.
A Comparison of Methods for Calculating
Pore Pressures and Fracture Gradients
from Shale Density Measurements
Using the Computer
David G. Griflin, SPE-AIME, AmeradaHessCorp.
Donald A. Bazer, SPE-AIME, AmeradaHessCorp.
Production
The drilliig of deep, abnormally pressured wells h
the Gulf Coast area has brougbt about the need for
accurate definition of the physical forces necessary to
contain such anomalous pressure so that protectiv~-
casing can be set and drilling can be continued with-
out costly interruptions. It is not enough merely to
recognize the presence of abnormal pressures. The
magnitude of these pressures must be defined so that
(1) drilling fluids can be selected to optimize penetra-
tion rate, (2) hydrocarbon shows from productive for-
mations can be recognized, (3) damaging fluid entry
into potential pay sands can be lessened, and (4) elec-
tric Jog data can be interpreteted more reliably.
Location of the transition zone between normal and
abnormal pressures is of prime importance. Many
excellent techniques have been developed to aid in its
location and also to evaluate pressure requirements
for drilling below these zones. Most of these tools,
such as electric, sonic and density logs are used “after
the fact” and are diagnostic only if run at the proper
depth. Therefore, some method is necessary to pro-
vide information concerning impendhg high pressure
zones as soon as they are penetrated by the bh. Two
methods are in popular use today: (1j normalized
drilling rate or “D” exponent determination,’ which
is premised upon a relationship between rate of pene-
tration and differential pressure, ‘and (2) determina-
tion of the variation in the density of shale cuttings.
Four methods of calculating formation pore pressures ~,td resultant fracture gradients
have been adapted to the computer and are compared with an empirical correlation and
electric log computations and with observed conditions such as mud weights used, gas
kicks and other indications of pressure.
NOVEMBER, 1969
Three modifications of the basic depth-of-sealing
approach to pore pressure calculation using shale cut-
ting density’-’ have been compared with two pub-
lished empirical correlations. A GE Model 265 com-
puter and Gl?s time-sharing service were used in this
study.
Basic Theory
The most generally accepted theory explaining over-
pressured reservoirs is based upon the Terzaghi and
Peck’ perforated plate and spring model, Fig. 1A.
From this analogy representing the shale compaction
process, Hubbert and Rubeyl concluded that abnor-
mal pressures occurred when water was not permitted
to escape from a closed system (Stage A, Fig. 1A)
faster than overburden pressure was applied. Nor-
mally, wmpaction progresses to Stage C, or compac-
tion equilibrium as defined by Hubbert and Rubey,
where the fluids are under normal hydrostatic pres-
sure and the overburden is supported entirely by the
springs or the grain-to-grain bearing stress of the rock.
When normal leakoff cannot occur, as in Stage A,
the overburden load is supported entirely by the en-
trapped water, and the fluid pressure reaches its ulti-
mate value of 1.0 psi per foot of depth.
Isolated sand bodies in massive shale sections are
often the recipients of water from compacting shales
— a situation normally found in the Gulf Coast re-
1463
 .

gion and represented by Stage B, Fig. 1A. Some
compaction has necessarily occurred since the sand
body has become “charged” and the fluid pressure
gradient has reached a value greater than 0.465 psi
and less than 1.0 psi per foot of depth.
Fig. lB illustrates key shale characteristics that
provide the basic theory for pressure calculations.
Shale porosity is plotted vs depth, with pressure gradi-
ent as the third variable. The data presented by Dick-
inson,6 which was derived from in-situ density meas-
urements and estimates used by geophysicists for
Tertiary sediments of the Gulf Coast, provide the
basis for this calculation made by Wickenhauser.7
Note that under normal pressure (p, = 0.465),
‘shales compact rapidly with depth. The amount of
compaction or porosity reduction decreases as the
pressure gradient increases, until zero compaction oc-
curs at p, = 1.0. The electrical, acoustical or derwity
properties of a shale body that has been completely
sealed and subsequently buried deeper should be un-
altered. Thus, the pressure of the shales and that of
porous formations in contact with these shales can be
calculated utilizhg the depth-of-sealing theory plus
the findings of Cannon and Craze.s These two workers
discovered, by an extensive review of pressure data
on many Gulf Coast wells, a consistent normal pres-
sure gradient of 0.465 psi/ft. This gradient is equiva-
lent to a column of fluid weighing 9.0 lb/gal or water
with a sodium chloride content of 80,000 ppm.
Armed with this information and the basic depth-
of-sealing concept, one can easily determine pore
pressure. Using typical shale cutting density vs depth
data shown on Fig. 2 as an illustration, note that a
sharp departure from the normal trend of increasing
density with depth occurs at Point “T”. Since abnor-
mally high porosities will prevail in overpressured
shales, the bulk density will be correspondingly re-
duced due to the presence of higher than normal
amounts of water for that depth. Assuming a linear
relationship of density and depth in normal pressures,
one can easily determine the depth at which the ob-
served low density would have occurred on the nor-
mal trend (i.e., the depth of sealing) by the equation
D, = ?nxpp+A . . . . . . . (1)
Overburden pressure on the Gulf Coast may be
estimated very closely at 1.0 psi/ft; hence, the pore
pressure at the point of low density maybe expressed
as
(D, X 0.465) + (DP – D,) 1.0 = pP at D, . (2)

