SOCIETY OF PETROk...,}I!, ENGINEERS OF AIME PA?

ER
62C1v I,o:rth Central E:>..-oressway NUIBER SP E 3601
Dallas, Texas 75206-

THIS IS A PP~RTI'IT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Measurement of Formation Pressure from

Drilling Data
By

Bill Rehm and Ray McClendon, Members AIME, Dresser-SWACO

© Copyright 1971
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the 46th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME, to be held in New Orleans, La., Oct. 3-6, 1971. Permission to copy is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be conied. The abstract should contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is pres~nted. Publication elsewhere after
publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is
usually granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give
proper credit is made. .

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting and,
with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT tion.

A series of drilling equations have been Since velocity is intimately related to

proposed for the measurement of formation pres-
sure. They appear to work well and are as
accurate as log-derived pressure techniques.
While it probably is not possible to develop one
equation that will work under all conditions,
one of the series should work quite well where
good drilling practices are used. Calculations
have been made using these methods in all major
drilling areas of the free world and accuracies
approaching 0.2 lb/gal have been attained.
IN1RODUCTION
There are two reasons why a drilling,!
pressure equation should work.
1. The basic theory of abnormal pressure
due to porosity or compaction indicates that as
the bit enters the high pressure zone, the rock
becomes more porous and less dense than it was
previously. This has been proved by the methods
of determining pressures from well logs, shale
densities and seismic velocities. The principle
of variation from normal was proposed by Hottman
a~d Johnson in 1965. 12 They firmly established
not only that variation from normal was an
indicator of high pressure, but that t>.igh pres-
sure could be measured by the departure of the
velocity from what might be expected to be
normal velocity for the depth under considera-
References and illustrations at end of paper.
rock density, the techniques L~volved in
determining pressure from.velocity or density
should work equally well with drilling rate
insofar· as drilling rate is related to density
or porosity.
2. The other drilling rate/pressure factor
involved is the effect of differential pressure.
As' the differential pressure between the
wellbore and formation decreases, ~-lling rate
increases. The increase approaches a hyperbolic
function and often has an inflection point at
about 500 psi overpressure against the formation
(Fig. 1).
It may be noted that both phenomena work in
the same direction at the same time. Reduction
in differential pressure tends to corne with the
entrance into the overpressured zone of greater
porosity and both increase the drilling rate.
However, it appears that the differential pres-
sure phe.~omenon is the more sensitive function.
These observations led to the belief that
not only was the determination of overpressured
zones possible, but that it was possible to
determine formation pressures from d~~g rate
The main difficulty appeared to be resolving the
sensitivities involved in the ~-lling rate
function.
2 MEASURING FORMATION PRESSURE FROM DRIllING DATA
THE BASIC CONCEPT
Some basic field investigations, shortly
after publication of the paper by Jorden and
Shirley14 further confirmed that the basic "d"
equation was ~~ excellent indicator of differen-
tial pressure
"d" equation
R
Log
d = 60N . . . . . . . . . . (1)
12W
Log
10 6D
where d = exponent in general. drilling equation
D= bit diameter, in.
N= rotary speed, rpm
R = penetration rate, ft/hr
W= bit load, lb
The nomograph published with the original
work provided an excellent method of calculating
the "d". The value was easy to use in the
field and gave quite accurate trend patterns.
In this early stage and in many cases
today, the best results are obtained by raising
the mud weight as the overpressured zone is
