2000 AADE Drilling Technology Forum

Best Available Practical Drilling Technology- The Search Continues

Conference & Exhibition
Marriott Hotel Westside
February 9-10, 2000

Pore and Fracture Pressure information from PWD data

Chris Ward & Mitch Beique
Sperry-Sun Drilling Services

Pressure While Drilling (PWD) is now a well-established part of the MWD arsenal. In
places where the margins between pore, collapse, and fracture pressures are narrow, it has
proven to be valuable through reducing the uncertainties in equivalent circulating density
(ECD) prediction. Benefits from monitoring of hole cleaning with PWD have also been
described. In riserless deepwater drilling PWD has found a ‘killer application’ –
identifying and mitigating troublesome shallow water flows.

Where we previously relied exclusively on uncertain hydraulic models, PWD data now
tells us exactly what the pressures we impose on the wellbore are. However, can PWD
data tell us anything about the boundary pressure constraints? In particular the pore and
fracture pressure.

To predict pore and fracture pressures we have historically used empirical models and
well indications (such as cavings, gas, losses, etc), with some uncertainty. Accurate
measurements are typically only available sometime after the event in the case of a
formation pressure test, or only below the casing shoe in for of a leak-off test (LOT).

This paper outlines how PWD data can sometimes bridge the gap between the uncertain
model predictions, well indications and later measurements, thereby reducing the
uncertainties in boundary pressure conditions and helping to lessen the number of hole
problems. We first cover the application of the PWD sensor to influx detection and well
control. We then look at the application to the identification of loss/gain (ballooning)
phenomena, LOT measurements and lost circulation, which can give us valuable
information concerning the fracture pressure limit.

Figure 1. PWD tool schematic

The Pressure-While-Drilling™ (PWD®) tool (Fig. 1) is part of the MWD string and
records annular and sometimes drillstring pressures during the drilling process. Pressures
can be pulsed to surface while circulating to make real-time decisions, and more recent
tools can pulse up selected pumps-off pressures from LOT’s, tripping or connections.
This raw pressure is normally converted to an equivalent mud weight (EMW) at surface
for display and interpretation. This EMW is a calculated value derived from the measured
pressure and true vertical depth at the sensor point.

Kick Detection
Pressure responses in both
time and depth vary greatly
from one well control
situation to another.
However, similarities in the
type of kick may result in a
similar PWD log. For
example, in a typical salt-
water kick (Figure 2), the
influx occurs after the last
connection is made and
both a reduction in
equivalent mud weight
(EMW) and an increase in
the active pit totals are
observed. When this "kick"
was recognized, drilling
activities are stopped, and
the well is shut in. The
wellbore becomes a closed
system and the PWD sensor
records a pressure build up
curve that reaches Figure 2. PWD log showing an influx with ECD below
equilibrium close to the formation pressure and shut in pressure build-up.
pore pressure of the
invading formation. The
influx is circulated out and
the shut in bottom hole
pressure is recorded by the
PWD.

These kind of recorded data

have been used to dissect
well “kill” procedures and refine techniques used by rig crews. Normally this information
is not available in real time due to slow circulation rates. However, the complete record
of the kill from shut-in to circulating out of the kick is available when the PWD sensor is
retrieved.
Many times determining well control problems from real-time pumps-on PWD data is
difficult in the absence of other data. However, when these data are combined with
conventional mud logging data, a clear picture develops. Figure 3 demonstrates the use of
gas hydrocarbon averages (percent) and pit volume totals (bbl) in the interpretation of
PWD data.

Pit volumes and gas-in-

mud percentages
indicate that the well is
underbalanced over the
three historical
connections shown in
this example. The length
of time taken to
complete each of the
first two connections
could account for the
increase in flow back pit
volumes and connection
gas. Ambiguous surface
data over several
connections are
common, especially in
“loss/gain” situations. In Figure 3. PWD log showing influxes with formation
fact, the rig crew did not pressure between mud weight and ECD and
raise the mud weight resulting connection gas.
until after the third
connection produced a
sustained pit gain of
approximately 10
barrels. An earlier
response would have
prevented this influx.

