Real-Time Pore-Pressure Evaluation From MWD/LWD Measurements and Drilling-Derived Formation Strength

J.C. Rasmus,
SPE, Anadrill, and D.M.R.

Gray Staphans,

Schlumberger

Cambridge

Research

Caoqqs
Summary. Traditieml pore-pressure inte~retstions in tertiary undercompacted shales have been based onempirical relationships bemveena particular measurement(such as resistivity) and pore pressure in pounds per gdlOII. It is WeU-known, however, that the measurementssre responding to the excess porosity in the shaferatherthanto the pore pressuredirectly. Anew technique is illustrated in which all available measurementsare first chamctem ed in terms of this excess porosity snd fitholon with measurement-response equations. This allows a matbematiczi minimht ion technique to solve simultaneously the various measurernent-respxtseequations for tiis pormily and lithcdogy on a foot-by-fcot basis. A cenventioezl compaction porosiiyleffecdve-stress mOdelis then used to determine the additional pore pressure caused by this excess porosity. The result is a singfe pore-pressure estimate that is independent of the number of measurementsand thst has an accmscy tiat impreves with the total number of measurementsused in the interpretsdon. The interpretation can be performed at the weUsitein red time by useof rateof penetration(ROP), measurementwhile driIling (MWD), and logging wbife drifling (LWD) measurementsor afterdrilling by me of thesemeasurements in cnnjrmcdcm with wireline measurements.

Introduction
The traditional empirical relationships that have been developf betweena particularmeasurement andpressursme usuallydisplayed as a series of lines or trendsthatthe user places over the mea.muement. Excursion of a measurement fmm the oormal hydrostatic trendis then interpretedas abnormal pressureand is automatically scaled in terms of pore pressure in pounds per gallon, wfdch is the equivalentmud &nsity nwessary te balancetheformationpm pressures. This metbcd has been used sumessfufly in the U.S. gulf coast by skifledinterpreters.This method has ssveral shottcondngs, however. It cm lad to as many pore-pressure estimates as there are mea.wrementsto evahratti the empiricaf relationships are locafly cmdined andare.not generallyapplicableoutsidethe U.S. gUKWJaSG and Iitbologicsf variationsirtthe shalesand theireffects en the measurementsare not accounted for, causing additionaluncertaintiesirt the pore-pressure estimates. The use of ROP for pore pressure (theD expanent1, bas proved ditlkult to apply because of variations irrMbology, bit wear state, surface.te-dowrdmle weight transfer efficiency, and b]t types. A new approach fmt corrects ROP for bit wear by use of downhole measurementsof weight and torque. ROP is SISO nommdized for bit lype, dmvnbole weight, and surface revolution per minute. This produces an apparentformation strengththat is.a measurementof tie mck fzifurew.istance.to thebit teeth. previous altemptsto characterize and quantifythis strengthin terms of Iaboratoty-meamred rock pmperdes have been largely unsuccessful because the bit teeth do not fail the formation in the same manner as a laboratory load cell. fn our new approach, the formation strengthis characterized by tradkional interpretationvolumctrics. A thorough analysis of tie formation strengthshows that it is a stmrtgfunction of the fitbology and effective pormi~ of the formation. Evidence of the natureof theserelationshipsis feund in &ts whsre the classic shaly sand beomerang seen on the neutron-density crossplot is also seen on a fOnnatiOn-strength/gamma my cressplot. This unique analysis allows the formation strengthto be interpretedin a manner consistent with conventional log analysis where clay, matrix, and effective parosi~ volumes are derived. The formation strength is also quantitled in terms of Orein-situ stzess stateof the fOrmation, which is largely a function of the mud pressure snd near-bit pore pressure. Comb@ the fonnaden-.skengthmeaswementwith etherMWD and/or LWD measurementsaflows thepore pressure, Mbology, effective porosity, and saturationof the formation to be computed in real time during drilling and allows decisions to be made that premote safer and more efficient drilling.
copyright {99! eddy of