penetrated to keep the "d" value on trend. The
casing point would then be when the mud weight
approached the fracture gradient. This is an
exceptionally accurate method of maintaining a
constant differential pressure when entering
zones of higher pressure (Fig. 2). From this,
it is possible to calculate a reasonably
accurate bottom-hole pressure.
Given an assumption of normal formation
gradient (9 lb/gal for the G1ili' Coast), then
assume that a trend established by the term "d"
represents a constant differential pressure.
Therefore, at any point of interest
. . . . . . . . . . . (2)
and
P"d" .. (MW - MWl) ,
where P = formation pressure gradient
P"d" = differential pressure gradient
MV1 = mud weight gradient when calculating
"d" trend in normal pressured zone
MW1 = normal formation gradient for area
MW'2 = mud weight gradient at any point in
overpressured zone
Further work presented by Jorden et ale
between 1966 and 1968 indicated that the same
results could be obtained by holding bit weight
and rotary speed constant. In fact, under some
conditions of very high drilling rates, this
approach appeared to give the best possible
i
SPE 3601
solution. Under these conditions, the d~-lling
rate in shale decreases slowly and consistently
with depth. An increase in drilling rate within
the shale indicates the top of the overpressured
section.
The drilling rate at any point within the
overpressured shale could be compared with the
drilling rate extrapolated for a normally pres-
sured shale to determine a bottomhole pressure
baseci on departure from normal (Fig. 3).
It was ~so possible to take drilling rate
in an overpressured zone and look back for the
same rate in a normal pressure zone. Thus one
could determine the depth at which the over":'
pressured shale was normal. From this could
be determined the apparent depth of sealing
and hence a formation pressure (Fig. 3). This
follows ~uite closely the work of Fons (1968)
and Ham (,1966) in calculating pressures from
electric log data.
In general, the depth of sealing concept
tends to give too great a value for formation
pressure. This may be due to leakage from the
reseryoir after sealing:
FP = MWl x Dl + OB (D2 - Dl), •••• (.3)
where FP = formation pressure, psi
MW1 = normal formation pressure gradient
for area
D1 = depth of sealing. This is depth in
the normal pres sured zone where the
drilling rate is the same as it is
at the point of interest (D2) in
the overpressured zone
D2 = point of interest in overpressured
zone
OB = overburden pressure gradient,
(approximately 0.98 psi/:rt)
While it is simple and reasonably accurate,
there are a number of objections to these
methods. Primarily, difficulties arise in main-
taining a consta."lt mud weight, bit weight and
rotary speed through a transition zone. It
often appears desirable to change the mud weight
and drilling variables when drilling into
transition zones. This completely disturbs the
balance of the constant parameter approach and
makes it difficult to use. Bit type and partic-
ularly bit sharpness are difficult to correct
with the constant parameter approach and tend to
further confuse the trend lines.
The constant parameter approaches can yield
excellent results if closely controlled. Since
some rigid planning is required, they appear to
work best in field wells where a definite rate
of penetration can be assigned as a stopping
point for logging or casing.
SPE 3601 BILL REHM and RAY
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
T'ne difficulties :in keep:ing drJl:ing and
mud functions constant during differential pres-
sure calculations in transition zones make it
desirable to develop an absolute pressure value.
As a result of considerable field work :in
comparison of the various methods, the "d" equa-
tion of Jorden and Shirley was selected as the
best possible start:ing po:int since the sensitiv-
ities and mechanics appeared to be both accurate
and usable. Field correlation indicated that
the equation gave a very reasonable approxi-
mation of differential pressure between the
wellbore and formation.
It was postulated that if it was possible
to correct for the effect of mud weight, the "d"
term would then be an indicator of formation
oressure. Tnis was attempted on an empirical
