Well Control

Logging While Drilling

(LWD)

By :- Shaho Abdul qadir
Logging While Drilling

O Sonic Travel Time
O Resistivity and Conductivity
O Eatons Equations (R, C, At, d
c
)
O Natural Gamma Ray
O Other
2
Logging While Drilling (LWD)
O 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.
O These are most commonly used for Geo-steering, but
can be used in detection of abnormal pressure.
3
Logging While Drilling

O Any log that infers shale porosity
can indicate the compaction state of the rock,
and hence any abnormal pressure associated with
undercompaction.
4
Logging While Drilling
O Most of the published correlations are based
on sonic and electric log data.

O Density logs can also be used if sufficient data
are available.
5
6
Pore Pressure Gradient vs.
difference between actual and
normal sonic travel time
From Hottman and Johnson
LA Upper TX Gulf Coast
At
o
At
n
, sec/ft
g
p
,


p
s
i
/
f
t

7
Matthews and Kelly
Normal
At
o
At
n
, sec/ft
g
p
,


p
s
i
/
f
t

8
Relationships vary from area to
area and from age to age
But, the trends are
the same.
At
o
At
n
, sec/ft
g
p
,


p
s
i
/
f
t

Resistivity and Conductivity
O The ability of rock to conduct electric current can be
used to infer porosity.
O Resistivity -- ohm-m
2
/m or ohm-m
O Conductivity -- 10
-3
m/ohm-m
2
or millimhos/m
9
Resistivity and Conductivity
O Rock grains, in general, are very poor
conductors.
O Saline water in the pores conducts
electricity and this fact forms the basis for
inferring porosity from bulk R or C
measurements.
10
Resistivity and Conductivity
O Under normal compaction, R increases with depth.
O Deviation from the normal trend suggests abnormal
pressure
11
Resistivity and Conductivity
12
O F
R
= R
o
/R
w

O F
R
= formation
resistivity factor

O R
o
= resistivity of water-
saturated formation


O R
w
= resistivity of pore water
Resistivity of formation water
O R
w
reflects the dissolved salt content of the water, and
is dependant upon temperature.



O Equation shows that R
w
decreases with increasing
temperature, and consequently, decreases with
depth.
13
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
77 . 6 T
77 . 6 T
R R
2
1
1 w 2 w
F in are T and T where
o
2 1
Porosity, |




14
m
R
aF
/ 1
= |
Porosity of water-saturated rock,
If a = 1, and m = 2, then | = F
R
-0.5
So, | = (R
o
/R
w
)
-0.5

R
w
in shales cannot be measured directly so R
w
in a
nearby sand is used instead.
R
o
would tend to increase with increasing
depth under normally pressured conditions.
See Fig. 2.63.
15
Fig. 2.63 Normal Compaction
R
o
, O
.
m
D
e
p
t
h
,


f
t

16
Example 2.20
R
w
estimated from
nearby well.
Estimate the pore
pressure at 14,188 ft
using Foster and
Whalens techinque.
So, at 14,188 ft,


F
R
= 28.24
034 . 0
96 . 0
= =
w
o
R
R
R
F
17
Transition at
~11,800
Using Eatons Gulf
Coast correlations,
o
ob
= 0.974 psi/ft or
13,819 psig at 14,188
Eq. Depth = 8,720
o
obe
= 0.937 psi/ft or
8,170 psig at 8,720
p
ne
= 0.465*8,720
= 4,055
p
p
= p
pe
+ (o
ob
- o
obe
)
= 4,055+(13,816-8,171)
= 9,703 psig
= 13.16 ppg
18
Fig. 2.65 -Hottman & Johnsons upper
Gulf Coast Relationship between
shale resistivity and pore pressure
R
n
/R
o