s
s
s

?NSITY - SHALE CUTTINGS — GM/CC -

v. 1 1 1
— DEPTH OF SEALING
(Ds )
Prsl i >~r>O.465 Pr =0,465

sTAGE A STAGE B STAGE C

t
I
I
o . NORMAL TREND DATA
m PERFORATED PLATES &
1
EZEa WATER ~ ● - ABNORMAL PRESSURE
POINT
i
Fig.lA—Shaiecompactionmodei (Terzaghi and Peck).
t

35 I
%=1.00
1- ?
Z
30 - i
u
u
~ !
>“ 25 -“ I — “T” TR_,.31TiON ZONE–
~
m
o ~ (DP)
—+—- +NORMAL
I II
TREND DATA FIT
!5 20 -
a DS=I.tMIXp P+A
w }
z’ ,5 -
z p, S FLUi D PRESSURE
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE

DEPTH, FT X iOs
Fig. lB—Porosity vs depth for average Gulf Coast shales. Fig. 2—Typical density-shale cuttings vs depth.

1464
 .
Where D,, is the depth at which the abnormally low
density p,,was encountered.
In this analysis complete sealing of the shale bed
has been assumed; however, as Dickinsons and others
have discovered, this. is not the usual occurrence.
Often, because of relatively fast subsidence in sedi-
mentary basins and because of the inability of shales
to give up water readily, only partial sealing takes
place. In such cases, the apparent depth of sealing is
estimated in the same manner, and the pressure is cal-
culated from Eqs. 1 and 2.
Measurement of Shale Density from
Drilled Cuttings
Since we are discussing means of utilizing shale cut-
ting density to determine pore pressure, a brief dis-
cussion of methods of measuring these densities is
appropriate. Two ways of determining the density
are with a calibrated fluid column,* and with a mer-
cury pump’” (Figs. 3A and 3B).
Preparation of the samples prior to measurement
is critical, and consistency is important. Usually, cut-
tings are removed from the shale shaker every 10 to
30 ft, depending upon drilling rate, and are screened
to exclude larger particles believed to be cavings.
Fig.3A—Bulk volume measurement (Boatman),
I
NOVEMBER, 1969
(Controlled experiments with finer cuttings produce
much more consistent density measurements.l”) The
cuttings are then examined microscopically to select
clean, uniform shale pieces for density determination
and to obtain a routine mud logger’s lithology de-
scription, To prepare them for measurement, these
samples are dried only mough to remove adsorbed
surface water.
The calibrated fluid column utilizes two completely
miscible liquids that establish a linear density gradi-
ent. me column is calibrated by dropping several
glass beads of known density into the fluid and plot-
ting density vs the height at which these beads come
to rest. The resultant straight-line relationship is used
to determine the density of the prepared specimens.
With the mercury pump method, density is meas-
ured volumetrically. The empty holder is weighed by
compressing the sampling chamber to a fixed pressure
and observing the volume of mercury required in
cubic centimeters. Prepared shale samples of a known
weight in grams are placed in the holder and the
chamber is compressed to the same fixed pressure.
The difference between these two volume readings is
the bulk volume of the cuttings. This value is used to
determine bulk density by dividing bulk volume into
Ca/%a?e;~uid
column (Rogers).
146S
 .