basis on a number of different models and
resulted in the following, which gave an
excellent indication of formation pressure.
"d cs " =-
MW2 -x
MW1 , d . ......
where d cs modified exponent :in general
drilling equation to indicate
formation pressure
MW1 = normal mud weight gradient for the
area
Mw2 = equivalent circulating density or
mud weight in use
The plot of the "des" term showed a curve
that was similar to acoustic log shale plots and
shale density plots (Fig. 4).
THE SOLUTION PLOT
Using the "d" and "des" terms, it is
possible to plot two curves that relate to
differential pressure and to formation pressure.
The comparison of these two values provides a
valuable tool :in drilling rate/pressure analysis
(Fig. 5).
The similarity of the "d cs " and the shale DATA COLIECTION METHOD
density plots led to the belief that a pressure
:interpretation might be made on the same "depar-
ture from normal" basis as on log plots.
The original work by Hottman and Johnson12 must be taken :into account. The simplest, yet
indicated that when dealing with log-derived
values, the solution of departure from normal vs the formation. Since the equations do not take
pressure gradient was a power function closely
approach:ing the logarithmic. This was further
redef:ined by Combs (1967) in terms of shale
drillability. The discussion of shale density
by Boatman2 defines the same general function in compaction. It is also the standard established
terms of shale bulk density.
Based primarily on the comparison of the
~..cCLENDON 3
acoustic and the "d cs " solution for departure
from normal vs pressure gradient, a term was
developed :in the mode of the Combs work.
This was resolved into the following
expression.
Grad = mLog (Normal-Observed) + B • (5)
where Grad = pressure gradient, psi/ft
m '"' slope constant
Normal = normal "d cs " at depth for the drill
tools involved
Observed = "d cs " at depth for drill tools :in-
volved
B = offset
This was actually resolved for field use by
means of a standard overlay and plot paper (Fig.
6). When plotting on coordinate graph paper,
where 1· in. on the horizontal axis is 0.5 "d cs "
units, the equation becomes
Grad = .398 Log (Normal-Observed) + .86
• • • • • • • • • • (5-A.)
FIELD DATA COLLECTION
The collection of accurate rig Wormation
is the obvious key to the accurate determination
of pressures from drilling parameters. The
original premise of the pressures from drilling
rate project was that equipment to accurately
collect the information was necessary and would
be designed as soon as the parameters were
clearly established. The equipment was designed
and first became available in late 1969. The
personnel in the units were extensively trained
for the specific purpose of pressure determina-
tion and upon their enthusiastic efforts rested
the success and accuracy experienced. Dri 11 ; ng
data was gathered on over 90 wells throughout
the world utilizing this equipment and crews.
The collection of the drilling data has been
continually improved by experience and the :intro-
duction of newer and more reliable equipment.
Whether the solution to bottom-hole pres-
sure is plotted by computer or by hand, the
variations in the earth and the drilling process
most important correction is for variations in
changes in lithology into account, a standard
must be established. Shale is the most conven-
ient standard because it is relatively easy to
identify and displays the greatest degree of
by earlier work in pressure determination.
Other standards, such as silts, redbeds, or
sands, may be used but they are proportionately
 MEASURING FORMATION PRESSURE FROM DRILLING DATA
harder to interpret.
In Gulf Coast-type drilling the difference
betv;een sand and shale shows up dramatically in
the drilling rate. The sand values can then be
ignored on a "by inspection" basis or cancelled
out by a dead beat band in the electronic
I circuitry. This should be spot checked by
sample analysis.
In older formations, it is often difficult
, to verify the established standard solely by
L~spection of drilling rate. In these cases a
combL~ation of drilling rate and sample analysis
may be used. There is every indication that
variation in torque and rotary bounce can be
