Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

106 tayangan

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Fluid Flow Through Packed Columns, Ergun
- 00027488- Bowers Method
- Limitations of Seismic Pore Pressure Prediction(1)
- PorePressure Prediction Carbonate Rocks Libya Ndx Gruenwald
- Vol Pore Pressure Prediction
- Fluid Saturation
- Pore Pressure Terminology
- Pressure Prediction
- Methods of Pore Pressure Detection
- Determination of Pore Pressure From Sonic Log a Case Study on One of Iran Carbonate Reservoir Rocks
- Pore Pressure Prediction From Well Logs and Seismic Data
- James Bacon,Croton Watershed Coalition Testimony on Fracking Regulations
- Determination of Residual Oil Saturation in a Carbonate Reservoir
- Infiltration
- The Numerical Simulation of Pipe/Soil Interaction Under Wave Loadings
- Seismic Best Practice Report
- Comsol Waves Porosity
- Hydrology Meteorology
- 167
- C programming, Design a Spring (Helical) Under Given Static and Fluctuating Load for a Given Spring Index So That the Spring Design Lie Within Safe Limit.

Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Vahid Atashbari, Australian School of Petroleum; Mark Tingay, Australian School of Petroleum; Mohammad

Hossein Zareian, National Iranian Oil Company

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1114 November 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been

reviewed by the Society of PetroleumEngineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of PetroleumEngineers, its

officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to

reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Pore pressure is a key parameter in controlling the well in terms of reservoir fluid pressure. An accurate estimation of pore

pressure yields to better mud weight proposition and pressure balance in the bore hole. Current well known methods of pore

pressure prediction are mainly based on the differences between the recorded amount and normal trend in sonic wave velocity,

formation resistivity factor (FRF), or d-exponent (a function of drilling parameters) in overpressured zone. The majority of the

techniques are based on the compaction of specific formation type which need localization or calibration. They occasionally

fail to proper response in carbonate reservoirs.

In this research, a new method for calculating the pore pressure has been obtained using the compressibility attribute of

reservoir rock. In the case of overpressure generation by undercompaction (which is the case in most of the reservoirs), pore

pressure is depended on the changes in pore space which is a function of rock and pore compressibility. In a simple way, pore

space decreases while the formation undergoes compaction and this imposes pressure on the fluid which fills the pores.

Generally, rock compressibility has minor changes over a specific formation, but even this small amount must be considered.

Thus, the statistical tools should be used to distribute the compressibility over the formation. Therefore, based on the bulk and

pore compressibility achieved from the special core analysis (SCAL) or well logs in one well, the pore pressure in the other

locations of a formation could be predicted.

Introduction

Rock mass as well as the pore space is always under the several stresses and the current underground state of estate is what

has been defined by Terzaghi[1] indicating that a body of soil is in a state of plastic equilibrium if every part of it is on the

verge of failure. This means that the moment of rotation with respect to all dimensions must set to zero. That implies with the

fact that the rock stays under the condition with the most stable situation of the stress state. These are the facts about the

current state of the rock. However, until this stage of stability, mineral maturation and rock type deformation are results of

burying during the deposition. Thus, bulk and pores of the rock under the overburdern stress will tend towards the deformation

until the rock reaches the most stable condition. In other words, Overburden pressure which is mostly the main stress tensor in

the depth of oil and gas reservoirs, leads to the compaction of the formation. Consequently, if the rock is surrounded by any

type of impermeable layers, which means no way of escaping for pore fluid, a portion of the stress will be imposed to the fluid

and the pore pressure will rise. This process can be modelled in in terms of stress-strain analysis whereas this research has

focoused on a phenomenon which is known as the compressibility mechanism. The amount of excess stress which is exerted

on the pore fluid is called pore pressure.

The method introduced here comes along the other pore pressure prediction methods and is suitable for the fields with the

basic knowledge about the underground geological environment as well as the compressibility of the formation rock type.

