SPE-198367-MS

Formation Pressure While Drilling Technology: Game Changer in Drilling

Overpressured Reservoirs

Samat Ramatullayev, Akikat Makhmotov, and Muratbek Zhabagenov, Schlumberger; Michele Cesari, Salvatore
Torrisi, and Graziano Capone, ENI Turkmenistan; Federica Ferrari, ENI Upstream

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference held in Baku, Azerbaijan, 16 – 18 October 2019.

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 Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, 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
The Formation Pressure While Drilling (FPWD) has been widely used in the industry in different downhole
environments for formation evaluation purposes – pressure gradients, fluid identification and contacts, and
reservoir pressure management. However, there is a niche application of this tool that no wireline formation
tester could provide – real-time drilling optimization.
Drilling reservoirs with abnormal high pressure is a complex process. The overpressure can cause a
well to blowout or become uncontrollable during drilling leading to catastrophic outcome if too low mud
weight is selected. On the other hand, too high mud weight can lead to lost circulation, decrease in rate of
penetration, stuck pipe and most importantly it can damage the formation hindering productivity of the well.
The monitoring of actual pore pressures in real-time with FPWD tool is critical to make proper mud weight
adjustments, rather than relying on inferred pore pressure from either predictive models or offset wells.
The paper discusses a case study of application of FPWD in a well drilled in a fault block never drilled
before, where pore pressure data from wells located in nearby blocks indicated that there may be abnormal
high-pressure zones. Pressure measurements were performed while drilling after every 100 m upon reaching
a certain depth. Since downhole BHA included gamma ray and resistivity tools along with FPWD tool, the
combination of this data was used to select the intervals to be tested.
The study shows how real-time pore pressure measurements helped to adjust mud weight from 1.45 to
1.80 sg to avoid the risk of formation fluid influx into the well, optimize drilling operations and, based on
the acquired results, an operator decided on the total depth (TD) of the well. Since pretests were performed
at targeted layers, formation pressure and mobility data also aided in reservoir characterization.
The paper presents the first successful application of FPWD technology in Russia and Caspian region
for drilling optimization purposes in overpressured reservoirs. Real-time data availability allowed making
quick operational decisions to safely drill the well until planned TD.

Introduction
Drillers are the bravest men on Earth, they are afraid of two things only – kicks and losses. In most cases,
both of them can be avoided with correct mud weight application. However, it is not a trivial exercise to
2 SPE-198367-MS

choose a right mud weight since it requires a good knowledge of formation pore pressures and stresses. Even
with brown fields these can change with time rendering previous "rules of thumb" useless. In the scenarios
of unknown reservoir, the complexity of the issue is much higher.
Industry came up with various methods to extract estimates of formation pressure from seismic
velocities and acoustic data. However, these methods work properly only in vertical-stress-dominated
tertiary basins, whenever compaction disequilibrium conditions apply (Grauls, 1999). If also other causes
of overpressures occur (mechanical stress, thermal stress, chemical stress, dynamical transfers…), the pore
pressure prediction resulting from seismic data is inherently affected by high uncertainties. Sometimes the
risk associated with not knowing pore pressure is simply unacceptable.
That is why measuring formation pressures to sustain safe and efficient operations is critical. For the last
15 years industry has been using FPWD tools with significant success. Nevertheless, in some regions and
companies there is still little understanding of how such technology can mitigate the risks. People claim that
measuring formation pressure "behind the bit" is too late to cure the situation and avoid kicks and losses.
We will attempt to explain the procedure of drilling optimization with FPWD tool utilization.

