The Use of Connection and Total Gases Quantitatively in the Assessment of Shale Pore Pressure
- Mark W. Alberty (Hess Corporation) | Kristi Fink (Hess Corporation)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- June 2014
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 208 - 214
- 2014.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 1.12.2 Logging While Drilling, 1.6 Drilling Operations
- pore pressure, pressure detection, total gas, mud logging, connection gas
- 8 in the last 30 days
- 449 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
Connection and total gas measurements were used qualitatively for decades in drilling oil and gas wells to identify overbalanced, underbalanced, or near-underbalanced pressure conditions (mud hydrostatic pressure relative to shale pore pressure). Results often conflicted with directly measured sand pore pressures (PP) and the pre-existing perceptions of shale PP. We propose a technique that allows mud gases to be used in a quantitative manner when (1) there is an increased understanding of the relationship between mud gases and shale PP, (2) the development of the logging-while-drilling (LWD)-based annular-pressure measurement allows for the real-time monitoring of downhole hydrostatic pressures, and (3) differences between sand and shale PP may exist as a result of the sand’s structural position. This paper presents time-based equivalent-circulating-density (ECD) behavior relative to block movement, flow rate, and total gas from Gulf of Mexico (GOM) wells, and explains the relationship to shale PP. These examples are quantitatively analyzed for shale PP. The results are compared with direct formation-pressure measurements within the sands. Six principles guide pore-pressure interpreters on the quantitative use of mud gases. The principles define the pore-pressure values assigned to specific mud-gas observations as a function of recorded annular mud pressure. One can use the pore-pressure estimates in shale as calibration points for traditional shale-pressure indicators such as resistivity, velocity, or corrected drilling exponent measurements. This integrated technique yields an improved characterization of shale and sand PPs and can be used as input for well designs to increase reliability, safety, and drilling efficiency.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||7|
Alberty, Mark. 2005. Pore Pressure Detection: Moving From an Art to a Science. SPE-108787-DL. Distinguished Lecturer Series Talk.
Alharthy, Najeeb, Kobaisi, Mohammed Al, Torcuk, Mehmet A. et al. 2012. Physics and Modeling of Gas Flow in Shale Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAB. 11–14 November. SPE-161893-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/161893-MS.
Bignell, L.G.E. 1938. Automatic Sampling of Drilling Mud Achieved by New Device. Oil & Gas J. February 17, p. 57.
Bratton, T.R., Rezmer-Cooper, I.M., Desroches, J. et al. 2001. How to Diagnose Drilling Induced Fractures in Wells Drilled With Oil-Based Muds With Real-Time Resistivity and Pressure Measurements. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March. SPE-67742-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/67742-MS.
Ertekin, T., King, G.R., and Schwerer, F.C. 1986. Dynamic Gas Slippage: A Unique Dual-Mechanism Approach to the Flow of Gas in Tight Formations. SPE Form Eval 1 (1): 43–52. SPE-12045-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12045-PA. SPE-12045-PA.
Freeman, C.M. 2010. A Numerical Study of Microscale Flow Behavior in Tight Gas and Shale Gas. Presented at the SPE ATCE, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. SPE-141125-STU. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141125-STU.
Javadpour, F. 2009. Nanopores and Apparent Permeability of Gas Flow in Mudrocks (Shales and Siltstone). J Can Pet Technol 48 (8): 16–21. SPE-09-08-16-DA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/09-08-16-DA.
Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., and Unsworth, M. 2007. Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale Sediments. J Can Pet Technol 46 (10): SPE-07-10-06-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/07-10-06-PA.
Kandel, D., Quagliaroli, R., Segalini, G. et al. 2000. Improved Integrated Reservoir Interpretation Using Gas While Drilling Data. Presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, France, 24–25 October. SPE-65176-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/65176-MS.
Pixler, B. Otto. 1946. Some Recent Developments in Mud-Analysis Logging. Transactions of the AIME 165 (1): 268–280. SPE-946268-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/946268-G.
Roy, S., Raju, R., Chuang, H.F. et al. 2003. Modeling Gas Flow Through Microchannels and Nanopores. J. Applied Physics 93 (8): 4870–4879.
Swami, Vivek and Settari, A. (Tony). 2012. A Pore Scale Gas Flow Model for Shale Gas Reservoir. Presented at the SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 5–7 June. SPE-155756-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/155756-MS.
Traugott, Martin. 1997. Pore Pressure and Fracture Pressure Determinations in Deepwater. Deepwater Technology Supplement to World Oil, August.
Traugott, Martin O. and Heppard, Phillip D. 1994. Prediction of Pore Pressure Before and After Drilling—Taking the Risk out of Drilling Overpressured Prospects. Presented at the AAPG Hedberg Research Conference on Abnormal Pressures in Hydrocarbon Environments, Denver, Colorado, 8–10 June, abstract.