2 SPE 156337

Pore Pressure GenerationMechanism: Undercompaction

Normally, the pore space in the depositional sequences of the rocks is filled by fluid which might be water, oil, or gas. In

shallow depths, where there is permeation from the buried deposits to the earth surface, the fluid pressure would remain under

balance. A main hypothesis in the investigation of pore pressure is considering water to fill the underground pore space. Thus,

the normal hydrostatic gradient is assumed to vary from 0.433 psi/ft for fresh water[2] to 0.44 psi/ft for saltwater[3, 4]. If the

fluid is different type, that gradient needs to be adapted for new circumstances. Bruce et al[5] indicated that this gradient may

be 0.1 - 0.2 psi/ft for gas and 0.25 - 0.4 for oil. They also declared the gradient to be 0.433 psi/ft for pure water. Practically,

this gradient is usually 0.45 - 0.465 for formation waters (e.g. 0.465 psi/ft formation pressure gradient has been reported in

Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana[6]). Eaton[7, 8] has used 0.465 and considered the range of 0.433~0.465 psi/ft as the

hydrostatic pressure gradient in his works.

For the porosity based techniques of pore pressure prediction, the geology of the basin and depositional environment have

a great control on the porosity evolution versus depth. Concordantly, sandstones, shales and carbonates may have totally

different porosity vs. depth trends. Normal trend is required to estimate the porosity loss of the rock mass in the formation

against the loading stress. The majority of depth related functions are of the exponential form, and sometimes, same relation is

used for the sandstone and carbonates (i.e. [9-13]) regardless the difference in the nature and depositional environment. one of

the most used relations is this equation proposed by Giles et al[14] to define Normal Compaction Trend as a function of initial

porosity and effective stress (can be construed as mean effective stress),:

Equation 1

Equation 2

Where

0

is the initial stress,

eff

is effective stress, and C

p

is the pore compressibility,

v

is vertical overburden stress,

H

and

h

are maximum and minimum horizontal stresses respectively. Effective stress which is used here, or the one which

Goulty[15] used in his work, is based on Terzaghis equation, considering difference between total stress and hydrostatic

pressure. Indeed, obtaining the true amount of mean effective stress is a little bit problematic in this regard. Concurrently, that

must be noted that the real stress state in the field is the sum of all three principal stresses. Thus, taking the vertical stress as

the main variable to calculate the pore pressure in the field seems a wrong assumption. On the other hand, as studied by

Harrold et al[16], mean effective stress has a close proximity to the vertical stress (except the fault and adjacent areas which

must be studied as individual cases), so does the pore pressure calculaued using by the correspondent stresses. The degree of

such proximity may differ from one place to another, but reckoning the vertical stress as the main factor is our hypothetical

assumption.

Pore Pressure Prediction Method

All overpressure generation mechanisms could generate detectable amount overpressure if the conditions, main factors

which are seal and time, are in the favour. Considering the seal to exist during the later stages of deposition, it must be a matter

of time whether a particular mechanism leads to overpressure as analysis expected or not. Overpressure generation seems to be

a young phenomenon since fluid pressure in the old sediments cant be preserved for long time and the depositional

environment should be studied in a short period of geological time, i.e. 5 million years. During the process of burying,

incremental rate of deposition of overlying formations exerts an excess pressure on the target formation which leads to its

compaction. This is what we have investigated the numerical aspects of that.

We started our analysis by simple definitions. Zimmerman [17] has introduce four sets of compressibilities for two

independent volumes and two pressures; weve select two of them. In these equations, first subscript of variables indicates the

relevant volume change, and the second subscript indicates the pressure which varies.

Equation 3

SPE 156337 3

Equation 4

The superscript i is for the initial state of the media (before compression). b and p denote bulk and pore respectively.

Combining those two equations together will give us the following relation:

Equation 5

We assumed the infinitesimally small and equal size of increments for all independent variables (pore pressure and

confining pressure), so differentiation could result in:

Equation 6

Bulk frame and pore compressibilities are known from special core analysis (SCAL), but since the test is taken by keeping

pore pressure as constant, the term in denominator (C

bp

) is unknown. We tried to find relations for this. Zimmerman[17]

demonstrated the relation between the bulk compressibility due to pore and confining pressure.