METHOD i METHOD i?
DENSITY _

)
COMPOSITE OENSITY CURVE DEPTH OF SEALING

D~E(PP/A) ‘/m D$=A+mp

“h e
0

t t

c $ ApmdO = APL t t

1 I IIp).
(Pn,Op)
\ \

PORE PRESSURE = 0,465 (D$) + APL (OP - DJ

ii
~ PORE PRESSURE = APL (Dp-DJ + 0.465 (D$) METHOD 1
o

METHOD 3 METHOD 4

L
DEPTH OF SEALING
*
1* O$=A+mp
D~=A+mPc
4“
t “e
Pc-pP=Ap

I Wm E A [Af)m)

IDP)
Ap
i
PORE PRESSURE = 0.465 (DJ + 1.0 (C)p - DJ { UNITED CORE CORRELATION )

Fig. 4-Schematic representation of computer calculations.

g
E
LEAST SOUARE CURVE FIT
FOR NDRMAL TREND DATA
t
* 6
I

23
s
+
z
SELECT ABNORMAL OENSITY n
POINTS AND CALCULATE OEPTH
OF SEALING BY EOUATIDN: 2
O$=A+mp s
$x
g
CURVE FIT MUO WEIGHT VS.
a

z!i * .[
OEPARTURE CORRELATION
Wm = A IAPm)

1-
CALCULATE CALCULATE DEVIATION
ANO THEN Wm FROM
FROM D~
wm. A (Apm) kND CONVERT
OVERBURO
TO PORE

+ +
CURVE FIT MATRIX STRESS COEFFICIENT VERSUS DEPTH CURVE Y = AKm
AND PROCEED WITH MATTHEWS & KELLEY TECHNIQUE
TO CALCULATE FRACTURE GRADIENT

Fig. 5-Computer flow diagram.

1466 JOURNALOF PETROH3JM TECHNOLOGY

 the weight of the sample. Since about 25 gm of MIus!Lul
cuttings can be placed in the container for density oePTH DENSITY Muo WT. PORE PRESS FR40. PRESS FRAO. MUO
220 16.86 12713 13579 18.01
measurement, a certain desired “averaging” effect is 14600 222 16.63 I 2800 13814 17.95
achieved using this technique. 15300
15400
2 10
2.!5
1809
17.70
14389
14172
14727
14685
1s.5 I
18.34
To determine the origin of collected samples, the 15500 2.14 1?.81 [ 435.2 148 I 9 1s.39

lag time of the annular mud stream, considering hy- J2ETHOD HO. ~
MuD WT. PORE PRESS
draulics and hole geometry, is calculated. OENSITY FRAC. PRESS. FR4C, MuD
14500 220 1103 a315 13225 17.64
14800 2.22 1090 8392 13351 17.6 I
Method of Analysis 15300
15400
Z.80
2 15
1309
1240
10412 13946
1406S
17.53
17.56
9929
Figs. 4 and 5 schematically represent the four meth- 15500 2 14 1260 10I54 14 I 59 1757

ods of calculation used in the computer program, and ~noD No. q

OCPTH FRAC. 23U0
Fig. 6 is printout data from the computer on a typical OENSITY MuD W7 PORE PRE3s P’RAc.PRESS
14500 2.20 10 S4 8174 13241 1756
problem. Input data consist of depth and correspond- 14800 222 10 72 S2S2 13568 17.63
,5300 12.?s 10142 13991 1754
ing density measurements in both the normally pres- 15400
2 10
2 Is I2.1O 9686 140s I 17.58
sured and the abnormally pressured zones, 15500 2 #4 12 26 9897 14173 17 5s

Method 1, which has not previously been presented Y= HOD f60. 4

OEPTH 0ENS17’Y MuD WT. PORE PRESS FRAc. PRESS. FRAC MUO
in the literature, superimposes abnormally low density 84500 11164
220 1481 13236 1755
data, recognized from a plot of density vs depth, on 14800 222 1465 &127? 13513 1756
2 10 17 6? 160s7 14579 18.32
the composite density curve derived from hundreds of 15300
15400 2 15 1693 83556 14461 16 06
normally pressured, Louisiana Gulf Coast wells (Fig. 15500 2 14 17 18 13849 14624 18 14

