Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
A key element in any pore pressure prediction study is the comparison between the predicted pore pressure at the prospect location and the formation pressure measurements in offset wells. In order to understand, and predict, pressure distribution within a basin, pressure data and the sediments within which pressure regimes are confined need to be analyzed within a robust and consistent stratigraphic framework. This comparison is primarily required for: a) calibration for forward modelling and b) to have an idea of the extremes in the various pore pressure scenarios in a particular basin. The formation pressure measurements are acquired in permeable units like sands and are assumed to be in pressure equilibrium with adjacent shales. Thus, the predicted estimates in shales are compared with pore pressure measurements from sands in offset wells. This comparison is imprecise until and unless the offset pressure measurement is normalized to the same frame of reference at the prospect. The normalization process of offset pressure data can be broadly classified into two types: a) the simplistic depth normalization and b) the more detailed stratigraphic normalization. The simplistic depth normalization involves mere normalization of offset pressure measurements with respect to change in the positioning of the datum reference in the prospect location; this method precludes consideration of the structural difference (current plumbing) of each geological unit or in-depth analyses of depositional setup in offset and prospect locations presuming connected sands with constant overpressure. The second method entails the understanding of the regional stratigraphy, the structural differences in positioning of each stratigraphic unit in the prospect location and offset wells, depositional setting including sand connectivity and overpressure-generating mechanisms. This method can be invoked through appropriate approaches; a) constant overpressure (OP) method, b) constant vertical effective stress (VES) method and c) ratio method (ratio of either constant OP or VES to the normal effective stress i.e. NES). Stratigraphic normalization also includes the correct positioning of the offset pressure data in each stratigraphic unit at the prospect. Whilst the above normalization methods are extremely useful concepts, they form only part of the geological definition of the pressure system for predicting pore pressure profiles in an undrilled prospect. On the basis of geological understanding, stratigraphic normalization method may be preferred over the simplistic depth normalization method. An optimized normalization process for offset well data integrated with predicted pore pressure estimates at prospect locations illustrates a realistic scenario in terms of bounds of uncertainty. This paper brings forth a new dimension in predicting pore pressures at new prospects by describing scenarios within the framework of the conceived geological model. Also, the methods discussed provide the scope of capturing a valid uncertainty envelope that is imperative for a robust well design to define possible risks and foresee mitigation measures.
A key element in any pore pressure prediction study is the comparison between the predicted pore pressure at the prospect location and the formation pressure measurements in offset wells. In order to understand, and predict, pressure distribution within a basin, pressure data and the sediments within which pressure regimes are confined need to be analyzed within a robust and consistent stratigraphic framework. This comparison is primarily required for: a) calibration for forward modelling and b) to have an idea of the extremes in the various pore pressure scenarios in a particular basin. The formation pressure measurements are acquired in permeable units like sands and are assumed to be in pressure equilibrium with adjacent shales. Thus, the predicted estimates in shales are compared with pore pressure measurements from sands in offset wells. This comparison is imprecise until and unless the offset pressure measurement is normalized to the same frame of reference at the prospect. The normalization process of offset pressure data can be broadly classified into two types: a) the simplistic depth normalization and b) the more detailed stratigraphic normalization. The simplistic depth normalization involves mere normalization of offset pressure measurements with respect to change in the positioning of the datum reference in the prospect location; this method precludes consideration of the structural difference (current plumbing) of each geological unit or in-depth analyses of depositional setup in offset and prospect locations presuming connected sands with constant overpressure. The second method entails the understanding of the regional stratigraphy, the structural differences in positioning of each stratigraphic unit in the prospect location and offset wells, depositional setting including sand connectivity and overpressure-generating mechanisms. This method can be invoked through appropriate approaches; a) constant overpressure (OP) method, b) constant vertical effective stress (VES) method and c) ratio method (ratio of either constant OP or VES to the normal effective stress i.e. NES). Stratigraphic normalization also includes the correct positioning of the offset pressure data in each stratigraphic unit at the prospect. Whilst the above normalization methods are extremely useful concepts, they form only part of the geological definition of the pressure system for predicting pore pressure profiles in an undrilled prospect. On the basis of geological understanding, stratigraphic normalization method may be preferred over the simplistic depth normalization method. An optimized normalization process for offset well data integrated with predicted pore pressure estimates at prospect locations illustrates a realistic scenario in terms of bounds of uncertainty. This paper brings forth a new dimension in predicting pore pressures at new prospects by describing scenarios within the framework of the conceived geological model. Also, the methods discussed provide the scope of capturing a valid uncertainty envelope that is imperative for a robust well design to define possible risks and foresee mitigation measures.
Subsurface uncertainty, inadequate offset wells correlation, and high investment cost are some of the biggest drilling challenges in any frontier environment or wild cat exploration wells. These challenges comes with inherent risk on people, environment, assets, and reputation. Mitigating these risks through contingency in the detailed well planning phase as well maximizing operational uptime and efficiency during the well delivery phase, greatly impact the outcome of the well. Digital tools and automation have been a cornerstone in the industry's latest tools to reduce personnel on the rig, as well as minimize downtime and inefficiency. A collaboration of experts between an Operator and Service company was formed during the well planning phase to evaluate the feasibility of an automation platform for a holistic drilling advisory platform that facilitates real time decision making based on downhole and surface data. An offset well study in the area showed that nearby wells experienced recurrence incidents of wellbore instability and downhole pore pressure uncertainty. Modeling iterations for dynamic and static drilling were simulated during pre-planning phase and optimized in real time based on actual downhole and surface data information. Real time models were compared against dynamic models such as Torque and Drag, Hole Cleaning, Pore pressure, ECD (Equivalent Circulating Density), ESD (Equivalent Static Density), and tripping speed (Swab, Surge, etc.). An automated directional drilling tool was run and compared to decisions made by the directional driller to improve the tool's decision-making process for predictive well trajectory parameters. Based on the resultant models, proactive advice was given to the rig in real-time to optimize the input parameters and reduce negative impact to well operation. For example, the practical, real-time visualization helped quickly identify a decreasing pore pressure trend and avoided resultant high overbalance while drilling the 17.5 in. × 22 in. section. The early warning alert allowed swift real time reaction sent to the rig, with mud weight subsequently decreased to 9.2 ppg, avoiding a potential risk of differential sticking stuck pipe incident due to high mud overbalance. Torque and Drag monitoring throughout the well accurately identified few instances of deviation from the trend and models, which detected an early sign of deteriorating wellbore condition which eventually led to a temporary stuck pipe event. Nevertheless, the pipe was freed, which demonstrate that the real time advisory helps in minimizing and avoiding the severe impact of the stuck pipe on the drilling operation. Automated advisory effectively delivered alerts on tight spots while drilling and casing running resulting in a faster 9-5/8 in. liner running in the deviated section. Tripping advisory mode and Real-time modelling of the swab-surge limits successfully allowed the team to avoid critical areas or swabbing events, which increased tripping speed where an opportunity was available and reduced tripping speed when risk of swab/surge was high avoiding well control/well loss events. The automated directional drilling tool increases in accuracy as the dogleg increased. The intelligent advice from the model got closest to the decisions taken by the directional driller, the closer the well got to the planned trajectory. These resulted in improvement and feedback for the pre-planning model such as target radius allowance, formation properties, and optimum drilling parameters. This work takes the first steps towards drilling automation and digital integration of insights and operation. The collaboration between operator and service company resulted in a successful deployment of an automation platform as a solution to manage and mitigate risks as well as optimize drilling operations in exploration wells.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.