used to define more closely the fonnation. How-
ever, it is easier and more accurate to use
sample analysis when using a manned unit.
Faulting causes a major shift in the pres-
sure plot if it is not recognized by a combi-
nation of sample analysis and an abrupt offset
i11 the slope of the plot. Unfortunately, many
faults occur within the transition zone where
both the lithology and slope of the plot are
changing. Experience and a knowledge of the
geology of the area are some of the best guides
in this case.
Drilling Rate
The rate of penetration appears to be best
L collected on a footage basis (with fixed footage
and variable time). Fixed time and variable
footage increments were tried, but for some
, reason, were not satisfactory. In general, it
has been found that for any drilling rate up to
I about 60 ft/hr a l-ft standard is .quite satis-
factory.
At very low drilling rates, a standard of
less than 1 ft appears to reflect the auto-
matic driller rather than the fonnation. At
drilling rates in excess of 60 ft/hr a footage
standard of 10 ft appears to be satisfactory.
The footage interval must be enough to reflect
the fonnation rather than the driller, but
short enough to show variations in the fonna-
. tiona
Rotary Speed
Rotary speed is measured by an impulse
device, and rate is calculated and reported as a
. numerical value in rpm.
Bit Weight
Good short-interval averages of bit weight
'. are essential to accurate solutions. The best
results come as a result of the following. The
bit weight is defined as "the difference between
, cirj 1 J ing weight and string weight when rotating
SPE 3601
and pumping just off bottom" and is automat-
ically calculated and reported in thousands of
pounds. A movi-Ilg average, or third-order
electror~c filter is used between the transducer
on the hook load diaphragm and the hook load
value and display to dampen the bounce in the
drilling assembly.
}131.JOR CHANGES IN CONDITIONS
With present drilling technology the casing
point is in the transition zone. With the
setting of casing COmes a major change in the
values for the pressure determination equation.
The bit size is changed, often the mud weight
and mud characteristics are changed, causing a
change in the differential pressure relation-
ship.
The change in bit size is corrected in the
original "d" equation where there is provision
for bit diameter. The change in bit type is not
so straightforWard. On an empirical basis, it
was discovered that correction in bit type or
correction from mill tooth to carbide bits can
be made on a basis of bit tooth area in contact
with the fonnation. Then this correction takes
the place of the bit diameter. So the bit
diameter encompasses bit type and is made. by a
proportionate correction for bit diameter as a
function of bit tooth area in contact with
fonnation. This, from a review of the existing
literature, seems to be a rational correction
and may not be entirely empirical.
The correction to diamond bits is somewhat
more difficult and to a large degree has not
been successful. When using diamond bits a
small section of hole must be drilled and the
corrections put in by observation.
Changes in the drill string can cause some
difficulty, particularly with addition of a
radically different stabilizer assembly. This
may be accounted for simply as change in the
effect of bit weight, but it is difficult to
correct on any mathematical basis. Again the
best solution in this case is an additional 100
ft of hole to establish a new trend pattern•
Changes in drilling mud properties always
affect pressure detennination to some degree.
The change in mud properties, other than weight,
seem to affect the equation in the same general
manner as was proposed by Eckel.? The drilling
rate is affected by viscosity by a value
approaching the 0.5 power of the change in the
Reynolds number. For small changes in the
viscosity-related tenns there is no apparent
effect on dri.11i.ng rate. Large changes, how-
ever, particularly those increases in viscosity
causing significant change in the Reynolds
number, can make the pressure equation inoper-
able. No attemot is made at this time to make
these corrections mathematically. Some
SPE 3601 BILL REHM and RAY McCLENDON 5