7). The calculation utilizes the depth-of-sealing analy- Fig. 6-Typical program printout.
sis with integration of the composite curve between
OENSITY - WALE CU?71NCW — 6H/C6’
D, and DP as the overburden pressure.
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Dickinsona suggested that overburden pressures on 1 1
the Gulf Coast could be calculated on the basis of the 2
shale-density:depth relationship, Fig. 8 compares 3 . “\
overburden pressure determined from shale density 4 . \,\
data with an assumed gradient of 1.0 psi/ft. In the ‘.
5 . ‘.
depth range of most deep wells today (about 20,000 .,.
ft), use of 1,0 psi,/ft in estimating overburden pres- “.
k: - \
sures will result in a value that is slightly low. The
t!
“X” points on Fig. 7 represent curve fit data for the
composite density data, which take the form of $?8
Wg
-
\ ~.
D, = (p./Om . . . . . . . . (3) f
10
~
L
,11
Integration of this equation between D, and DP,
yields the average density, which is then converted to ~ 12 .
‘,
pressure gradient, The normal pressure component $ 13 .
is calculated in the conventional manner. 14 . \
Methods 2 and 3 are based upon the depth-of-seal- 15 .
ing theory2-4and differ only in the calculation of over-
[6 . \
burden pressure. Method 2 obtains overburden pres- ,7 X-CURVE FIT DATA
sure from an integration of the composite density \
O-ACTUAL DENSITY
curve as in Method 1, whereas Method 3 assumes an 18 . MEASUREMENTS }0
4
overburden gradient of 1.0 psi/ft. From an examina- 191
tion of the results of calculations on several wells, it
I was concluded that the assumed overburden gradient
Fig. 7-Composite density vs depth, Gulf Coast, La.
(courtesy Baroid).
I of 1.0 psi/ft provides sufficient accuracy for most pore 30, A
pressure determinations.
Both methods utilize the first order, least-squares
equation to provide a relationship between depth and
density
D, = ?nxpp+A . . . . . . . (1)
Knowing abnormal density data, we can determine
the depth of sealing and can complete the calculation
as outlined.
Method 4 uses the relationship’” between deviation
of density from the normal trend and mud weight re-
.. quired (Fig, 9), Deviation vs mud weight data, plotted
on log-log paper, result in the equation
-o 10,000 eo,ooo 30,000
w. = A(A/2)~, . . . . . ...(4) PRKSSURE OF OVERBURDEN - PSIO

Rearranging Eq. 1 to solve for p~, Fig. 8-Overburden pressure vs depth (after Dickinson).
“
NOVEMBER, 1969 1467
 Ds– A approximately 12,000 ft. Method 1 calculations agree
PP= ~ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “
By replacing D, with Q, the density that would be
found in nom~ally pressured rocks (PC) at Dp can be
calculated:
PC = DP– A . . . .
m“”””
This calculated density (PC’)is subtracted from pp at
the depth of interest to obtain deviation (Ap), which
is used in Eq. 4 to obtain mud weight.
The correlation presented by Rogers’ (Fig, 9) was
also used as a comparison; however, we were unable
to adapt this relationship to the computer.
Fracture pressures and fracture mud weights are
calculated using pore pressures from the four methods
described above and the technique proposed by Mat-
th~ws and Kelly.’l Their matrix stress coefficient cor-
relation was cume fitted, and the resultant equation
was used to calculate matrix stress and fracture
gradient:
Dk=AIKn’ . . . . . . . . .(6)
These data were compared with the actual mud
weights, witl. electric log calculations and with other
indications of pressure such as lost circulation and
gas kicks.
Field Examples
Fig. 10 is depth vs density data on an offshore Lou-
isiana well; it illustrates a distinct transition zone at
@ very well with actual mud weights except in the re-
gression zones at 15,600 ft and at 17,200 ft, where
the mud weights were affected by the proximity of
sand bodies in these areas. Loss of water from shales
surrounding these sands results in abnormally high
shale density values that yield inaccurately low pore
(6) pressures and mud weight requirements when used in
the calculations.
The 7-in. casing is set well into the abnormal pres-
sure zone and is in good position for drilling deeper
without exceeding fracture pressure of shallower,
normally pressured formations. Had casing not been
set at 13,200 ft, the fracture pressure of the zones
above this point would have been exceeded by the
17.54b/gal mud necessary to contain pore pressures
below this point.
It should be mentioned that 9%-in. casing could
have been set at 13,200 ft and the well completed with
a 7-in. liner instead of the necessary 5-in. liner at
16,600 ft. This would have permitted more effective
perforating, cementing, stimulation and genera] com-
pletion operation.
Calculations indicated that mud weights I-4ow
16,500 ft would exceed fracture pressure. This was
verified by the loss of mud in the lower portion of the
hole. (Fig. 11 is a graphical way of illustrating re-
quired mud weights.)
This well also vividly illustrates how the use of high
mud weights can adversely affect drilling economics.
For example, mud weights varied from 13.8 to 15
lb/gal between 10,000 and 12,200 ft. Certainly no