Technique
by thevolumes shown in Fig. 1, which reprrsent the majoriq of the constituents of sedimental recks. The volumes determined by the interpretation progmm described in this paper are ilfustmtedon the rightside of F]g. 1. When the interpretationprogram has determined thata shale is present, matrix (usually quartz), wet clay, overpressure poresiv, and effective pxosi~ volumes are solved for. The saturation is set equal to unity in shales. w%en the program has determined &at porous sands are present, matrix, wet clay, effective porosity, and water salutation are solved for. The pore pressure cemputed in the shale above the sand is mnsidered to apply to the sand interval also. OverP-e POresity to Pre35rrreCfraracteri2sfi0n. The effective stress2 and equivalent depth3 concepts are illustratedin F%. 2. k a normal pressureenvironment(rightside of Fig. 2), the r.xk ~ mmp-and wateris expild as the overburdenstress incresses.The watercontainedwithinshakes consistsof waterbaud to the clays and nonbound or free. water contained within the pore space. The water expelled during compaction consists predominantly of the ties water. Conventional log interpretation nomenclature defies an effective porosity consisting of this free water and any hydrocarbons. Although effective porosity may not be the best term to describe shale porosity, it UN be used thoughout the folfowing discus3i0n3in keeping with normal mage. As the free water escapes, the effective poresity decreases snd the effective stress on the grains increases. This stress is modeled by Nur2 as

Merprdation MotfeL A formationcan te descrii

P ~gr=po,b crpw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (1) Tbe Biot constant is givem as

a=l.o(Kdf/Kgr). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(3

The vafue of Kg, can be estimated from the Iitbology. Because Kq depends on the porosity and grain cementation of the rock, it
wilf changeas the effective stress(or depth)increases. Tertiarydeltaic sedimentswill generally have a K@ K r Tiwrefom, the Biot constant is generzlly taken to be unity in t% ese environments. Data published by Magara4 show that in normally pressured s+wfiments the poroshy decrea$e caused by the increasing P,~8, is @~ by D=c1O++. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...@)

Petroleum Ewlnwrs

The overpressure csse is shown on the left side of Fig. 2. The sbzfe has been sealed at 5,OOOft, meaning that no additiond water is 2U0wed to w+capeupon further brmizf. This implies that tbe shafeeffective porosity remainsconstant with depth. Thus, the sbzle contains a porosity cafled an excess effective ~roshy that SPEDrillingEngineering, December1S91

2.54

m %ii@z@,ml, @@
2675 2325 W-,.,. -2675

II

Povb.Wr3

2325

Pob.10wO 2MQQ! @@

Povb.150C0 Pwb.imoo i l$!w a=-id ,$ ,g

Fig. 2Water takes up the Overbmden stress in undercom. patted shales when permeability is low enough to prohibit its escane. mmation Strength. Normafimtion for Bit Wear, RaIe of Turn, Id Weight on Bit. When ROP decreases below expected levels, e driller first suspects a worn-out bh. Many times other factors e responsible, and frequently a suitably good bit is pulled out of t hole, resulting in lost drilling tine. To address this problem, IrEessand f-ess06 develomd a mcdel to intermet the wear state &Ued tootli bits in sbale~. The model mes tie MWD measure. mts of downhole torque and dowmholeweight on bit WOB) and the surface measurementsof ROP and rateof turn (ROT) in revolutiom per minute, in addition to the wear state of the bit, he model also computes the apparent formation strength as
o *eb=WbV,40AlEd/Vpdb.

is greater than the porosity of a normally compacted shale. whh tie watertrapped,the s~e cannot compact andthe effective grainto-gmin stress dces not increase with depth. The water bears tie increasing overburden stress, resul~g in a pore pressure greater than hydrostatic pressure. Expressing depth in terms of effective stress in Eq. 3 and combining it with Eq, I resuft in an expression for pore pressure in pounds per square inch, PW, as a function of ovcrpressureporosiCJ, $Op: &p=(l/-b)bJg[(po,b -p~)/(p.,b-pm)]. .. (4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ...(7)

lle interpretation p;ogram determinesthe quantity+OPfrom all Me availablemeasurements and convem tldsto pressurewith F.q.4.