preliminary work indicates that the Reynolds correction has been developed for this in-
number correction probably could be made in such accuracy.
a rn~~er as to correct for some of the viscosity
change. With high viscosities there is no data 2. Poorly maintained drilling muds give
to indicate whether the eauation could be made the same effect as excessive mud weight and
valid or not. Viscositie; may introduce some again no solution has been developed for this
factors in hole cleaning that we are unable to problem.
handle at this time.
3. A particularly interesting example of
The effect of mud weight is more straight- inadequate bit weight occurs in the rapid
forward and the mud weight correction allows for drilling off of the Mississippi Delta. In this
these changes. There is, however, a problem area the pressure equations that use a function
involved in the mud weight correction much akin of bit weight give incorrect answers because of
to that of viscosity. When the mud weight is the soft formations. A reasonable bit weight is
more than 2 or 3 Iblgal greater than the for- never established. It is generally accepted
mation pressure gradient, or the bottom-hole that much of the actual drilling is done by the
pressure is greater than 1,000 to 1,500 Ib more jets in the bit and that the bit tooth seldom,
than the formation pressure, the solution if ever, touches bottom. Under these conditions
becomes erroneous. In general, the solution which also occur in Kalimantan and Nicaragua, it
il'ldicates a higher mud weight than is actually is necessary to use the drilling rate as a
needed. I t appears that the drilling rate vs measuring device and compare increases or
differential-pressure curve (Fig. l)"is on the decreases in drilling rate to standard rate of
flat part of the slope and shows no effect of change.
increased or decreased differential pressure.
The function relating to increased porosity is 4. Inadequate hYdrauiics cause problems
not able to make the total correction. with mathematical solutions. The bottom-
cleaning ability of the hydraulic program is
RESULTS OF PRESSURE PLOTS assumed in all of these equations to be adequate
Combs 4 and others have proposed methods of
The field work done with the data collec- making corrections for hYdraulics. Our work
tion units provided drilling rate/pressure indicates that With inadequate bottom-hole
plots of exceptional accuracy. The plots were cleaning it is best to use a constant function
made utiliZing only pure shale or some other approach and maintain bit weight and rotary
agreed upon standard. T'ne points picked as speed constant. This develops trends that are
representative were checked against lagged independent of the bottom-hole cleaning ability
cutting samples. Because of the accuracy of the of the hYdraulic part of the system.
data collection equipment, it was possible to
use representative drilling values through the 5. No geological standard. The best
standard section. The "des" value was plotted results are obtained from comparing drilling
on the standard scale and the overlay applied. rate through a standard formation. For the
For the most part the solutions were accurate to most part, shale is superior to redbeds or sands
within 0.2 Ib7gal of formation gradient. While for pressure determination. If it is impossible
it was possible in some cases to compare to to establish a lithologic standard, then a
pressure values obtained during a well kick or general section such as a bit run may be taken
from subsequent production tests, in general it as a geologic standard. The present state-of-
was necessary to compare the drilling rate/ the-art precludes comparing drilling rates in
pressure solution to subsequent log runs. sand and in shale sections to derive a reason-
Since both methods of calculation were similar, able solution.
it might be expected that if there were errors
in the drilling rate function, the same errors There is some further question as to the
would appear in the log-derived values. use of these approaches in massive limestone.
Experience has been lacking in this area. HO\i-
LIMITATIONS TO THE EQUATION ever, it may be hypothesized from the small
amount of data available that is possible to
The following problems appear to affect calculate pressure from drilling rate in massive
the accuracy of the equations. limestone. But a great deal of care must be
taken since the variation in drilling rate With
1. Bud weight in excess of 2 to 3 Ib formation pressure is not as great as in shales.
greater than the formation gradient causes an
error in the solution. Mud weight solutions BIT RECORD
are higher than required. This leads to partic-
ularly confusing errors when working old rec- Records for an area often are not complete
ords, i'lhere it may be expected that the mud or accurate. Electric or acoustic logs provide
i'leights are considerably too high. No rational a basis for pressure calculations. T'ne bit
6 MEASURING FORMATION PF.E;SSURE FROM DRILLING DATA
record can be used to support the log calcu-
lations by means of Eqs. 4 and 5. The effect
of lithology is unknown; however, pressure
calculations derived in this manner are amaz-
ingly accurate. The pressure trends are
especially good, but with accuracy limited to
about 1 lb/gal (Fig. 7). other problems with