DENSITY —

.6r

.5 —

x
1-
&
w v ,4 —
0 v
2

I
w
; .3 —
o
i=
a
s .2 —
w
n

J—

.05 - CORE, INC ) ‘i

.*
,00-- I I I I
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MUD WEIGHT REQUIRED (LB/GAL )

 DENSITY- WALE CUTT4WS — GM/CC
2,() 2.1 2,2 2.3 2.4 2.5 ~ NORMAL TREND ~ATA
10 -
‘% Q ABNORMAL PRESSURE P.OINTS

II MUD WT
ME1’H i IES ROGERS BOATMAN USED

13.5 10.0 10.8 15.0

12
1% 14.2 13.6 14.9 15.7
~ 15.8 13.3 14.7 15.7
16.6 15.8 17.3 16.3
2 17.2 16.5 18.4 17.5
3 16.5 17.2 16. I 17.9 17.5
g 14 ‘ 17.5 17.6 16.9 18.9 17.5
~ 17.1 17.6 16.7 18.6 17.5
\ -> 17.4 17.7 17.1 19.1 17.5
* 15 \ .1 ,~.-j 17.8 16.8 18.8 17.5
16.3 17.6 16.8 18.3 17.5
$j
— 15.0 17.6 16.2 17.9 17.5
16
5“ LI 4ER L
17 15.7 18.0 17. I 19. I 18.0
~ 14.1 18.1 17.0 18.5 18.0
— 13.9 18.2 17.0 18.6 18.0
18
Fig. 10—Density-shale cuttings vs depth.

ACTUAL MUD W~lGH7

— — — —— — i ——— “
) PORE PRESSURE
L 7“ CASING
(METHOD 1)
. . . . . . . ..-
FRAC GRADIENT
( METHOD i )
<’ $
>
/ 4 #
/ f
/’
\ \/
\
L 5“ LIN ER -LOST 50 ~~LS MUD
\
PER HR WHILE DRLG
t

/ -“ / ‘
,’
4 f 1
18 .- LOST 50 BBLS MUD
PER HR

19

MUD WEIGHT - LB /GAL

20
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 , 19
Fig. n-Calculated mud weight comparison (see Fig. 10).

NOVEMBER, 1969 1469

 m
rED MUD WEIGHT - LB /GAL more than 12 lb/gal could have been required, con-
sidering surge and swab pressures and circulating den-
sities. Using umecessarily high mud weights in the
normally pressured zones could have resulted in a de-
crease in penetration rate of some 50 percent.lz There-
fore, if 10 days were required to drill from a depth of
10,000 ft to a depth of 12,200 ft with high mud
weights, this time could have been redueed to 5 days
by drilling closer to balance. In addition, treating costs
necessa~ to maintain the higher weight system would
have averaged about 10@/B/D more tian for tie 12-
lb/gal mud. If the mud system contained 2,000 bbl,
the resultant savings would have amounted to $4,000
for only 2,200 ft of hole.
Mud weights calculated from the five methods used
in this study are compared on Fig. 12. Induction-
electric log values are assumed to represent the cor-
rect formation pore pressure. Mud weights from
Methods 2 and 3 were extremely low because of the
flat slope of the normal trend curve. This situation
occurred on all field examples analyzed and is be-
lieved to be the result of insufficient normal trend
,— — density data from the upper portion of the hole. In
effect, Method 1 replaces this inadequate trend data
with a composite density curve such as that shown on
Fig. 7. In the absence of sufficient and representative
norm-d trend data, Methods 2 and 3 and the correla-
tions of Boatman’” and Rogerse can yield pore pres-
Fig. 12—Calculatedmud weight comparison (see Fig. 10).

