29543572 10 Logging While Drilling

7/29/2019 29543572 10 Logging While Drilling

1/37

TAMU - PemexWell Control

Lesson 10

Logging While Drilling

(LWD)


2/37

2


Sonic Travel Time

Resistivity and Conductivity

Eatons Equations (R, C, t, dc)

Natural Gamma Ray

Other


3/37

3

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 indetection of abnormal pressure.


4/37

4


Any log that infers shale porosity

can indicate the compaction state ofthe rock,

and hence any abnormal pressure

associated with undercompaction.


5/37

5


Most of the published correlations are

based on sonic and electric log data.

Density logs can also be used if

sufficient data are available.


6/37

6

Pore Pressure Gradient vs.

difference between actual and

normal sonic travel time

From Hottman and Johnson

LA Upper TX Gulf Coast

to tn, sec/ft

gp

,psi/ f

t


7/37

7

Matthews and KellyNormal

to tn, sec/ft

gp

,psi/ f

t


8/37

8

Relationships vary from area to

area and from age to age

But, the trends are

the same.

to tn, sec/ft

gp

,psi/

ft


9/37

9


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


10/37

10


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 Cmeasurements.


11/37

11


Under normal compaction, R increases

with depth.

Deviation from the normal trend

suggests abnormal pressure


12/37

12


FR = Ro/Rw FR = formation

resistivity factor

Ro= resistivity of water-

saturated formation

Rw= resistivity of pore water


13/37

13

Resistivity of formation water

Rw reflects the dissolved salt content ofthe water, and is dependant upon

temperature.

Equation shows that Rw decreases with

increasing temperature, and

consequently, decreases with depth.

++= 77.6T

77.6TRR

2

11w2w

FinareTandTwhereo

21


14/37

14

Porosity, m

RaF/1= Porosity of water-saturated rock,

If a = 1, and m = 2, then = FR-0.5

So, = (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.


15/37

15

Fig. 2.63 Normal Compaction

Ro , .m

Depth ,

ft


16/37

16

Example 2.20

Rw estimated fromnearby well.

Estimate the pore

pressure at 14,188 ftusing Foster and

Whalens techinque.

So, at 14,188 ft,

FR

= 28.24

034.0

96.0=

w

o

RR

RF


17/37

17

Transition at

~11,800

Using Eatons Gulf

Coast correlations,

ob = 0.974 psi/ft or

13,819 psig at 14,188

Eq. Depth = 8,720

obe = 0.937 psi/ft or

8,170 psig at 8,720

pne = 0.465*8,720

= 4,055

pp = ppe + ( ob - obe )

= 4,055+(13,816-8,171)

= 9,703 psig

= 13.16


18/37

18

Fig. 2.65 -Hottman & Johnsons upper

Gulf Coast Relationship between

shale resistivity and pore pressure

Rn/Ro

Gp,

psi/ft


19/37

19

Example 2.21

Matthews andKelly

Determine the transition

depth and estimate the

pore pressure at 11,500


20/37

20

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)

Example 2.21

Fig. 2.67


21/37

21

gp = 0.81 psi/ft

p= 15.6 ppg

pp = 9,315 psig

Fig. 2.66

4.36


22/37

22

Eatons Equations

( )

( )( )( ) 2.1

2.1

2.1

3

cn

co

nobobp

o

n

nobobp

n

onobobp

o

n

nobobp

d

dgggg

C

Cgggg

R

Rgggg

t

tgggg 34.2.Eq

35.2.Eq

36.2.Eq


23/37

23

Eatons Equations

These equations differ from the earliercorrelations in that they take into

consideration the effect a variable

overburden stress may have on theeffective stress and the pore pressure.

Probably the most widely used of the

log-derived methods

Have been used over 20 years


24/37

24

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 0.920psi/ft. Estimate the pore pressure.

Using Eatons technique

Using Hottman and Johnsons


25/37

25

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


26/37

26

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


27/37

27

Discussion

Actual pressure gradient was

determined to be 0.818 psi/ft!

In this example the Eaton method camewithin 104 psi or 0.17 ppg equivalent

mud density of measured values

This lends some credibility to the Eaton

method.


28/37

28

Discussion

In older sediments, exponent may be

lowered to 1.0 for resistivities.

Service companies may have more

accurate numbers for exponents.


29/37

29

Natural Gamma Ray

Tools measure the natural radioactive

emissions of rock, especially from:

Potassium

Uranium

Thorium


30/37

30

Natural Gamma Ray

The K40 isotope tends to concentrate in

shale minerals thereby leading to the

traditional use of GR to determine theshaliness of a rock stratum.

It follows that GR intensity may be usedto infer the porosity in shales of

consistent minerology


31/37

31

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.

Fi 2 68


32/37

32

Natural Gamma Ray

In normally pressuredshales the cps

increases with depth

Any departure from this

trend may signal a

transition into abnormalpressure

Fig. 2.68


33/37

33

Pore pressure gradient prediction from

observed and normal Gamma Ray counts


34/37

34

Example 2.23

From table 2.17,

determine the pore

pressure gradient at

11,100 ft using

Zoellers correlation.

Use the first three

data points to

establish the normaltrend line.


35/37

35

At 11,100

NGRn / NGRo 57/42 = 1.36

From below, gp = 0.61 psi/ft

or 11.7 ppg


36/37

36

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


37/37

37

Dr. Choes 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.

29543572 10 Logging While Drilling

Documents