Measurement Characterization
Resistivity Characterization. fn sands, the resistivity is chamcterizedin termsof saturation,wet clay volume, and effective porositywiti the following modified Simandoux5 &qm.tiou 1
c mea Yc,sw Sg+p

+.

. . . . . .. . . . . alfw

,. (5)

R mea,

R.,

fn normally pressured shales, the resistivity remains relatively constantover thousandsoff&t, 3 but with vmiations caused by Iocal changes in wet clay vs. silt volumes. Thesevariations are described by the Vcl/Rc[term in Eq. 6. When an overpressuredshale is encountered, the measured resistivelydecreases because of the overpressvre porosity, +Op, Jn shales, therefore, the resistivity is characterized by the folfowing equation
c u em=+=~+~.

. . . . . . . . ... ....<.......(6) Rcl u%+

Deaanber 1991

-,

This equation produces a formation strengththatis independent of the wear stateof milled tooth bits and other measurabledrilling variables m long as adequate bit cleaning is maintained.7 When applied to polycrystalline dwond compact (PDC) bit run data, the model is not used to determinebh wear (Ed is unity), but is still used to compute the apparent formation strength. EnYironrnentatEffects. Historically, it has been acceptd that ROP is a strong function of the difference. between the mud and formationpore-fluid pressuresas weUas the mud weight itself. The greater the overbalance (mud pressure > pore pressure) and the higherthemud weight, the slowerthe ROP. In thefield, mud weight and mud pressure are dependent variables and it is difficult to separatethetwo effects, To circumventthis, laboratorystudieswere conducted in drifling machines where the anmius pressure could be maintainedby a choke ig the returnline, therebykeeping it in&pendent of the mud weight. f?arly studies were performed with microbits (1.25-in. diameter)and did not scale up accuratelyto fuL size bits. Cheatiam8 illustratedthe Iaboratmydetermined effects of mud weight and pressure on ROP for a WI-size 6%-in. -diameter roller bit drilling Mancm shale. There were no attemptsto monitor or to control the pore pressure of the shale dwig drilliig. The shale was not filly saturatedand, therefore, in a drained state, the pore pressure was assumed to be atmospheric. To determine the influence of elevated shale pore pressureson drilling response, a simfe drilling program was undertakenat Schlumberger Cambridge Research. A hard shale was drilled with 8.5-in. roller< one and PDC bits in a fdf-scale drilfimgmachine, and two hard andone soft shale
265

SPEDriffingE@&rir,g,

16 ~ ? J _ -iS8 E S6 a ?4 0 2 14 12 10

and zero differential pressure. Fig. 3 shows the results of the fleatbam &ta, where theFOre pressureis assumedto be ahnospheric because of the dmined stateof the shale. The &m for tie sotl shalesfall along the ssme trendswhen differentialprsssore is used. The following equation describes theseenvironmentalefftcts on the meazured formation strength.x
0-=

(O~W)g,0[2.CQ(W#.0) -l.@ .l[0.COZ(P~-PW)+l.0]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(8)

0 -1000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Pm- Pw (PSI) Tg. 3Mud weight and preszurs effesfs on the measursd fornatkm strsrmth.

were drilledwith 3.5-in. roller-cone bits in a small drillingmachine. Pmbinmy resuftsindicatethattie labmato~ ROP in the soft shale is a function of tie differential pressure or the difference between the mud and formation pore Pre;sures. This response would be expected when young sodlor undercompacted shales, which are the subject of this paper, are drilled. The ROP, torque, snd WOB from the roller-cone experiments were used to compute the formation strengthswith I@ 7. These formationstrengths were then.ormdi?ed to thestm@ at 9 lbmlgal