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 OENSITY - WALE CUTTINGS -- 6W/Cc
=&
8
1 0 NORMAL TREND DATA
9— —
● ABNORMAL PRESSURE POINTS

10

4
1
II +;~a MUD WT
METH I I ES ROGERS BOATMAN USED

12 - \ 15.7 10.2 14,8 17.1 15.5

+ 15.5 13.0 14.2 16.0 15.5
12.5 13.3 14.2 16.3 15.5
, +
13 \ 13.0 13.2 13.3” 17.0 15.5
$ 12. I 12.8 i3.3 17.2 15.5
?’:(2SC.~ 13.8 14.2 15”.7 18,3 16,2
4
14 \ 15.6 16.2 16.7 19.7 16.7
\ 17. I 16.8 17.4 20, I 17.3
< > 17.4 l?. 1 17.8 21,5 17.5
15 ——
17.2 16.9 18.1 21.9 17.6

16 Y
-/”
14.5
12.4
16.7
15.8
17.6
17.4
21.”1
20.8
17. !3
1?.5

17

I Fig, 13—l)ensity-shale cuttings vs depth.

I 1470 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

.
sure values that are unreliable, The correlation pre-
sented by Rogers and Method 1 best approximate
the diaymal “line of agreement” on Fig. 12. Boat-
man’s correlation (Method 4) was also influenced by
the normal trend tune and generally yielded values
that were too high,
Fig. 13 shows density m depth data on an offshore
Louisiana well. It indicates an ummml.ly flat normal
trend and accounts for the low mud weights calcu-
lated from depth-of-sealing analyses (Methods 2 and
3) and high values based upon deviation from the
trend (Boatman and Rogers). This well illustrates one
very critical situation that ctm occuc at extremely
high pressures, the fracture gradient and pore pressure
converge and drilling can be continued only on a very
delicate “balance(Fig. 14). In this case, lost circula-
tion occurred at approximately 16,000 ft with 18-lb/
gal mud and the hole was lost. In a sidetrack opera-
tion, the well was successfully dfiiled and completed
using 17.5-lb/gal mud. Very cIose attention was given
to the pulling and running speeds of the drill pipe,
and to the proper handling of trip gas as well as to
the significant effects of circulating densities.
Fig. 15 shows density data, and Fig. 16 graphically
represents the mud weights determined from Method
1 on another offshore Louisiana well, These calcula-
tions point out the problems that arise when there are
not enough normal trend data. The solid trend line
I
I t I I ( I
10
tTTTT_TT
16
.1?
.- LI MUD “WEIGHT -LB
9 10 II 12 13 14
Fig. M.-Calculated mud waight comparison (see Fig. 13).
NOVEMBER,1%9
on Fig. 15 represents the least-squares fit for all data
and was used as reference for both Baroid and United
Core methods. The transition to abnormal pressures
is apparent at 11,500 ft; protective casing is set at
11,200 ft. Had this transition gone undetected, this
zone would have been penetrated with 12-lb/gal mud,
which would not have contained pore pressures equiv-
alent to 15 lb/gal. The 9%-in. casing could have been
set some 600 ft lower and provided protection for the
normally pressured shale from 11,200 ft to the transi-
tion at 11,500 ft. Fortunately, the fracturing pressures
of this interval were not exceeded when the well was
drilled deeper.
Pore pressure calculations based upon the com-
posite density curve (Method 1) have led to the con-
clusion that the well could have been drilled with mud
weights considerably less than those used,
Notice the unusually high densities immediately
above the transition zone at 11,500 ft. It has been
observed in several wells that shale densities in nor-
mally pressured zones may vary significantly from
the true trend line for that area, Overcompaction re-
sulting from salt dome intrusion or from subtle lithol-
ogy changes can increase the density (see Fig. 15).
On the other hand, a change in mineral composition
can decrease shale densities. An increase in mont-
morillonite clay content, which absorbs far more
water than do nonexpanding clays such as illite, would
ACTUAL MUD WEIGH T
———
PORE PRESSURE
(METHOD I 1
------ --
FRAC GRADlENT
( METHOD I )
/GAL
15 16 17 18 19
1471
E

10
msi=-DENs’T’”-s
-i
—--
——.
—

—
MUD WT
METH I I ES ROGERS 130ATMAN USED
—-— .—-—
\

*.-f‘
_..
.,-””1:
\
_— - . -------”- ‘ 12.5 12.8 13.9 156
\ / ““ 9

%
—.4 .-. + - 14.9 14.2 14.1 15.2 15.6

f
13.2 14.5 12.6 13.7 15.6

4-.—
: J .— -—— —- 14.4 15.2 14.4 15.5 168

—-—. .-/_
-.— i.___
t-- 14.9 l?. I 15 2 16 5 168

16.3 17.5 16.4 18. I 17.5

~ -“-+-j–
-..--------L.-.-J---- -— -J \ 16.9 17.5 17.0 18.7 175

Fig. 15—Density.shale cuttings vs depth.