Challenges
The paper presents an example of application of FPWD in an area where pore pressure estimates are
associated with high uncertainties, due to the occurrence of more overpressure generation mechanisms.
In the South Caspian area, high overpressures are related to fast sedimentation rates, hydrocarbon
generation and tectonic forces. In fact, the area is characterized by a series of parallel thrust and fold belts,
with dextral transcurrent motion (Torres, 2007). Due to the strong tectonic stresses, the deepest reservoirs
are affected in some of the blocks by a sharp increase of pore pressure, which cannot be predicted using
traditional approaches of pore pressure estimation.
The analysis of the pore pressure in the wells already drilled in the area showed extreme difficulties in
predicting overpressures from seismic velocities. Both overpressure starting depth and magnitude resulted
to be not correctly estimated with the traditional pore pressure methods. For this reason, a new rigorous
approach on pore pressure analysis and overpressure prediction was applied for a non-drilled block. In
particular, two reference wells were chosen to define a low and a high pore pressure scenario. Then, the
estimation of pore pressure was achieved by combining the prediction from seismic velocities with the
analyses of mud weights, drilling events and formation pressure measurements in the reference wells. This
allowed defining two different pore pressure prediction scenarios, which are characterized by different top
overpressure depths.
Since the uncertainty in pore pressure predictions were high, a direct pore pressure management while
drilling was used to monitor the pore pressure trend and to define the well TD, according to the well
evidences. This allowed to complete the well with the available rig.

FPWD Tool Overview

The FPWD tool provides direct real-time measurement of formation pressure and mobility. The tool is a
probe type formation tester, similar design and operation to conventional wireline formation testers (Fig.
1). In operation, the measurement probe is brought to the desired test depth, bottom hole assembly (BHA)
is kept stationary while pretest is conducted, and measurement is transmitted to surface.
SPE-198367-MS 3

Figure 1—The FPWD tool types and probe

For FPWD pretests, a downlink command is sent to the measurement while drilling (MWD) tool and
forwarded to the FPWD tool; this command carries instructions on which pretest sequence to carry out.
Depending on the sequence called for, the parameters of the pretest may be fixed, or downhole variable.
Fixed pretests will "fix" the rate, volume, and time for the pretest sequence, and are chosen based on
anticipated formation mobility. Uncertainties in formation mobility can provide a risk to the use of Fixed
Mode pretests, but the ability to directly control the rate and volume can be useful in heterogeneous
formations. Time Optimized pretests (downhole variable) will intelligently vary rate and volume downhole,
independent of surface control, to achieve a stable pressure in the 5 minutes allocated for measurement.
Time Optimized Pretests (TOP) provide a much better chance of getting a valid measurement on the first
pretest attempt, given their ability to vary rate and volume. The table depicts key parameters used in fixed
and time optimized pretest types and default pressure vs. time plots of these tests (Fig. 2).

Figure 2—Parameters for Fixed Pretest and Time Optimized Pretest

Formation pressure measurement while drilling has applications in several areas (Fig. 3):
– Reservoir Management: formation pressure and mobility profiling, fluid type identification and
contacts through pressure gradient;
– Drilling Optimization: pore pressure calibration, mud weight window optimization, drilling
efficiency, real-time wellbore stability;
– Well Placement: geosteering, geostopping.
4 SPE-198367-MS

Figure 3—The FPWD applications

In this well, FPWD was used to optimize the drilling in challenging overpressured environment. As it
was mentioned earlier, the TOP algorithm was developed for cases where no prior information is available
about permeability and in cases where overbalance is highly uncertain. Since sandstone reservoirs are not
as heterogenous as carbonates, high uncertainty in formation pressure, thus in overbalance, was a main
concern. Consequently, during job planning phase of pressure measurement program it was evident that
TOP's ability to adjusts test sequence to suit environmental conditions would be a key to success. (Pop et
al, 2005) Therefore, TOP test was chosen as a primary test type to be utilized in this well.

Case Study
The vertical well (Fig. 4, green dot) was planned to be drilled in a challenging area. An unexplored block
was located in heavily faulted area and considered to be deposited in overpressured environment based on
pressure data acquired from nearby wells (Fig. 4, black dots).