Equation 7

Where C

r

is matrix compressibility. We used the compressibility of the matrix which has been demonstrated by

Vangolf[18]

Equation 8

Where is the porosity. Putting all together, we defined the pressure difference which is imposed to the porous media as a

function of the compressibility and porosity.

Equation 9

We added an exponential constant to this equation to correlate it for different geological fields and proposed the following

equation to predict the pore pressure using compressibilities:

Equation 10

Where P

p

is pore pressure, fractional is porosity, C

b

is bulk compressibility in psi

-1

, C

p

is pore compressibility in psi

-1

,

eff

is the effective overburden pressure in psi, and is dimensionless empirical constant ranging from 0.9 to 1.0.

Concurrently, one can solve equation 9 for porosity in order to obtain the normal compaction trend. Porosity can be

achieved from:

Equation 11

Case studies of this method with different values for can be found in the work of Atashbari and Tingay[19].

Fruthermore, it must be taken into the consideration that the normal compaction trend differs from one field to another as in

the work done by Giles et al shown in figure 1. Indeed, obtaining the true and correct normal compaction trend is a key

parameter in the reservoir rock characterization as well as a clue to pore pressure prediction.

4 SPE 156337

Figure 1 - Porosity versus depth trends for (a) sandstones, (b) shales and (c) carbonates. A broad range of porosity~lepth behaviours

exist, depending on the initial porosity (sorting, grain size), composition, age, pressure regime and temperature gradient. In general,

porosities are higher than average in overpressured areas, and lower than average in areas where uplift has occurred, or where there

is a high geothermal gradient and/or unstable mineralogy, although both pressure and temperature may have varied through time.

The maximum, minimum, and average curves, used to investigate the effect of the choice of porosity model on thermal modelling

results are in upper and lower dotted curves and heavy solid line, respectively.[14]

SPE 156337 5

Conclusion

This research has been conducted in order to fill a remarkable gap in the pore pressure prediction for carbonate reservoirs, but

this concept and associated techniques can be used in all types of rock including sandtones and shales. To approach reliable

overview for field developments, compressibility tests are recommended in at least exploration and delineation wells. This

technique could be used to validate the current pore pressure prediction methods or as a diagnostic analysis for normal

compaction trend. It must also be noted that the compressibility tests are done on the core samples in the lab (not in the

reservoir) where the stresses have been removed already; hence, permanent rock deformation is probable in this condition.

Better results come through using correlation factors which could be achieved by imprical methods.

Nomenclature:

C

b

= Rock Bulk Compressibility

C

bc

= Bulk Compressibility versus Confining Pressure

C

bp

= Bulk Compressibility versus Pore Pressure

C

p

= Pore Compressibility

C

r

= Rock Matrix Compressibility

= Porosity

0

= Initial Porosity

P

c

= Confining Pressure

P

p

= Pore Pressure

V

b

= Bulk Volume

= Correlation Constant

eff

= Effective Stress

H

= Maximum Horizontal Stress

h

= Minimum Horizontal Stress

v

= Vertical (Overburden) Stress

6 SPE 156337

References:

1. Terzaghi, K. and R.B. Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 1967: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

2. Crain, E.R.R. Crain's Petrophysical Handbook. [cited 2011 23/12/2011]; Available from:

http://www.spec2000.net/10-pressure.htm.

3. Pore Pressure Gradient, in Wikipedia. 2011.

4. Barree and Associates, GOHFER. 2011.

5. Bruce, B. and G. Bowers, Pore Pressure Terminology. The Leading Eadge, 2002.

6. Dickey, P.A., C.R. Shriram, and W.R. Paine, Abnormal Pressure in Deep Wells of Southern Lousiana. 1968.

7. Eaton, B.A., The Effect of Overburden Stress on Geopressure Prediction from Well Logs. SPE Journal of Petroleum

Technology, 1972(08).