—.

—. —

I I
ACTUAL MUD WEIGHT
———
\ PORE PRESSURE
(METHOD 1)

+ --------
FRAC GRADIENT
(METHOD t)
\
I

i
\
\
3 1\
\
\
k- \
1’\\
14

MU WEIGHT- LB” /GA1

‘1+
9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Fig. I+Calculated mud weight comparison (see Fig. 15).

1472 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 cause this effect. (The presence of montmorillonite LWN51TY- .WAL15CUVIN6’S — 6M/CC
2.00 2.10 2.20 ?.30 2.40 2.52 2.60
clays is usually detected by the “methylene blue”
test.)
Fluctuation of shale densities in normally pres- : :._[” ~,:,,,;%,
::-]-. +..
sured zones is considered to be a major deterrent to
a purely mathematical approach to establishing the &,z —-– .. .— .,..._. ..—.
normal trend line for depth-of-sealing analyses. Er- k \ 9.0
roneous data must be screened out before mathemati- -— . / ;:;
~,3.
cal averaging techniques can be applied.
2
Fig. 17, which shows shale density on an inland s 0 l---i- 1 f
Louisiana well, exhibits two distinct shifts in density ; 14;--- --- 1-+” --– f I;”;
~ 112
and corresponding pressure (at 11,200 and 15,200 -y
I 7.5
4.
ft), Method 1 calculations agree very closely with mud $ 15 -
160
+- x ‘
weights used in the lower portion of the hole, and ~1 I 5.7
J
judging from the high degree of gas cutting while trip- Is — f
ping at 13,700 ft and at 15,500 ft, these values should / ‘6’
t ~~ ~+”
reasonably represent pore pressure. 17i
Varying degrees of abnormal pressure with depth o NORMAL TRENO OATA
● ABNORMAL PRESSURE POINTS
is not a new phenomenon on the Gulf Coast. This
occurrence has been observed in several wells and is Fig. 18—Density-shale cuttings vs depth.
thought to be the result of permeable outlets (usually
sands) for water of compaction from large shale It is our hope that this study will stimulate more
sections, detailed work, which is sorely needed. Only through
Fig. 18 is an example of what is believed to be an the analysis of hundreds of field examples will we find
abrupt change in age. Apparently older, more dense the key to proper interpretation of shale density
shale has been displaced fror. its normal position, information.
probably by faulting. Although when they are based
upon only one such occurrence it can be nothing Conclusions
more than supposition, the geologic implications of Following are some conclusions that have been
shale density variations seem obvious. reached as a result of this comparison of methcds.

DENSITY - SHALE CUTrAVGS — GM/CC

2.0 2.! 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
10 —-

11
‘- NORMAL TREND DATA
. . ABNoRMAL pREssu RE polNTs
12 ‘
k
g 9y’cs 2L
13
s
8
~ 14
~
\ MUD WT
~ 15 hlETH.1 RoGERS BOATMAN USED
Q
~, 16,9 15.9 17.6 17.5
\ 16.7 15.8 17.5 17.5
‘6 7“ LIN f:R L 4 18. I 16.9 19.4 i%.o
> 17.7 17.0 18.9 18.1
I ‘t \ 17.8 17.2 19. I 18.3