The second term in Eq. 8 accounk for the effect of decreasing ROP, with increasing mud weights and was derived from rollercone aid PDC laboratory data. The thirdterm accounts for the effect of decreasing ROP with increasing differential pressure aid was derived tiom roller-cgne laborato~ data. bitial observaticms from tield datahave shown thatthis term applies to PDC bits also. Li.%Iogy Effects. The measured apparentformationstrengthhas been found to be a function of pore, clay, snd ma@x volumes. ~s is best i!.lusmatexl by comparingthe formationstrength res+mnse with the wirelioe neutrondensity rssponse. Ffg. 4 shows ? classic neutmndensity boomerang plot througha section of shsle and bar sands from offshore the U.S. gulf coast. Tbe wet &d dry clay, water, sod matrixpoints as shown on the crossplot. The very silty sties (the hard shale point) correspond to the bottom shaly portion of the bar sands, where the clays have a tendency to be. dis~med withintheformatioo. Channelsandsdo not havethiscoherent patternbecause of their more laminated sandkhde structure.Ffg.. 5 shows a (.SmeJ9,0 vs. gamma ray plot over the same intefval. The silty shsle trend is seen on thisplot also. This allows themea6ured formation strengthto be writtenas a function of matrix md clay volumes. The effective porosity also influences the formation

WATER

J ? ~
E

2 ~
3 In @
POROUS E % = a) c ~ Y 3 a

u
QUARTZ

D~YCUY

3 0 Neutron-porosity measurement (W) 100

Fig. 4TypicaI neutron-density boomerang In a shalelsand Interval. 266

SPE Ddiliw E@neeriag, December 1991

300
O!JAR=

~ Q m o z [ z G z w u 5. ~~~

5 ~ P < g

o GAMMA RAY (countslsec)

80

ig. 5The shalelsand boomerang allows the formation strength to ba characterizedin term! >ftraditional volumetric. s&engthin a manner similar to clay but to a much greaterdegree. The increasing effective porosity trend is seen as a trendof points to the southwest on Fig. 5. The characterizatiouof formation strengthinto porosity, wct clay, andmatrii volumes isacbieved with the following response equationderived fmm the crossplot
trends:

The neutron measurement is characterized as (4N)mw=V,tdNcI +Vidm +v2$N2+%o$e~Nmf +(l-sxJ@e+~+dop!+Nw. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. (12)

Sonic.Velocity Characterization
om~ +ext (AJext 4. transittimesare availablefrom wireline measurements, When sonic they can be incorporated with&e LWD/MWD measurementsand used in the program. The sonic measurementis characterized by three response equations for the user to choose from. The WyUie equation is tm = VdGltcI+ VIZ* + v2t~ +(+, +v&[email protected])tmf Fq.
(13)

Vcz (omm,)gJ = Om Om om (vc~)exl

, . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9)

Field experience has shown thatEqs. 7 and 9 apply to PDC bits when they have thesame drilliig characteristics asa roller-cone bit, such as an increase in ROP with an increase in WOB, ROT, foniumion porosity, or formation clay content.

The simplified Hunt-Raymer-Gardner equation is

Gamma Ray Characterization

The gamma ray measurementmay be obtainedfrom LWD, MWD, or wireline measurementsand is characterized as
7mas=vc/7cl+v171 +v272. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . ..(10)

=
%a.$

Lna

($, + bw++op) 0.625tm

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(14)

tw is compnted with ~m= Vdc/tcl + v~q + v~q

Bulk-Density and Neutron-Porosity Characterization Thebti-demitv

measurement is characterized as
1

. . ...... ... . . . . . . . . . . . ..(15) V*J+ v, + V2

The full Hunt-Raymer-Gardner equation is

Pmas = vcfPct+ VIP1 + v2Pz+s.&P~ +(lsx&$epfi+&ppw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (11)

. k,

[1 (&[email protected])120

+ (~c+vbw+%~) hf

,,, ~1~

GM

SPE DriJlingEn@eering, December1991

267


~g. 6-PtOg~ computations through ap overpressured shale and hydrocarbon-bearing sand made with MWD msistlvity,gamma 8Y, and formation-stmngth measurements. 268 SPE Drilling F.r@&ing,

1991 December


000

.=.