8. Eaton, B.A., The Equation for Geopressured Prediction from Well Logs, in 50thAnnualFall Meetingof the Societyof

Petroleum Engineers of AIME. 1975: Dallas, Texas.

9. Amthor, o.E., E.W. Mountjoy, and H.G. Machel, Regional-Scale Porosity and Permeability Variations in Upper

Devonian Leduc Buildups: Implications for Reservoir Development and Prediction in Carbonates. AAPG Bulletin,

1994. 78(10).

10. Brown, A., Porosity Variation in Carbonates as a Function of Depth: Mississippian Madison Group, Williston Basin.

AAPG Special Volumes, 1997. 69.

11. Budd, D.A., Permeability Loss with Depth in the Cenozoic Carbonate Platform of West-Central Florida. AAPG

Bulletin, 2001. 85(7): p. 1253-1272.

12. Goldhammer, R.K., Compaction and decompaction algorithms for sedimentary carbonates. Journal of Sedimentary

Research, 1997. 67(1): p. 26-35.

13. Schmoker, J.W. and R.B. Halley, Carbonate porosity versus depth; a predictable relation for South Florida. AAPG

Bulletin, 1982. 66(12): p. 2561-2570.

14. Giles, M.R., S.L. Indrelid, and D.M.D. James, Compaction - The Great Unknown in Basin Modelling. Geological

society, London, Special Publications, 1998. 141.

15. Goulty, N.R., Relationships Between Porosity and Effective Stress in Shales. First Break (European Association of

Geoscientists and Engineers), 1998. 16(12).

16. Harrold, T.W.D., R.E. Swabrick, and N.R. Goulty, Pore Pressure Estimation from Mudrock Porosities in Tertiary

Basins, Southeast Asia. AAPG Bulletin, 1999. 83(7): p. 1057-1067.

17. Zimmerman, R.W., Compressibility of Sandstones. Development in Petroleum Science. Vol. 29. 1991, Amsterdam,

The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

18. VanGolf-Racht, T.D., Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir Engineering. Developments in Petroleum Science. 1982,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING COMPANY.

19. Atashbari, V. and M.R. Tingay, Pore Pressure Prediction in Carbonate Reservoirs, in SPE Latin America and

Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers: Mexico City, Mexico.

- Fluid Flow Through Packed Columns, ErgunDiunggah olehalexramqui
- 00027488- Bowers MethodDiunggah olehEnrique Daniel Contreras Avila
- Limitations of Seismic Pore Pressure Prediction(1)Diunggah olehabdounou
- PorePressure Prediction Carbonate Rocks Libya Ndx GruenwaldDiunggah olehEric Espiritu
- Vol Pore Pressure PredictionDiunggah olehPrasanti Plaban Dash
- Fluid SaturationDiunggah olehRajat Wadhwani
- Pore Pressure TerminologyDiunggah olehAna Araújo
- Pressure PredictionDiunggah olehLeopard Eyes
- Methods of Pore Pressure DetectionDiunggah olehAlexandru Spanu
- Determination of Pore Pressure From Sonic Log a Case Study on One of Iran Carbonate Reservoir RocksDiunggah olehIgnatius
- Pore Pressure Prediction From Well Logs and Seismic DataDiunggah olehPhilip Hackman Antwi
- James Bacon,Croton Watershed Coalition Testimony on Fracking RegulationsDiunggah olehJames "Chip" Northrup
- Determination of Residual Oil Saturation in a Carbonate ReservoirDiunggah olehEduardoMaldonadoCruz
- InfiltrationDiunggah olehRania Zaqout
- The Numerical Simulation of Pipe/Soil Interaction Under Wave LoadingsDiunggah olehzenisler
- Seismic Best Practice ReportDiunggah olehmhdstat
- Comsol Waves PorosityDiunggah olehRomoex R Rock
- Hydrology MeteorologyDiunggah olehHarbinder Singh
- 167Diunggah olehMuttaqien Abdurrahaman AR
- C programming, Design a Spring (Helical) Under Given Static and Fluctuating Load for a Given Spring Index So That the Spring Design Lie Within Safe Limit.Diunggah olehManoj Kumar Gangwar
- 15.Mielke.pdfDiunggah olehYorie S
- Porosity of the SoilDiunggah olehB S Praveen Bsp
- Spe Prore Pressure PapersDiunggah olehdayevi
- Sci Pptq1 Wk1 Day 1-5Diunggah olehChe Villorante
- Richard E. Goodman - Introduction to Rock Mechanics (1989, Wiley)Diunggah olehThamris Abdala
- C128 - 04a.Diunggah olehShahin Shajahan
- Pondasi Tiang PancangDiunggah olehAbu Muhammad Aufa
- BASES & StrapDiunggah oleh3ces
- 7. Dasar-dasar Rekaman SumurDiunggah olehLuffy01
- 12.IJMPERDDEC201812.Diunggah olehTJPRC Publications