18
Fig. 17—Density-shale cuttings vs depth.

N0V13MBER, 1969 i473

I

1. Shale density information adapts easily to com-
puter processing and should lend itself readily to well-
site analysis.
2. The density of shale cuttings, in addition to drill-
ing data such as penetration rate and the occurrence
of hotwire gas, can be used with confidence to predict
the occurrence of abnormal pressures.
3. Shale densities are effective in locating pressure
regression zones or zones of low fracture gradient;
however, these regressions may actually indicate the
proximity of porous formations.
4. Superimposing abnormally low densities on the
composite density vs depth curve (Method 1) yields
the most reliable pore pressure values.
5. Application of the depth-of-sealing theory to
shale density data, as in Methods 2 and 3, does not
yieid reliable pore pressures.
6. Mud weight calculations from empirical correla-
tions can be unreliable due to lack of sufficient nor-
mal trend density data,
7, The generally accepted overburden gradient of
1.0 psi/ft (used in the Gulf Coast) is not correct in all
depth ranges, but is accurate enough for most pres-
sure calculations,
Nomenckfure
A = constant
PP= density of shale cuttings from abnor-
mally pressured zones, gin/cc
DP = depth of abnormally pressured zones,
ft
D, = apparent depth of sealing of abnor-
mally pressured rock found at DP,
ft
D,; = used in curve fit description of Mat-
thews and Kelly’s correlation of
matrix stress coefficient vs depth,
ft
~P = deviation of density from the norms]
trend curve, gin/cc
K = matrix stress coefficient
Original manuscript rec.shred In Society
office A:lg. 19! 19b8. Revised manuscript
Paper (SPE 2166) was presented at SPE 43rd
held in Houston, Tex., Sept. 29.Ott. 2, 1968. @ Copyright
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
neers, Inc.
1474
9.
m= sloue of the curve
ApL = ov&burden pressure gradient, psi/ft
Pv = formation fluid pressure divided by
overburden pressure
pc = shale cutting density calculated from
extension of normal trend equa-
tion into abnormally pressured
zones. Used to determine devia-
tion (Ap), &n/cc
Acknowledgment
We wish to express our appreciation to the manage-
ment of Amerada Hess Corp. for permitting time to
prepare this paper. Particular thanks are given to Paul
Padilla who aided &reatly in preparing and trouble-
shooting the computer program.
References
1. Jordm, J. R. and Shirley,O. J.: “Application of Drilling
Performance Data to Overpressure Detection”, J. Pet.
~E?Ch. (Nov.. 1966) 1387-1394.
2, Hubbe~t,M: K. and Rubey,W. W.: “Role of Fluid Pres-
sure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting, Part I“, BuIL
GSA (Feb.. 1959) 70.
3. Ham, ‘Harold H.; “A Method of Estimating .Formation
Pressures from Gulf Coast Well Lo s“, Trans., Gulf Coast
Assn. of Geol. Sots. (1966) 16, 18! .
4. Foster, J. B. and Wha!en, FL E.: “Estimation of Forma-
tion Pressures from Electrical Surveys — Offshore Lou-
isiana”. 1. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1965) 165-171.
5. Terzaghi, Karl and Peck, R. B.: “Soil Mechanics in Engi-
neering Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
( 1948) 566.
6. Dickinson, G.: “Geological Aspects of Abnormal Reser-
voir Pressures in the Gulf Coast Region of Louisiana”,
Bull., AAPG (Feb., 1953) 37, No. 2,410.
7. Wickenhauser, T. L.: “Shale Water as a Pressure Support
Mechanism in Superpressure Reservoirs”, MS thesis, Lou-
isiana State U., Baton Rouge (Jan., 1968).
8. Cannon, G, E. and Craze, R. L,: “Excessive Pressure and
Pressure Variations with Depth of Petroleum Reservoirs
in the Gulf Coast Region of Texas and Louisiana”, Trans.,
AIME (1938) 127, 31-38.
r’ 9. Rogers,’ L.: ‘iShale Density Log Helps Detect Overpres-
sure”, Oil and Gas J.(May 16, 1966) 264.
10. Boatman, W. A., Jr.: “Measuring and Using Shale Den-
sity to Aid in Drilling Wells in High-Pressure Areas”, J.
Pet. Tech. (Nov., 1967) 1423-1429.
11. Matthews, W. R. and Kelly, John: “How to Predict For-
of Petroleum Engineers mation Pressure and Fracture Gradient From Electric
received July 16, 1969.
Annual Fall Meeting
and Sonic Logs”, Oil and Gas J. (Feb. 20, 1967) 92.
1969 12. Vidrine. D. J. and Benit, E. J.: “Field Verification of the
Engi- Effect of DHTerential Pressure on Drilling Rate”, J. Pet.
Tech. (July, 1968) 676-682. JPT
JOURNALOF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGY