TAMU - Pemex

Well Control

Lesson 10
Logging While Drilling
(LWD)
 Logging While Drilling

 Sonic Travel Time

 Resistivity and Conductivity

 Eaton’s Equations (R, C, ∆ t, dc)

 Natural Gamma Ray

 Other…
2
 Logging While Drilling (LWD)
The parameters obtained with LWD lag
penetration by 3’ to 60’, depending on
the location of the tool. Some tools
have the ability to “see” ahead of the bit.

These are most commonly used for

Geo-steering, but can be used in
detection of abnormal pressure.

3
 Logging While Drilling

 Any log that infers shale porosity

can indicate the compaction state of
the rock,
and hence any abnormal pressure
associated with undercompaction.

4
 Logging While Drilling

 Most of the published correlations are

based on sonic and electric log data.

 Density logs can also be used if

sufficient data are available.

5
 Pore Pressure Gradient vs.
difference between actual and
normal sonic travel time
From Hottman and Johnson
LA Upper TX Gulf Coast
gp, psi/ft

∆ to – ∆ tn, µ sec/ft 6
 Normal Matthews and Kelly
gp, psi/ft

∆ to – ∆ tn, µ sec/ft 7
 Relationships vary from area to
area and from age to age

But, the trends are

the same.
gp, psi/ft

∆ to – ∆ tn, µ sec/ft 8
Resistivity and Conductivity
The ability of rock to conduct electric
current can be used to infer porosity.

Resistivity -- ohm-m2/m
or ohm-m

Conductivity -- 10-3m/ohm-m2
or millimhos/m

9
Resistivity and Conductivity
Rock grains, in general, are very poor
conductors.

Saline water in the pores conducts

electricity and this fact forms the basis
for inferring porosity from bulk R or C
measurements.

10
Resistivity and Conductivity

Under normal compaction, R increases

with depth.

Deviation from the normal trend

suggests abnormal pressure

11
Resistivity and Conductivity
 FR = Ro/Rw  FR = formation
resistivity factor

 Ro = resistivity of water-
saturated formation

 Rw = resistivity of pore water

12
 Resistivity of formation water
Rw reflects the dissolved salt content of
the water, and is dependant upon
temperature.
 T1 + 6.77 
Rw2 = R w1 
 T2 + 6.77 
where T1 and T2 are in oF

Equation shows that Rw decreases with

increasing temperature, and
consequently, decreases with depth. 13
 Porosity, φ
−1 / m
 Porosity of water-saturated rock, φ = aF R
-0.5
 If a = 1, and m = 2, then φ = F R

 So, φ = (Ro/Rw)-0.5
 Rw in shales cannot be measured directly
so Rw in a nearby sand is used instead.
 Ro would tend to increase with increasing
depth under normally pressured conditions.
See Fig. 2.63. 14
Depth, ft Fig. 2.63 – Normal Compaction

Ro , Ω . m 15
Example 2.20
Rw estimated from
nearby well.
Estimate the pore
pressure at 14,188 ft
using Foster and
Whalen’s techinque.
So, at 14,188 ft,
Ro 0.96
FR = =
R w 0.034

FR = 28.24
16
 Using Eaton’s Gulf
Coast correlations,
σ ob = 0.974 psi/ft or
13,819 psig at 14,188’
Eq. Depth = 8,720’
σ obe = 0.937 psi/ft or
8,170 psig at 8,720’
pne = 0.465*8,720

Transition at = 4,055
~11,800’ pp = ppe + (σ ob -σ obe )
= 4,055+(13,816-8,171)
= 9,703 psig
17
= 13.16 ppg
 Fig. 2.65 -Hottman & Johnson’s upper
Gulf Coast Relationship between
shale resistivity and pore pressure

Gp,
psi/ft

18
Rn/Ro
 Example 2.21
Matthews and
Kelly

Determine the transition

depth and estimate the
pore pressure at 11,500’

19
 Example 2.21
Fig. 2.67
Transition is at ~9,600 ft.
At 11,500 ft:
Co = 1,920, and
Cn = 440
Co/Cn = 1,920 / 440
= 4.36
gp = 0.81 psi/ft (Fig 2.66)

20
Fig. 2.66
gp = 0.81 psi/ft
ρ p = 15.6 ppg
pp = 9,315 psig

4.36
21
 Eaton’s Equations
3
 ∆t n 
g p = g ob − ( g ob − g n )   Eq. 2.34
 ∆t o 
1 .2
 Ro 
g p = g ob − ( g ob − g n )   Eq. 2.35
 Rn 
1 .2
 Cn 
g p = g ob − ( g ob − g n )   Eq. 2.36
 Co 
1 .2
 d co 
g p = g ob − ( g ob − g n )  
 d cn 
22
 Eaton’s Equations
These equations differ from the earlier
correlations in that they take into
consideration the effect a variable
overburden stress may have on the
effective stress and the pore pressure.
Probably the most widely used of the
log-derived methods
Have been used over 20 years
23
 Example 2.22
In an offshore Louisiana well, (Ro/Rn) =
0.264 in a Miocene shale at 11,494’.
An integrated density log indicates an
overburden stress gradient of 0.920
psi/ft. Estimate the pore pressure.

Using Eaton’s technique

Using Hottman and Johnson’s

24
 Solution
Eaton
From Eq. 2.35,
gp = gob - (gob - gn)(Ro/Rn)1.2

gp = 0.920 - (0.920 - 0.465)(0.264) 1.2

gp = 0.827 psi/ft

25
 Solution
 Hottman & Johnson
 Rn/Ro = 1/(0.264) = 3.79

 From Fig 2.65, we then get

gp = 0.894 psi/ft

Difference = 0.894 – 0.827 = 0.067 psi/ft

 Answers differ by 770 psi or 1.3 ppg 26

 Discussion
Actual pressure gradient was
determined to be 0.818 psi/ft!

In this example the Eaton method came

within 104 psi or 0.17 ppg equivalent
mud density of measured values

This lends some credibility to the Eaton

method.
27
 Discussion
In older sediments, exponent may be
lowered to 1.0 for resistivities.

Service companies may have more

accurate numbers for exponents.

28
 Natural Gamma Ray
Tools measure the natural radioactive
emissions of rock, especially from:
 Potassium

 Uranium

 Thorium

29
 Natural Gamma Ray
The K40 isotope tends to concentrate in
shale minerals thereby leading to the
traditional use of GR to determine the
shaliness of a rock stratum.

It follows that GR intensity may be used

to infer the porosity in shales of
consistent minerology
30
 Natural Gamma Ray
Pore pressure prediction using MWD is
now possible (Fig. 2.68).

Lower cps (counts per second) may

indicate higher porosity and perhaps
abnormal pressure.

31
Fig. 2.68

Natural Gamma Ray

In normally pressured
shales the cps
increases with depth

Any departure from this

trend may signal a
transition into abnormal
pressure

32
 Pore pressure gradient prediction from
observed and normal Gamma Ray counts

33
Example 2.23

From table 2.17,

determine the pore
pressure gradient at
11,100 ft using
Zoeller’s correlation.
Use the first three
data points to
establish the normal
trend line.

34
At 11,100’
NGRn / NGRo 57/42 = 1.36
From below, gp = 0.61 psi/ft
or 11.7 ppg

35
 Effective Stress Models
Use data from MWD/LWD
Rely on the effective-stress principle as the
basis for empirical or analytical prediction
Apply log-derived petrophysical parameters
of the rock to a compaction model to
quantify effective stress
Knowing the overburden pressure, the pore
pressure can then be determined
36
 Dr. Choe’s Kick Simulator
 Take a kick
 Circulate the kick out of the hole
 Plot casing seat pressure vs. time
 Plot surface pressure vs. time
 Plot kick size vs. time
 etc.

37