bit record plots involve the difficulty in
obtaining any idea of corrections made for hole
deviation. While drilling assembly changes and
verJ light bit weights should be indicated on
the record, more often than not information is
incomplete.
CONFUTER COMPARISON
The exceptional accuracy experienced in
the field, raised the question of using the
overlay and plot. To control the interpreta-
tion by field persol1."lel and to maintain strict
standards, a computer solution was prepared by
folding Eqs. 4 and 5A together. Since· i t was
planned to use an automatic plotting technique
as well as deriving an answer, the equation was
further modified to reduce the normal slope of
the decrease in drilling rate with depth to
vertical and to give the answer on a coordinate
rather than logarithmic axis.
This term was resolved as
~~
Pf =7.62 LOge + c - MWl Log
MW2 Log 12W
10 6
+ 16.52 , • • (6)
where Pf = formation pressure gradient, lb/gal
7.62 = slope constant
H = geological depth, ft
a = slope of the normal penetration rate
for the drill tools involved "des"
units/ft
C = drillability constant f1dcs" units
16.52 = intercept constant, lb/gai
The computer gave essentially the same
solution as did the hand plots (Fig. 8). In
the on-site work, the various parameters, with
the exception of a and C, were entered auto-
matically.
ANALYSIS OF THE NOMENCLATURE
Mud weight in pounds per gallon was selec-
ted as a usable field term. The use of a mud
weight term is particularly convenient in the
field for comparison with the mud weight in use.
SPE 3601
Slone Constant (7.62)
This
I
is the slone
•
of the line of t.he plot
of lb/gal vs "des". It is the slope of the
overlay from Eq. 5A or 0.398/0.052.
H
This term is generally used as T. V. D. in
feet. However, the proper description of the
term is "geological" depth. This should be
corrected for faulting, major folding and
possible uplift. The majority of the work with
this equation has been done in basin areas.
Limited data indicates that the effect of up-
lift can be corrected by use of a reconstituted
depth.
This is the slope of the normal f1dcs". In
the most straightforward version of the equa-
tion, the term Ha actually becomes "des" for
the normal-pressured zones. This is then ex-
tended to the overpressured zone for compara-
tive purposes. It is a valid approach and is
normally done with hand-plotted solutions. In
the case of an automatic plot, it is easier to
handle the circuitry or program with a slope
term.
The slope term ~ is quite constant with
geological age. There is, for example, very
little variation in the slope value a between
the Miocene of Louisiana and Indonesia.
The drillability constant is actually the
drill tool constant. Different drilling rigs,
formations, and different customs change the
absolute "d ". In the basic "df1 equation, the
value £. for C~y rig is corrected by inspection.
Intercept Constant (16.52)
The intercept constant is the offset value
from Eq. 4 (0.861.052).
MWI
This term is the normal pressure gradient
for the area.
MW2
This term is the mud weight in use cor-
rected for the circulating density. The equiv-
alent circulating density is an important con-
sideration in deep slim holes.
R
This term is the drilling rate in feet per
SPE 3601 BIU. REHM and RAY McCLENDON 7
hour. Within this term comes a correction for records are available and is also valuable wnen
tooth wear. The values of Vidrine and Benit, 20 only basic data collection facilities are used.
or history from the area, can be used for wear
connec;:,ions. 3. The constant function approaches work
well in areas of very high drilling rates or
W where hYdraulics are inadeauate. The constant
functio~ approaches are goOd indicators of
This term is the bit weight. The entire trends, but it is difficult to make accurate
eauation becomes unworkable i f the bit weight calculations of pressures because of vari-
i; below the threshold or beyond the flounder ations in bit sharpness and the drilling
point. functions.
D 4. The overlay and "des" equation plot is
probably the most accurate method. It is
This term is the bit diameter. With the limited, however, to good data-eollection
variation between mill tooth and carbide bits, facilities and good drilling practices. The
the bit diameter becomes more than a simple ability to correlate the lithology and estab-
term. A correction from mill tooth to carbide lish a standard for drilling rates is the key
bits involves the tooth area in contact with the to accurate measurements.
formation. A solution becomes
5. Computer calculations are particularly
R R
advantageous in maintaining standards for field
MWI Log 60N = MWI ..=L:.=o....
g'---.:;;,6.:;;,ON;;,;. , • • • • (7) operations because they take intuition and
MWZ ';;:;L;:;"og"--"":l;';:Z-'-W MWZ Log lZW
guesswork out of the interpretation techniques.
l06D 10 6D On the other hand, loss of judgment within the
where the right and left sides of the equation computer calculations can lead to some erroneous
are for normal or the same pressure. The left conclusions. The main disadvantage of computer
side of the eauation is for the mill tooth bit calculations is that they become too believable,
and the right ·side for the first carbide run and no adequate controls are applied against
with l2. as the unknown. them.

CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preceding discussion outlines a number The authors wish to thank the management of
of different methods for the determination of Dresser Oilfield Products for permission to
bottom-hole pressure from drilling rates. All publish this article. They also wish particu-
of the equations or approaches give answers larly to thank Joe Baker, L. J. Cesmirosky, Gene
within 0.2 Ib/gal of the measured bottom-hoIe Forbes, Frank Littleton, L. R. Louden and Bob
pressure. All of the approaches have their Matthews without whose efforts none of this
strengths and limitations, and no one method can could have been possible and who, to a large
be considered to be the absolute answer to all degree, are responsible for the success of this
conditions. Calculations have been made in all work.
the major drilling areas in the free world.
REFERENCES
While accuracies approaching 0.2 Ib/gal are
possible, and in many places common, it i: 1. Athy, L. F.: "Density Velocity and Compac-
probably not possible to develop an equat~on
that would work under all conditions. This tion of Sedimentary Rocks", Bull., AAPG
leads to a basic conclusion that it is difficult (Jan., 1930).
to replace common sense and observation with
2. Boatman, W. A., Jr.: "Measuring and Usi.."lg
some straight mathematical rules. This is Shale Density to Aid in Drilling Wells in I
particularly true when we consider that the High Pressure Areas", API Paper 926-12-6 I
(Feb., 1967). !
dri-lling machine is not a mathematically derived
or strictly controlled automatic tool. 3. Bingham, M. G.: "A New Approach to Inte.."'-
pretating Rock Drillability", Oil and Gas J
j
The approaches considered are as follows. (1965).
4. Combs, George D.: "Prediction of Pore
1. The "d" or differential pressure indi-
Pressure from Penetration Rate", Paper SPE
cation. Tnis works best when mud weight in- 2162 presented at 39th Annual Califo~~a
creases are used to maintain the "d" or differ- Fall Meeting, Bakersfield, Calif., Nov. 7-
8, 1968.
ential pressure function on trend.
5. Cunningham, R. A. and Eenink, J. G.:
2. The comparison of differential pres- "Laboratory Study of Overburden, Formation
and Mud Column Pressures on Drilling Rate
sure, "d", and the absolute indication "des" •.
Tnis is a oarticularly handy tool when only b~t of Permeable Formations", Trans., AIME
8 MEASURING FOm-1ATION PRESSURE FRO!-1 DRILLING DATA
(1959) 216, 9-17.
6. Dolph, J. R. and Brown, K. l:...: "Effect of
Rota.~ Speed and Bit Weight on Penetration
Rate of a Diamond Microbit", J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept., 1968) 915-916.
7. Eckel, J. R.: "Microbit Studies of the
Effect of Fluid Properties and Hydraulics
on Drilling Rate", J. Pet. Tech. (April,
1967) 541-546.
8. Eckel, J. R.: "How Mud and Hydraulics
Affect Drill Rate", Oil and Gas J. (June
17, 1968).
9. Fons, Lloyd and Holt, Olin: "Formation
Log Pressure Data Can Improve Drilling",
World o-'..J. (Sept., 1966).
10. Galle, E. M. and Woods, H. B.: "Best
Constant Bit Weight and Rotary Speed",
Oil a.Tld Gas J. (Oct., 1963).
11. Garnier, A. J. and van Lingen. N. H.:
"Phenorrena Affecting Drilling Rates at
Depth" , Trans., A:rnE (1959) 216, 232-239.
12. Hottman, c:-E. and Johnson, R. oK.: "Esti-
mation of Formation Pressures from Log-
Derived Shale Properties", J. Pet. Tech.
(June, 1965) 717-722.
13. Jones, F. T. and Barringer, S. H.: "1m-
proved Communications with the Drill Bit",
SPE 3eOl
Pet. En~. (Nov., 1969).
14. Jorden, J. R. and Shirley, O. J.: "Appli-
cation of Drilling Performance Data to
Overpressure Detection", J. Pet. Teet.
(Nov., 1966) 1387-1394.
15. Jorden, J. R. and Shirley, O. J.: ''Method
for Determining the Top of Abnormal Forma-
tion Pressures", U.S. Patent 3368400, Feb.
13, 1968.
16. Naurer, W. C.: "Bit-Tooth Penetration
Under Simulated Borehole Conditions", J.
Pet. Tech. (Dec., 1965) 1433-1442.
17. Murray, A. S. and Cunningham, R. A.:
"Effect of Mud Column Pressure on Drilling
Rates", Trans., AIME (1955) 204, 196-204.
18. Outmans, H. D.: "The Effect of Some
Drri~ling Variables on the Instantaneous
Rate of Penetration", Trans., AIME (1960)
219, 137-149. -
19. Robinson, L. H., Jr.: "Effects of Pore and
Confining Pressures on Failure Character-
istics of Sedimentary Rocks", Trans., AIME
(1959) 216, 26-32.
20. Vidrine, D. J. and Benit, E. J.: "Field
Verification of the Effect of Differential
Pressure on Drilling Rate", J. Pet. Tech.
(July, 1968) 676-682.
 MUD WT