100

200

300,

-La- -
mvlry [01 ETEo REs!s ,,,,, [OHI M.M) 20,00 Q4,,.W.E7ED >,00 20,00 ).,0 m)

=
, UNCWTNNIYOF M%

QAMMA RAY
,00,0

u 1

.AMlh 100.0

PORE PRESSURE

RAY [CPS)

D, ILL,W3 FLUD DENSITY MEASURED FORMATION ,00 {LW.3 AL)

am .

(,)

-.- (V/Vi

~ >,00

STRENOTH (KP.S) 400.0

. ------
$VERAQW [INTERPRETED PORE PRESSURE ILWQ .00 18,00

HYDROCARBONS

---------!NTERFBE, ED FORMATIOA ,,00 ..--STRENGTH ,00,0 -

WATER [VN)

MWD PORE PRESSUFIE +

,00

SIGMA iLStOAL) 18,00 SIQMA (LWGAL) ,8,00

me
,O,AL .QAS (%} 0,00

MWD PORE PflESSURE ,00

,. 6,00

19. 7Pm9mm cOmPtiations showing underbalanced drllllngthrough an overpressured shale and hydrocarbon-beating sand ~ mde with MWD reslstivity, gamma ray, and formation-strength measurements.

SPEDrillingEngimaing, December1991

269

.,

lg. SProgrim coniputations made with MWD formation-strength, LWD resistivlty, gamma ray, neutron, and density meaewements.

270

SPEDrillingEngineering, December1991

t3LGBAL Interpretation

Process

A program has been developed to solve the above measnrementrespcmseequations based on tie GLOBAL9 technique. The

GLOBAL techniquerequires thatthe measurement-responseequations be writtenas functions of the un!movm volumes (Ilg. 1) and thek associated response parameters, as shown in &Is. 5 through 16 (response parametersare the measurements re~onse to a particular volume when onfy that voltie is p~esent). T&$ GLOBAL ~cbnique determinesthe volumes that representthe best solution to the measurement-response equations. ~ accomplish this, the program minimizes an incoherence funmon given as

Is.,= -..

z ~ i=*

[Czi-fi(x)]z + ~

ate w:

8k(x~2 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(17)

k= 1

r:

A unique feature of tie GLOBALtechnique is the computation of theoreticalmeasurements, fi(x), by use of the computed volumes and& user-suppliedresponseparameters.The volumes thatsatisfi the set of equadons as a group may not be the best solution for a particular individual measurement:responseequation. The fust term in Eq. 17 is a measure of how well the theoretical measurement resembles the actual measurement. Iffhe volumes solved for satisfy the individualmeasurement-response equationsand descnie the maj@y of the formations lithology and porosity, and the response parametersare well chosen, thenthe theoreticalmeasurements will overlay the input measurements. When the fit is gcod, the computed total incohwence is smail. The user relies on these two observations todetermine the quafity of the answer.

Data Presentation Fig. 6 illustratesa computation made with the MWD formation
strength,gamma ray, andresisdvilythroughan overpressuredshale. Track 1 dkplays the volumetric computations from left to right of Vcl, VI (taken to be qwqtz), C$e,, ~op, and @w. Track 2 displays the measured and theoretical resistmmies,and Track 3 shows the measured and Oieomticaf gamma ray and formation strength. A fishtail PDC bit was used over the interval ilfustrat@ The high activity of the formation str.mgth.iscm.wd makdy by ROP fluctuations that are a resultof !iOmlogical and porosity variations. fhe computed pore pressureis displayed in Track 4 along with the mud weight and incoherence. The shading encompassing the porepressurecuwe representstie uncetity of tie computedpressure. It decreases as the number of input measurements increases, the volume of overprcssure porosity increases, and the incoherence decreases. This interv~ was drilled as a $detsack to a well where a kick bad occurred at the equiv~ent depthof 475 ft in this sidetrackwefl. The kick resultedin the bottomhole assembly (BHA) beimglost in the wefL The original hole was drifkd with 13.2 Ibm/gal mud and the kick was measured at 16 lbm/ga3. The analysis of the sidetrack shows thattheoriginal wdf was being drilfed sfigb!ly underbalanced just before the kick was taken. The sidetrack analysis shows pore pressuresas high as 15.8 Ibm/gaf from 460 to 620 ft and thatsuffl cient overbalance was being maintained. Track 4 afso cm.aim fhe measured mud gas, which at a depth of 610 ft correlates wefl with the hydrocarbon show cakufated by the program. Elg. 7 illustrates an overpressuredshalebeing drilledwithapdkd tooth bit slightlyunderbab.needfrom 000 to 105 ft. fbe mid weight was 13.5 lbtigal and the computed pore pressure is 14 Ibm/gal. A hydrocarbon-bearing sand is drifled at 105 ft, and a small kick resultedin the mud weight being raised m 14.2 ibm/@. Note also the mud/gas show in Track 4. After drilling to 150 ft, a bit trip was made and a fishtail PDC bit and mud motor were used to drill the remaitig interval shown. The apparentformation strengthis much lower for ~s bit runbecause of the greaterROP for a given WOB compared with the milled tooth bit and is accounted for by use of a lower Om parameter in Eq. 9. The mud weight remains slightfybelow thepore pressureand is subsequentlyraisedin incrementsin respons to thehydrocarbon-bearingsanddrilled tlom 275 to 300 ft. Sufficient overbalance is maintained for the remainder of the interval. SPBDrillingEngineering, December1991

Fig. 8 illustratesthe computation with MWD and LWD measurements displayed with other interpretationsand measurements at the weflsite in real time during drilling. Track 1 displays BHA Mctionaf factors10computed from the downhole-measured weight and torque. Notice the sliding friction increases untfl,the pipe was worked at 325 tl, afterwbich it stabilizes.Track 2 containstheBHA with theLWD tools and fbeir measure points displzyed inside the coflars. The resisdvityigamma ray is the lowermost point and the uPPeImostiSthe ne~tmndensity measure point. Track 3 COn,f&IS the Iitbolofl, porbsuy, and saturatmnanalyses from this program, with Track 4 showing the resulting pore pressure in pounds per gallon. Track 4 also contains tie mud gas and the difference between thetotal mud flow in and out. Track 5 contains the measurements of gamma ray, formation stm@b, and ROP. From the bit depth to the LWfJ resistivi~/gamma-ray sensor depth, the Iithology is determined from the downhole weight and progmm cOmtorque % simpfy sand or shafe.11 The interpretation putesa pore pressurewith the formationstrengthmeasurementwith MS. 4,8, and 9, asimning a constant volume of wet clay for the Mhology. Using only one measurementand assuming a constant fitlolo~ account for the Imgeuncertaintyassociatedwith thispOrepressure computation. At the LWD resistivity/gamma-ray sensor depth, the program incorporatestheseadditiond measurementsand computes the volume of wet clay, quartz, effective porosity, water-. fdled porosi,~, and overpressure porosity, as shown in Track 3. The wet clay volume is shaded with the Mhology determined from a predefmed data base. 12 This segmentation helps provide the Iithologica.1 boundaries for the assignment of cuttingsdescriptions. At the LWD neutron-density-measurement sensor depth, the program recomputes and redisplays the answers, incorporating tlese additional measurements. The Iithology spikes in Track 3 representthinbeds determinedfrom a curvdmpe anafysisof theueumndensi~ measurements, TIE d~play wrolls upwind as drilfing continues, providing a foot-by-foot analysis and picture of the formaIion characteristics and their effects on drillstring behavior. This pmvidcs a clear indicationof when to change themud weight, make wiper hips, and initiate other drilliig decisions. c0nclu810ns An interpretation profgam thatUWtbe GLOBALtechniquebas been devefoped for analyzingdownhole drilling, ROP, MWD, and LWO measurementsin terms of pore pressure, MIIO1OSY, porosity, and saturation.This eliminatesthe need for a trend-typepore-pressure analysis for undercompactedshalesandprovides a fcot-by-foot evaluation during drifling. Knowing these formation athibutes during drilling helps determine the,mud weight necessary for safe, and yet efficient, drilling.