The PWD service

provides not only
pumps-on data but also three critical points during pumps-off conditions. These points
are the maximum, minimum, and average pressure measurements and represent the
industry's first steps to provide solutions for missing data when the pumps are off. It
should be remembered that most measurement-while-drilling (MWD) systems require
some type of fluid movement or pressure drop to transmit hydraulic pressure pulses from
the bottom hole assembly (BHA) to the surface. By providing a limited amount of
pumps-off information, the PWD service identifies the trend of lower “static” EMW at
each connection.
Well control issues can appear during any rig operation, but especially dangerous is an
influx while tripping. The log example shown in Figure 4 is an illustration of a kick
occurring while tripping out of the hole. After the incident, the pore pressure was
measured at 16.05ppg. This value was taken after shut-in from the stabilized PWD
pressure build-up curve. Looking back, both the circulating EMW and the static EMW
just before the short trip were greater than pore pressure. However, swab pressures from
the short trip lowered the EMW below pore pressure and the well took a fluid influx.
While tripping back in the hole, a decrease in pressure was noted as the PWD sensor
entered the swabbed-in
light gas.

The PWD service

currently records only
these kinds of events.
There is no circulation
throughout the short trip
and none during the
shut-in period of the
well; also the slow
pump rates required to
kill wells normally are
not great enough to
allow for real-time
information to be
transmitted. Future
enhancements to this
service will incorporate
solutions to acquiring
real-time data
throughout all rig
operations, whether
circulating or not.

Figure 4. PWD® log showing influxes with

formation pressure between mud weight and swab.
Loss/Gain

The phenomenon variously called borehole ballooning, breathing, or loss/gain can result
from drilling close to the fracture pressure. Slow mud losses are observed while drilling
ahead followed by mud returns after the pumps have been turned off, such as during a
connection or flow check. Usually any flows during these periods are cause for concern
because they may be mistaken as an influx of formation water, liquid hydrocarbons, or
gas. As noted in the
previous section, any
influx from the
formation can result in
a well control problem,
the magnitude of which
is dependent on its
volume and
composition. However,
if the flow is due to
mud returns, well
control is not an issue.
The question, then, is
"How does one know
unequivocally if it is an
influx or if it is mud
that was lost while
drilling flowing back
into the wellbore?" If
the well is shut in, both
situations typically
show a pressure build
up (Ref 1).

This loss/gain situation

has often been mistaken
in the field for an influx
of formation fluid.
Misdiagnosis often Figure 5. PWD log showing a developing loss/gain
situation.
leads to unwarranted
well control procedures
that can be costly. One
way to identify such a
situation is with PWD signature during pumps-off periods. Figure 5 shows a series of
three connections during a developing loss/gain situation. A normal connection is
typically square shaped when the pumps are stopped and started. When the pumps are
off, the EMW is that of the whole annular column, in this case about 14.5ppg. During
circulation, the EMW is quickly established at a level equivalent circulating density
(ECD), in this example close to 15.5ppg. As the loss/gain develops, the PWD connection
signature changes. When the pumps are turned off, the EMW slowly decays to the static
mud weight as mud bleeds back from the formation in a manner similar to a LOT (see
below). When circulation is re-established, the EMW slowly builds up to the ECD level
as fractures are slowly re-filled.

Loss/gain is a relatively common problem in deepwater wells due to the low overburden
and very common in high pressure wells where pore and fracture pressures are close. If a
loss/gain situation is misidentified as an influx, the normal response is to increase the
mud weight. This soon leads to total losses. The correct response is to decrease the mud
weight, decrease the ECD (reduce flow rate), or live with the losses and gains.

Leak-off Test

Normally a LOT is performed at the start of each hole section after drilling out a few feet
below the casing shoe. The LOT is designed to assess the cement and formation integrity.
The casing shoe is the weakest part of a gas-filled wellbore and is essential in
determining the kick
tolerance for the next
section. The LOT can also
give some information on
the formation strength as an
upper limit for the ECD to
prevent lost circulation.
However, casing shoes are
often placed in relatively
strong formations, and much
weaker zones can be drilled
into below. Occasionally
open hole LOTs are
performed after drilling such
zones.