10 PP.G.
A.
12,000

12p'p'G.
01 APPARENT DEPTH
TYPICAL SHALE DRILLING CURVE
OF SEALING
1 RATE VS AP 14,000
A 15p'p'G. .-0-:r:
.-
W
<{ W
a:: o
(.!)
z
-I
,
..J
fi
o
16,000
17 P.P.G.
1 \
\
\
\

AP •
1.0 2.0
I~II
3.0 02 ..
AR
..,,
\

AR-
Fig. 1 - Typical shale drIlling curve rate VA AP. FIg. 2 • Msintnining the Trend "£1". FIg. 3 • DIrect mensurement drIlling rote/rre.Bure.
 o
'-'"",/'-''''''_\_
.
.,-i\" ~I
APPARENT NORMAL ~ dc,' C\l

\',,\
.., /........
'.'-'\.\/.. . . 1.\_......... 0

~
t?
~
~------. -
0
..".
0:

Q.: Q.:...J ~
~ c::r Lij "
... Q.::) "
._.
/ ....., . \
/
.,./ \_/\
\ "
./~'\ (D
'
t;
<l:)
~
/ APPARENT-NORMAL
.' '~"
"'·V\/·\.'"I yo...
..., . . :E i

"""".:
. ' 0

o
o
o
o o
o g
o o
o o
£i v'" g
yf

o
N
=.
-.;
::

o
o 8 o
o
ex> g o
- .0
C\I
 8000 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0

I, 18 14.2 10

10000
t)":?T4 tf ,,,: rIJHT

, '<;367.
'H !J2.
Q858.
9.1)
9.')

,
9.0
9594.
9.1)
1')1'51.
II).~
11)4')9.

,,
9.')
12000 101')6.
109')7 • 9.5
9.0
IIIIJ4.
1 1JOI) •
9.5
I I 5~H •
9.0
10.4
11101.
11871).
9.5

,
9.';
I 1985 •
9.6
12063.
9.0
I ~ I 94 •
1~3'53. " .0

,,
13.6
1eS23.
1~6JI).
14.0
14000 12793.
1.3.4
14.~
12946.
14.7
13068.
14.3
'3'82. 14.2
13354.
9 '3559.
'4.6
12 13670 •
I '5 • I
.18 14 13873.
15.4
15.3
13954.
15.6
16 14024.
'5.6
14208.
I 6' .1

)
, 17 ISOOO 14421 •
14600. '5.1
0.5 1.0 1.5 14678.
I 6.f)
2.0 2.5 , 5 .5
..des-- 14814.
14975 • '5.8
15.q
l'iIlS.
15.7
Fig. 6 - Overlay and scale drilling rate/pressure, 15290.
15.9
(slope and offset variable). 15508. , 6. ,
16893.
Fig. 7 - "des /I plot from bit records. 16.9

Fig. 8 - Cornput"r
solution.