Nomenclature ~ = fom~tion fa@or ~~~~~t

ai = Measurement i

A, = gouging component of bit torque b = constant

~ = ~om~t, ft cm = measured conductivity, S db = bit diameter, in. D = depth, ft Ed = bk efficiency based on tooth wear fi(x) = Response Equation i as a function of x Fq = sonic compaction factor g.&x) = COn@aint Equation Number k as a function 10$ = incoherence function Kdf = bufk modulus of dry frame Kg, = bulk modulus of grains m = cementation exponent

of x

m+ = cemen?tion exponent of overpressure porosity n = saturationexponent Om = formation sqenglb of 100% Mineral 1 andfor Mineral 2 0 meal= measwed formation strength, psi, 271

John G
specialist worldng pora-pre.ssure a variety of on

Rasmus
with AnadrOl MWD/LWD

1$

an

engineering TX, and has held Ovewewre Pwsiw where (O_)9,0 =0, fraction 4~ = hyd-bon volume, fraction 4Nh = neuEon-pOrO~@ re-wense to 100% hydrocarbons ($N)rraas 4N~f 6Nw = = = n@[email protected]~@ ne@wwrOsiW neU*owemsitY m~r.ment r=pODse response w tb 100% NO% mud ffl~ate.

in Sugarland, volumetric He

= ex~po~$~

interpretation. positions,

including appllcafions development engineer and product development manager with Schlumberger. He holds a SS degree in mechanical

engineeringfrom IowaState U. Photo

and

blogfaphlcal information on D.M.R. tlray Steiahens are unavailable.

shale iwwer 40P = excess effective porosity in zn overpreswred shale @w = free water volume, fraction

(Oma,)9,0 = measured formation strength at 9 ibm/gal and O psi pm = mud pressure, psi Po,b = overburden pressure, psi Pm = pressure of pore water in normal pressured shale, psi P ~ = water pressure in tie pores, psi Ping, = normal effective pressure on grains, psi Rcl = resistivi~ of 100% wet clay, Wm Rm=, = measured resistivi~, Q R.,. = resistivitv of free water. Q/m R.+ = resistivity of water contained in the overpressure porosity, Wm SW = saturation of effective porosity S..(4,) = volumeof mud fdhate t.hh J2 -, = sonic responses to 10% of the respective

Acknowledgments
We thank Anadrill/Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper and the various oil companies for providing the data.

