petroleum Geomechanics from Exploration to Development, Vol. 6, 551–564. London, UK: Petroleum Geology Conference Series, Geological Society.
Holt, R. M., Fjær, E., Nes, O.-M. et al. 2011. A Shaly Look at Brittleness. Paper presented at the 45th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, California, USA, 26–29 June. ARMA-11-366.
Lothe, A. E. 2004. Simulations of Hydraulic Fracturing and Leakage in Sedimentary Basins. PhD thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway (January 2004).
Lothe, A. E., Borge, H., and Gabrielsen, R. H. 2004. Modelling of Hydraulic Leakage by Pressure and Stress Simulations: An Example from the Halten Terrace Area, Offshore Mid-Norway. Pet Geosci 10 (3): 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1144/1354-079303-579.
Lothe, A. E., Cerasi, P., Bjørkevoll, K.S. et al. 2018. Digitized Uncertainty Handling of Pore Pressure and Mud-Weight Window Ahead of Bit; Example North Sea. Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, 6–8 March, Fort Worth, Texas, USA. SPE-189665-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189665-MS.
Lothe, A. E., Cerasi, P., Haavardstein, S. et al. 2017. Workflow for Uncertainty Modelling of Pore Pressure and Mud-Weight Window Ahead of Bit—Example of Pre-Drill Results. Paper Presented at the First EAGE Workshop on Pore Pressure Prediction, Pau, France, 19–21 March. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201700075.
Lothe, A. E. and Grøver, A. 2009. Evaluation of Sealing Properties to Faults and Cap Rocks and Its Influence on Fluid Pressure Distribution—Using a Monte Carlo Simulations Approach. Paper presented at the AAPG Hedberg Research Conference, Napa, Californina, USA, 3–7 May. Extended Abstract.
Lothe, A. E. and Helset, H. M. 2012. The Effects of Smectite-Illite Transition in Shaly Caprocks on Water Fluid Pressure Build Up and Possible Fracturing and Leakage—A Simulation Approach. Paper presented at the third EAGE Shale Workshop “Shale Physics and Shale Chemistry—New Plays, New Science, New Possibilities,” Barcelona, Spain, 23–25 January.
Lüthje, M., Helset, H. M. and Hovland, S. 2009. New Integrated Approach for Updating Pore-Pressure Predictions During Drilling. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October. SPE-124295-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/124295-MS.
Mosar, J. 2003. Scandinavia’s North Atlantic Passive Margin. J Geophys Res 108 (B8): 2360. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002134.
Nes, O.-M., Boe, R., Sonstebo, E. F. et al. 2012. Borehole Instability in Tertiary Shales in the Norwegian North Sea. Paper presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, 20–21 June. SPE-150714-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/150714-MS.
O’Connor, S., Swarbrick, R., and Lahann, R. 2011. Geologically-Driven Porefluid Pressure Models and Their Implications for Petroleum Exploration: Introduction to Thematic Set. Geofluids 11: 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-8123.2011.00354.x.
Paglia, J., Eidsvik, J., Grøver, A. et al. 2019. Statistical Modeling for Real-Time Pore Pressure Prediction from Predrill Analysis and Well Logs. Geophysics 84 (2): ID1–ID12. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018-0168.1.
Rommetveit, R., Ødegard, S. I., Nordstrand, C. et al. 2010a. Drilling a Challenging HPHT Well Utilizing an Advanced ECD Management System with Decision Support and Real Time Simulations. Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Lousiana, USA, 2–4 February. SPE-128648-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/128648-MS.
Rommetveit, R., Ødega°rd, S. I., Nordstrand, C. et al. 2010b. Real Time Integration of ECD, Temperature, Well Stability and Geo/Pore Pressure Simulations During Drilling a Challenging HPHT Well. Paper presented at the SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 23–25 March. SPE-127809-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/127809-MS.
Swarbrick, R. E. 2012. Review of Pore-Pressure Prediction Challenges in High-Temperature Areas. Lead Edge 31 (11): 1288–1294. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle31111288.1.
Torsæter, M. and P. Cerasi. 2015. Mud-Weight Control During Arctic Drilling Operations. Paper presented at the OTC Arctic Technology Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 23–25 March. OTC-25481-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/25481-MS.
Walderhaug, O. 1996. Kinetic Modeling of Quartz Cementation and Porosity Loss in Deeply Buried Sandstone Reservoirs. AAPG Bull 80 (5): 731–745.
Yang, Y. and Aplin, A. 1998. Influence of Lithology and Compaction on the Pore Size Distribution and Modelled Permeability of Some Mudstones from the Norwegian Margin. Mar Pet Geol 15 (2): 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8172(98)00008-7.
Zhang, J. 2011. Pore Pressure Prediction from Well Logs: Methods, Modifications, and New Approaches. Earth-Sci Rev 108: 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.06.001.