- Tablas RMNDiunggah olehCamilaAriza
- Faculty of Science and Technology Pg BrochureDiunggah olehThangavelu Agathian
- TOEFL Maria Camila - WritingDiunggah olehCamilaAriza
- Hysys WorkBookDiunggah olehSadakat Ali
- Enhanced Oil RecoveryDiunggah olehCamilaAriza
- SPWLA 1986 vXXVIIn2a5 Well LogsDiunggah olehCamilaAriza
- Spe28749 ArunDiunggah olehCamilaAriza
- SPE-144023-MS-PDiunggah olehCamilaAriza
- Properties of Petroleum Fluids - SEDiunggah olehakrouti

- College Algebra Test 1 Solution Chapter 1Diunggah olehLanaNefertitiNemhote
- Biografia-BoussinesqDiunggah olehFrancisco Leon Ascencio
- math 9 1stDiunggah olehWerty Gigz Durendez
- B.TechMAE_FULL__2011-2015Diunggah olehAnurag Amrit
- lesson in math.docDiunggah olehDerren Nierras Gaylo
- Paper-9 a Survey of Linearization Techniques for Nonlinear ModelsDiunggah olehRachel Wheeler
- 1-s2.0-0045794972900430-mainDiunggah olehSavvas Papadopoulos
- Ictac KineticsDiunggah olehAzharuddin Ehtesham Farooqui
- UT Dallas Syllabus for math2420.501.11s taught by Zalman Balanov (zxb105020)Diunggah olehUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Bailey W.N. Generalized Hypergeometric Series (1964)(L)(T)(59s).pdfDiunggah olehShu Shujaat Lin
- Analytical Modeling of Aircraft Wing Loads Using MATLAB and Symbolic Math ToolboxDiunggah olehvijaybpujari
- sec14Diunggah olehAhmed Gouda
- FlowchartDiunggah olehDRichik
- MathDiunggah olehbdripon
- Mass Balance Examples4Diunggah olehDarel Williams
- SY_MTEPS_IDiunggah olehtigerman man
- Aiits Schedule - 2015Diunggah olehharshit
- linearDiunggah olehAmalina Zulkiflee
- Classification of Differential Equations.docxDiunggah olehJera Obsina
- Ramanujam Made Substantial Contributions to the Analytical Theory of Numbers AndDiunggah olehpreetamdas
- Gerber1998 SoaDiunggah olehDiosel Lara
- Batch DistillationDiunggah olehNamratha Nair
- MATHS MODEL TEST PAPER FOR SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT – 3Diunggah olehApex Institute
- Solved Examples(Differentiation-Product Law & Quotient Law)Diunggah olehMohammadFaizan
- Solution Manual of Introduction to Finite Automata by Peter LinzDiunggah olehKimberly Greene
- HD Lubrication of Journal Bearings by Pseudo-Plastic LubricantsDiunggah olehMKurniawan
- 9231_y16_syDiunggah olehMaheer
- Rebar Interface with concreteDiunggah olehjack21ab
- Petroleum Engineering 2008Diunggah olehAadil Khan
- Generate Stepper Motor Linear Speed Profile in Real TimeDiunggah olehClaudio Pinheiro