References
1, Jorden, J.R. and Shirley, O.J.: Applicationof DrillingPerformance Data to Overpressure Detection, JPT (Nov. 1966) 1387-94. 2. Nur, A. andByerke, I.D.: b Bxag Eff4ve Stress LawForElasResearch(Sept. ticDeformation of Reck With Fluids, J. Geoplz.wical 1971). 3. Ham,H.H.: A Methcd of Esdmadng Formation Pressures Fmm Gulf Coast Well Logs, Trans., Gulf Coast Assn. of Geological Societies (1966) 16. 4. Magam, K.: Compacdon and Fluid M,@on,>, Ekevier science FUbIishers (1978). en IDik POEUX, applicadm 5. Simmdoux, P.: Mesures di&[email protected] 3.la mesure dcssaturations eneau, 6h!dedu coniportwnent des massifs de 1Inst.Frm@s du P&role,SupplementmyIssue argileux, Revue (1963). 6, B&e&, T.M, andtiO, W.G.: Measuring theWearof MilledTc.xh Bits by Use of MWD Torque and Weight-on-flit,, paper SPE 13475 presented at the 1985 SPElfADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March 5-S. 7. white, D. B., Cuny, D. A., and Gavignet, A. G.: Effects of NozzIe Configuration on Ro!.ler-Cone-Bit Performance> paper SPE 171SS Pmsated at the 19g8L4DCJSPE Drilling Conference. Dallas. Feb. 2gM?.rch 2. g. Chwtlmm, C.A.: Effects of Selected Mnd Properties on Kate of Penetm.tionin FulMkale .%& Drilling Sirmdations,xpaper WE 13465 Preserted at the 1985 SPEIL4DC DrillingConference,New Odeam, March 5-8. 9. Mayer, C. and Sibbit, A.: GI.OBC A New Approachto Cm@erProcessd Log Interpretation, paper SPE9341presented atthe19S0 SPE AMIMITe&icaI Conferenceand Ex&ibidon,Dallas, Sept. 21-2A. 10. J.&sage,M., Fakoner, I.G., andW,&, C,: Ewkadng Drilling practice SPEDE(Sem. inDeviated WellsW& TomueandWeis%t Dafa.33 . 19g8) 24S-52. 11. Burgess,T., Falconer,I.G., andSheppird,M.: SepaatingBitand LithologyEffectsFromDrillingMechanics Data,,,paperSPE17191 presented atthe19SS IADC/SPE Drilfing Conference, Dal&.,Feb.28Ma,ch 2.

ndnenis

b
ms

= sonic transit time of 100% Mineral 1 and/or

Mineral 2 = sonic transit time measurement VP = ROP, ft/br v. . = ROT.. revlmin Vbw = vc~ (r&)c* (Vti)d = volume of bound wafer in 100% wet clay, fraction vc~= volume of wet clay Vcl,VI ,V2 = volume solved for (Vc& = extrapolated volume of clay where (OmW)g,O=O Vdcl = volume of dry clay= Vd VbW Wi = user supplied uncertainty of Measurement i Wb = downboIe WOB, Ibm Wm = mud weight, ibm/gal Z = vector of solution a = BiOt~On~~t an = Biot ,constant for normal pressured shafe aop = Blot constant for overpmssmed sizale YcbY I,72 = g-a raY r~ponse tO 100% Of fie leipe~Yc mineral ray measurement M,P I A = buk-density response to 100% of the respective mineral PA = bu~-density response to 100% hydrocarbon p.= = bufkdensiw measurement Pti = b~k-densiq response to 100% md ~~~ p. = bull-density response tG lKI% shale water Ui = internally computed uncetity of Meamrcment i rk = uncctity on constmint equ2tion @ = porosity 7=, = g-a

12. DeUiner, P.C., Peyret,O., andSerra,O.: AutomaticDetermination of Lith@y FromWell Lags,,, SPEFE (Sept.19S7)303-10.

S1 Metric Conversion Factors

Cycleskc ft in, Ibmfgal psi
W4nvaslon Origlnd SPE

x x X X x

1.0 3.04S*
2.54*

1.19S 264 6.894157

E+OO E01 E+I3O E+02 E+OO

= = = = =

Hz m cm kg/m3 kpa SPEDE

factor 1s exact,

mm,crl@ reca[ved forwl~ SsPt, 23,1990, PaPer ,cce@ed far ~blica. 110 Sw.t.24,?991, Revised rmumriPt ,ecslved S,PI, 17,1S91PaQ,r(SPE2C443) fitst Technio? Con fwen.e and ExMbl!lon held In New Presented a: Ihe 1990WE Annual
Ormm. Sept. 22-28.

172

SPEDri!Jing En@eering, December1991