G
p
,
psi/ft
Example 2.21
Matthews and
Kelly
19
Determine the transition
depth and estimate the
pore pressure at 11,500
Solution
OEaton
O From Eq. 2.35,
g
p
= g
ob
- (g
ob
- g
n
)(R
o
/R
n
)
1.2
O g
p
= 0.920 - (0.920 - 0.465)(0.264)
1.2

g
p
= 0.827 psi/ft
20
21
Transition is at ~9,600 ft.
At 11,500 ft:
C
o
= 1,920, and
C
n
= 440
C
o
/C
n
= 1,920 / 440
= 4.36
g
p
= 0.81 psi/ft (Fig 2.66)
Example 2.21
Fig. 2.67
22
g
p
= 0.81 psi/ft

p
= 15.6 ppg
p
p
= 9,315 psig
Fig. 2.66
4.36
Eatons Equations
34 . 2 . Eq
23
( )
( )
( )
( )
2 . 1
2 . 1
2 . 1
3
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
A
A
=
cn
co
n ob ob p
o
n
n ob ob p
n
o
n ob ob p
o
n
n ob ob p
d
d
g g g g
C
C
g g g g
R
R
g g g g
t
t
g g g g
35 . 2 . Eq
36 . 2 . Eq
Natural Gamma Ray
O Tools measure the natural radioactive
emissions of rock, especially from:
O Potassium
O Uranium
O Thorium

24
Eatons Equations
O These equations differ from the earlier correlations in
that they take into consideration the effect a variable
overburden stress may have on the effective stress
and the pore pressure.
O Probably the most widely used of the log-derived
methods
O Have been used over 20 years
25
Example 2.22
O In an offshore Louisiana well, (R
o
/R
n
) = 0.264 in a
Miocene shale at 11,494. An integrated density log
indicates an overburden stress gradient of 0.920
psi/ft. Estimate the pore pressure.
O Using Eatons technique
O Using Hottman and Johnsons
26
Solution
O Hottman & Johnson
O R
n
/R
o
= 1/(0.264) = 3.79
O From Fig 2.65, we then get
g
p
= 0.894 psi/ft
Difference = 0.894 0.827 = 0.067 psi/ft

O Answers differ by 770 psi or 1.3 ppg
27
Discussion
O Actual pressure gradient was determined to be 0.818
psi/ft!
O In this example the Eaton method came within 104 psi
or 0.17 ppg equivalent mud density of measured
values
O This lends some credibility to the Eaton method.
28
Discussion

O In older sediments, exponent may be
lowered to 1.0 for resistivities.
O Service companies may have more
accurate numbers for exponents.
29
Natural Gamma Ray
O The K
40
isotope tends to concentrate in shale
minerals thereby leading to the traditional use of GR
to determine the shaliness of a rock stratum.
O It follows that GR intensity may be used to infer the
porosity in shales of consistent minerology
30
Natural Gamma Ray
O Pore pressure prediction using MWD is
now possible (Fig. 2.68).

O Lower cps (counts per second) may
indicate higher porosity and perhaps
abnormal pressure.
31
Natural Gamma Ray
32
In normally pressured
shales the cps
increases with depth
Any departure from this
trend may signal a
transition into abnormal
pressure
Fig. 2.68
Pore pressure gradient prediction from
observed and normal Gamma Ray counts
33
Example 2.23
34
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 normal
trend line.
35
At 11,100
N
GRn
/ N
GRo
57/42 = 1.36
From below, g
p
= 0.61 psi/ft
or 11.7 ppg
Effective Stress Models
O Use data from MWD/LWD
O Rely on the effective-stress principle as the
basis for empirical or analytical prediction
O Apply log-derived petrophysical parameters
of the rock to a compaction model to
quantify effective stress
O Knowing the overburden pressure, the pore
pressure can then be determined
36
Dr. Choes Kick Simulator
O Take a kick
O Circulate the kick out of the hole
O Plot casing seat pressure vs. time
O Plot surface pressure vs. time
O Plot kick size vs. time
O etc.
37