A LOT is performed by
shutting the well in and
pumping at a slow rate,
normally with the cement
pumps. The pressure is
allowed to increase until a
break in slope in the
pressure increase is
observed. Pumping is
stopped and pressure held
for a few minutes to observe
the fracture closure and then
bled off. A formation Figure 6. PWD log of a LOT recorded downhole
integrity test (FIT) in which
the pressure is increased until a set limit is reached is sometimes preferred.

Figure 6 shows a typical LOT measurement compared to the EMW that is determined
from the surface measurement. In most cases, the downhole and surface measurements
differ. The downhole EMW may be lower or higher and differ by as much as 0.5ppg or
more. The PWD sensor measures the LOT pressure at the formation and is as accurate as
the pressure gauge. LOT measurement errors at the surface are due to a number of
factors, including uneven annular mud weight, pressure loss in surface lines, mud
compressibility, breaking gels, and poorly calibrated surface gauges.

In deepwater wells, the pressure and temperature effects on mud in the long cold riser
usually mean that the downhole mud density is higher than the surface mud weight (see
Figure 6). This often leads to an underestimation of the LOT at the surface, resulting in
lower kick tolerances and shortened distances between casing strings. The new PWD
sensors are able to pump up this downhole LOT information when circulation is re-
established after the test. Traditionally, the well is circulated for an hour or more before
each test to establish an even mud weight for the surface test interpretation. Because the
PWD sensor measures the
formation pressure
directly, this procedure is
not necessary.

Lost Circulation

Utilizing annular pressure

measurements to
determine leak-off
pressures can be used as a
guide to determine an
EMW upper limit during
normal operations. If this
limit is exceeded or
ignored, integrity
problems occur. This
illustration (Figure 7) is
an example where a leak-
off test (LOT) of 12.2ppg
was taken some way
above at the casing point.
During the connections, it
is apparent that the mud
develops gel strength
quickly in the static
conditions and requires
significant pressure to
Figure 7. PWD log showing a lost circulation break the gels at each
incident
connection. In some cases this may be enough to initiate losses, however, not in this case.
The mud weight was increased and when the EMW exceeded the LOT pressure of
12.2ppg the formation breaks down and lost circulation is observed at the surface. In this
example losses occurred at the LOT pressure which is often the case. However, it is
equally likely that losses are initiated below the LOT pressure since the well may have
drilled into some weaker formations. It is also common for a formation to breakdown
initially at a higher pressure, and then sustains losses at a much lower values once the
tensile strength of the rock has initiated fractures. Often a lost circulation incident is
blamed on the formation or the mud. PWD data has shown that it is often drilling
practices that are to blame (i.e. breaking gels, tripping too fast, reaming down, packing
off, etc. Ref 2).

This wells (Figure 7) was to circulated to a lower EMW by stopping drilling and
circulating the cuttings load from the in the mud. This took about a half an hour after
which the well was circulated clean for a further hour without any reduction in EMW.
This hour was essentially
wasted time since the
constant ECD showed that
the hole was either clean,
or at that particular flow
rate and rpm no further
cuttings were being
disturbed (Ref. 3).

Simple rig operations

such as tripping and
moving pipe can have a
dramatic impact on the
EMW downhole. In
particular, a highly gelled
drilling fluid can create
significant swab and surge
pressures even if pipe
movement is minimal and
is dependent on pipe
running speed. In this
example (Figure 8 top) of
recorded data, the swab
and surge created by the
pipe movement also
reveals wellbore storage
effects or “breathing” in
the well. In this case it is
not from fractures in the
Figure 8. PWD log showing other common
wellbore but due to
causes of losses
trapped pressure in the
gelled mud. Notice when the last movement creates a surge pressure, then some flowback
occurs before the well becomes static. The reverse is true if a swab is the last action and
the fractures take fluid until reaching an equilibrium.