Figure 4—The new well location

It is no secret that drilling in overpressure zones many entail many drilling hazards, the biggest one is
well blowout. Blowout usually occurs when the pore fluid pressure significantly exceeds that predicted
from the normal compaction of sediments with depth. It becomes a hazard because, if not anticipated and
prepared for in terms of increasing the mud weight at the proper depth, it may lead to uncontrolled fluid
flow to the surface.
To minimize this biggest drilling hazard and successfully tap the hydrocarbon reserves, the operator
included FPWD tool in its drilling BHA along with basic gamma ray and resistivity tools. Since there was
no prior information regarding formation pressure in this block, the primary role of FPWD was to optimize
SPE-198367-MS 5

drilling to adjust mud weight properly in real-time while drilling to avoid blowout and to aid in reservoir
characterization in terms of pressure and mobility profiling.
The workflow used in this well was as following: Drill the well until certain depth then start taking
pressures every 50-100 m drilled to identify formation pressure trend. Having obtained formation pressure
trend, check whether it deviates from the predicted gradient and adjust mud weight to avoid a kick. Resume
drilling by repeating the same procedure until total depth of well is reached.
Upon reaching a certain depth, the first pressure measurement was done with FPWD – test #1. As it can
be observed from pressure vs. depth plot, the formation pressures measured in consequent 5 tests (test #2
through test #6) are falling on normal gradient (Fig. 5). The calculated overbalance, difference between mud
pressure and formation pressure, is more or less the same and varies within 1200-1400 psi range. Also, note
that pressures were measured every 100 m interval. Starting from test #7 through test #10, the formation
pressure trend starts to deviate from normal gradient. The depth at test #7 marks the start of overpressured
zone. Starting from depth and onwards, the mud weight was gradually increased from 1.45 sg to 1.80 g/cc.
Subsequent three formation pressure measurements (test # 8, 9 and 10) over the 150 m interval display a
substantial deviation from a normal trend. The pressure difference between normal and abnormal pressure
trend reached up to 1000 psi at the lowest point. It should also be noted that despite mud weight change from
1.45 sg to 1.80 g/cc, overbalance pressure dropped from 1400 psi to 670 psi over 150 m drilling interval.

Figure 5—Pressure vs. depth plot showing change in pressure upon entering overpressured layer

The measurements collected in the overpressured area were compared to the predicted pore pressure
gradient (fig. 6). The formation pressure measurements collected while drilling show that the pore pressure
ramp, in term of both top depth and magnitude, follows quite well the low case scenario.
6 SPE-198367-MS

Figure 6—Gradient vs. depth plot showing the comparison between prediction and measurements

Summary
The paper presents a case study in the South Caspian area, where pore pressure is caused by several
generation mechanisms (undercompaction and tectonic stresses). In such a case, the pore pressure prediction
is affected by high inherent uncertainty, especially regarding the top overpressure depth. Two different
predrill scenarios were proposed, by combing traditional pore pressure prediction from seismic and analyses
of data from reference wells.
Due to the uncertainty associated with the predicted scenarios, the FPWD tool was used. Formation
pressure measurements were collected with a regular sampling rate along the well and allowed to
successfully detect the top depth of the overpressure ramp, which resulted to be aligned with the low case
predrill pore pressure scenario. Moreover, the FPWD allowed to calculate the overbalance and manage the
overpressure.

References
1. Grauls, D. 1999. Overpressures: causal mechanisms, conventional and hydromechanical
approaches. Oil & Gas Science and Technology, 54(6), 667-678.
2. Pop, J., Follini, J., Chang, Y. 2005. Optimized Test Sequences for Formation Tester Operations.
SPE Offshore Europe Aberdeen, Scotland, 6-9 September. SPE 97283.
3. Torres, M.A. (2007) The petroleum geology of western Turkmenistan: The Gograndag - Okarem
province. In: Yilmaz, P.O., Isaksen, G.H. (2007) Oil and gas of the Greater Caspian area: AAPG
Studies in Geology, 55, 109-132.