Selim S. Shaker Geopressure Analysis Services
Transcript of Selim S. Shaker Geopressure Analysis Services
Selim S. Shaker
Geopressure Analysis Services
(G.A.S.)
1
GEOPRESSURE
Pore Fluid Rock Mechanics
Overburden
Pore Pressure Stresses
Tectonic
2 G.A.S.
IS MS
Deposition, Basin subsidence, Tectonic and
Stresses magnitude and path history
Tectonic
Courtesy of TGS Ad
Geology of Stresses
PS
PS, IS and MS are Principal, Intermediate and Minimum Stresses
PS
S 1
S 2
S 3
3 G.A.S.
Pressure
PS H PP FP
Predicted PP Measurable PP Fracture pressure
Subsurface Geopressure Profile
G.A.S. 4
Rocks, Fluids and Stress
Unconfined Hydrodynamic
Confined Geopressured
Pressure
PS H PP FP
Geopressure Drilling Tolerance Window ( DTW)
MW pressure
TOG Top of
Geopressure
Predicted PP Measurable PP Mud Pressure
DTW
G.A.S. 5
Safety Limit
6
TOG
Csg
Csg
Csg
Csg
Csg
Csg
Mud Line (sea floor)
A A
DTW
Csg
G.A.S.
Shallow vs. Deep Water PP profiles:
DTW
Impact of Mud line depth on DTW:
W.D.= 7000’
Oil vs. Gas entrapment
7 Challenges due to Transgression and Regression
VK 1001
9000
9500
10000
10500
11000
11500
12000
12500
13000
13500
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000
Pressure (RFT)
Depth
PP Hydro
MW pressure
Loss of circulation
Kicks can lead to Blow out
H
P Transgression
P Regression
Impact of P Transgression (T) and P Regression ( R ) on DTW:
G.A.S.
8
MC 809 #1
16000
16500
17000
17500
18000
18500
19000
19500
20000
8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
Pressure (psi)
De
pth
(ft
)
GO
M
Oil
GAS
MC 809 #1
16000
16500
17000
17500
18000
18500
19000
19500
20000
8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
Pressure (psi)
De
pth
(ft
)
GO
M
Oil
GAS
MC 809 #1
16000
16500
17000
17500
18000
18500
19000
19500
20000
8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
Pressure (psi)
De
pth
(ft
)
GO
M
Oil
GAS
GB 543 #1
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pressure (psi)
De
pth
(ft
)
GOM
GB 543 #1
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pressure (psi)
De
pth
(ft
)
GOM
+ RFT
Weak Transgression
4000’ in communication
GB 248 #1
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Pressure (psi)
De
pth
(ft
)
GO
M
+ RFT
Regression
Strong Transgression (T)
Weak (T)
Transgression and Regression
G.A.S.
9
Grant EB 654#1
Pore Pressure Prediction from Seismic
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Pressure (EMW)
De
pth
(ft)
OB ppg PP ppg MW ppg
LOT ppg Calc LOT ( Frac)
Salt Base
PT
G.A.S.
Well abandonment in DW due to the proximity of Mud and Formation Pressures
F-K-B
Csg
10
Grant's Flow -Kill- Breakdown @ 10358'
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
31-Oct 05-Nov 10-Nov 15-Nov 20-Nov 25-Nov 30-Nov 05-Dec
MW
E
MW Flow Kill LC Ballooning
Flow – Kill – Breakdown (LOC)
FKB Cycle M
W p
pge
G.A.S.
compartmentalization based on MPP
0il
VK 912#1
9000
9500
10000
10500
11000
11500
12000
12500
13000
13500
4000 6000 8000 10000
PP (RFT)
Depth
PP (RFT) Hydrostatic
OIL
Competent Seal
Breached Seal
Compartmentalization and Sealing Capacity :
R
T
T
11 G.A.S.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
MC 296
FP GOM Hydro Lithostatic
CSG LOT ECD psi
10900
10950
11000
11050
11100
11150
11200
11250
11300
11350
11400
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
MC 296
Formation P Mud P RFT ECD psi
CSG LOT GOM Hydro
Lithostatic Fracture Pressure
DTW
The Impact of HYDROCARBON on the DTW
The thick gas column led to more reduction of the DTW
Immediate south of DW Horizon block MC 252 (BP Deep Horizon)
Mississippi Canyon 296 (ENI)
G.A.S. 12
MC 252, Texaco
G-18207 Well #1 ST#2
13 G.A.S.
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
8 10 12 14 16 18PP MWE
MW, LOT, Csg of DW Horizon( Information in Public Domain)
DW Horizon ppg MW DW Horizon ppg LOT
CSG Ltho ppg
Hydro ppg
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 5000 10000 15000
Texaco - BP Deepwater Horizon MC 252
Formation P Lithostatic
GOM Hydro CSG
ECD psi Deepwater Horizon LOT-FIT
The narrow DTW on Mississippi Canyon 252 ( Deep Horizon BP)
The Narrow DTW in addition to the presence of hydrocarbon led to serious drilling challenges
DTW
G.A.S. 14
15
St. Malo
Jack
Atlantis
Chinook Cascade
Mad Dog
Mississippi Delta
Walker Ridge
Mississippi Canyon
Gulf of Mexico
Frontier Exploration
Discoveries
Subsalt Wells
Sigsbee
Escarpment
Shelf Edge
K C
Hadrian
Neogene
Paleogene
The Impact of Dirty Salt on the DTW
G.A.S.
16
Stresses models (generic)
(due to low salt density and very low permeability)
2.3 g/cc @ 20 %
porosity
1.9 g/cc LOW DENSITY
Resultant
Vector
Impermeable
G.A.S.
17
Principal Stress vs. Overburden in Salt Basins
(due to salt perturbation)
Diapirism / Buoyancy
OB (Overburden)
SS (Shear Stress)
PS ( Maximum
Principal Stress)
Sediments
load
Pre-Salt Sediment G.A.S.
18
Modified after Rowan 1999
Frontier GOM
Discoveries
The Salt Toe at Sigsbee frontier plays
G.A.S.
19
PS
Early Tertiary
(Wilcox)
Modified after Chowdhury and Lopez-Mora, 2004
OB=FP
Slow Moving Buried Salt
G.A.S.
PS = TS
MS= OB
IS
TS= Tectonic Stress
20
OB+WC
Gouge
SB
Geopressured
Normally Pressured
FP
P S
PP
Tertiary Salt Toe Belt
New Discoveries
Rafted sediments
Mud Line
A
Pre salt PP
Top of Geopressure
SS
Geopressure
Model of Salt Toe
G.A.S.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
De
pth
P ppg mwe
Chevron - Jack - WR 759 # 1
LOT/FIT OB+WC ppg ECD ppg
Casing RFT ppg mwe
Dirty Salt
Gouge zone
DTW
Calculated Fracture Pressure Chevron Jack #1
P-D Plot
ppg mwe
G.A.S. 21
Paleogene
22
18
Rafted Sediments
Jack at the base of salt
No Mud Return
(Gouge)
Jack in middle of salt
G.A.S.
Jack #1 Mud log
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
De
pth
P ppg mwe
Chevron - Malo - WR 678 #1
OB+WC ppg MW ppg LOT/FIT ppg Casing
`
Gouge zone ?
DTW
Clean Salt
Calculated Fracture Pressure Chevron
St. Malo #1
P-D Plot ppg mwe
G.A.S. 23
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
De
pth
P ppg mwe
Chevron - Jack - WR 759 # 1
LOT/FIT OB+WC ppg ECD ppg
Casing RFT ppg mwe
Dirty Salt
Gouge zone
DTW
Calculated Fracture Pressure
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
De
pth
P ppg mwe
Chevron - Malo - WR 678 #1
OB+WC ppg MW ppg LOT/FIT ppg Casing
`
Gouge zone
DTW
Clean Salt
Calculated Fracture Pressure
Jack vs. St. Malo Discoveries
G.A.S. 24
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
8 10 12 14 16 18
Pressure MWE
BP - Atlantis - MC 699 #1
MW LOT-FIT Csg PS mwe
Dirty Salt
Gouge zone
Calculated Fracture Pressure
DTW
FKB
BP
Atlantis #1
P-D Plot ppg mwe
G.A.S. 25
Challenges: LOC @salt base Csg in Salt Several Bypass & ST
Neogene
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
8 10 12 14 16 18
Pressure MWE
Exxon - Hadrian - KC919 #1
MW LOT-FIT Csg PS mwe MDT ppg
Gouge zone
Clean Salt
Calculated Fracture Pressure
DTW
Hadrian #1
P-D Plot ppg mwe
G.A.S. 26
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
8 10 12 14 16 18
Pressure MWE
Exxon - Hadrian - KC919 #1
MW LOT-FIT Csg PS mwe MDT ppg
Gouge zone
Clean Salt
Calculated Fracture Pressure
DTW
Atlantis vs. Hadrian Discoveries
G.A.S. 27
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
8 10 12 14 16 18
Pressure MWE
BP - Atlantis - MC 699 #1
MW LOT-FIT Csg PS mwe
Dirty Salt
Gouge zone
Calculated Fracture Pressure
DTW
FKB
28
Deposits geometry and facies changes
Pressure
Velocity (Porosity Index)
Pressure Transgression
Pressure Regression
Communication
Proposed Mud pressure
A
The importance of integrating the
prospect ‘s geological building blocks with Seismic PP Predictions:
Predicted Seal Pressure
Reservoir Pressure
Seal – Reservoir Interface
1
2
3
4
G.A.S.
Effective Seal Macaroni Breach zone
Mt.Massive
Increase of PS (Auger)
Decrease of PS (GC 908)
Salt emplacement and displacement impact on geopressure setting and Risk Assessment
29 G.A.S.
P-D (PPP Sand & Shale)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
P
D
Overburden Hydrostatic PPP Shale MW RKB
PP RFT MW RFT LOT
G.A.S.
P-D KC 255
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
P
D
Overburden Hydrostatic PPP Shale
PP RFT MW RFT LOT
Pore Pressure Prediction Modeling Challenges
30
KMG 602#1
10000
10200
10400
10600
10800
11000
11200
11400
11600
11800
12000
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
P
D
Hydrostatic OB psi PPP psi Shale
PP psi Sand MW psi RKB
KMG 602#1
10000
10200
10400
10600
10800
11000
11200
11400
11600
11800
12000
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
P
D
Hydrostatic OB psi PPP psi Shale
PP psi Sand MW psi RKB
SIP
SIP
Challenges of PPP Model Calibration in a pay zone ?
G.A.S.
31
Conclusions
Factors Reduce DTW
P T and PR cause the disparity between seal and reservoir pressures
Bore hole instability, bypasses, side tracks , F-K-B cycle , possible blow-out, and failure
to reach the prospective target are common in Deepwater due to the narrow DTW.
Establishing the geological building blocks for geopressure prediction goes hand in hand
with prospect generation and forecasts drilling challenges.
The most troublesome spots along the bore hole trajectory is the seal – reservoir interface.
Pore pressure is predicted in seals and measurable in reservoirs.
The DTW ( FP – PP) window size dictates feasible prospect’s drilling prognosis.
Increase of water depth to the sea floor (mud line) reduces the DTW
Hydrocarbon column reduces DTW
G.A.S.
Dirty Salt educes DTW
32
Oil vs. Gas in Deep Water
Prediction’s Model Calibration challenges
Thank you
33 G.A.S.