Excessive swab and surges during pipe movement can also be caused by mechanical
restrictions downhole. In the second half of this illustration (Figure 8 bottom), each time
the rig up-reams or down-reams to alleviate a restriction downhole, a surge effect is
observed at the PWD sensor which is higher than what it should be for an unrestricted
annulus. Up-reaming and down-reaming may create restrictions (packing off, balling) at
stabilizers above the PWD sensor and the drilling fluid does not easily circulate past
them. This restriction may or may not be observed during normal drilling operations
because the pipe speed is much less in magnitude then while reaming.

The last illustration (Figure 9) demonstrates an entire series of rig operations in a

sequence that is
commonly observed.
During normal
operations, a pack-off
was suddenly generated
and a “big” jump in
EMW is observed.
Drilling immediately
ceases and circulation is
dropped to try to reduce
the EMW levels. The
EMW levels do not
reduce much since the
annulus is blocked, the
upper limit effectively
being the strength of the
formation. The pack-off
and the float valve within
the MWD tool have
trapped the pressure at
Figure 9. PWD log showing pack-off inducing TD, and when the pumps
lost circulation are brought back online
the LOT is exceed and
lost circulation is
experienced. It was
possible to move the pipe
and this released some of
the pressure, then started
to induce excessive
swabbing well below the
mud weight. After
moving the pipe for
several minutes the pipe freed itself of the packoff. It can be seen that over this period
large stresses are put on the formation that can damage it (fracture and collapse). It can
easily be seen how that once a formation has experienced damage like this, it never
recovers properly and repeated problems are seen in the same hole section. The pumps
are slowly brought back online and lost circulation material (LCM) pumped into the well.
The driller then back-reams out of the tight hole until the pipe is relatively free and trips
out normally. Except for the initial pack-off, the EMW for the entire sequence is
recorded data. Analyzing this data after trouble time can educate the driller on the
consequences of each operation and the potential risks. A permeable zone open to the
wellbore during these operations may have created additional well control problems had
it been swabbed in.

Summary

Where we were previously relying on uncertain hydraulics models, PWD data can now
tells us exactly what pressures we impose on the wellbore are continuously, i.e. mud
weight, ECD, swab/surge, etc.

To predict pore and fracture pressures, we now typically rely on empirical models and
well indications (such as cavings, gas, losses, etc) with some uncertainty. Accurate
measurements are typically only available sometime after the event in the case of and
formation pressure test, or only below the casing shoe in the case of a leak-off test (LOT).
As the examples presented have shown, PWD data can also often tell us about the
boundary pressure constraints, in particular the pore and fracture pressure. This
information can be valuable in reducing the uncertainties and thereby reducing the
number and severity of hole problems.

References

1. Anatomy of a Ballooning Borehole Using PWD. Chris Ward and Ron Clark. In: Mitchell, A and Grauls, D
(eds). Overpressures in Petroleum Exploration. Proc. Workshop Pau, April 7-8. Bull. Centre Rech. Elf
Explor. Prod. Mem. 22, pp. 213-220.

1. Ward,C.D., and Andreassen, E., 1997. Pressure While Drilling Data Improves Reservoir Drilling
Performance. Paper SPE 37588 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC drilling conf. In Amsterdam, 4-6 March
1997.

2. Easton,M.D.J., Nichols,J., and Riley,G.J., 1997. Optimising Hole Cleaning by Application of a Pressure
While Drilling Tool. Paper SPE 37612 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC drilling conf. In Amsterdam, 4-6
March 1997.

Chris Ward is a global drilling optimization advisor with Sperry-Sun in Houston, where
he specializes in MWD drilling tools and applications. He previously worked as a
geologist for ARCO in London before moving to the Norwegian operations of Sperry-
Sun. Chris holds a B.Sc. degree in geology and a Ph.D. degree in geochemistry from the
University of London.
Mitch Beique is a drilling engineer with Sperry-Sun and is currently assigned to
Halliburton’s global deepwater solutions team. He has 21 years of drilling engineering
experience in North America, seven years specializing in deepwater drilling. Mitch holds
degrees in both petroleum and electrical engineering from Texas A&M.