Formation Pore Pressure

Why Do We Need this Data?

Lost
circulation

Safety dictates that the

wellbore pressure (at any
depth) be maintained between
the naturally occurring
pressure of the formation
safety
fluids (pore pressure) and the
maximum wellbore pressure
kick that the formation can
withstand without fracture
(fracture pressure)
Equivalent mud weight (g/cm3)
 Compaction Theory
• During deposition, sediments are
compacted by the overburden load and
are subjected to greater temperatures with
increasing burial depth.

• Porosity is reduced as water is forced out.

 Compaction Theory
• The average porosity in sediments,
generally decreases with increasing depth
- due to the increasing overburden

• This results in an increasing bulk density

with increasing depth, and increasing rock
strength
 What is normal pore pressure?
Hydrostatic
pressure Sea level

8,94 lb/gal
depth

Water expelled as
sediments compact

Overburden
supported by grain-
to-grain contact and 8,33 lb/gal
pore pressure
What is normal pore pressure?

In simple terms, normally

compacted sediments have
a overburden gradient
equal to the vertical matrix
stress gradient plus the
formation water hydrostatic
gradient (normal pore
pressure gradient) .
Causes of abnormal pore pressure

rp > 9 lb/gal

Buoyancy
Undercompacted Shale Theory
of Abnormal Pressure
• Best fits most naturally occurring
abnormal pressures

• In new areas, geologic and geophysical

interpretations along with analogy to
known areas are always important
 Undercompacted Shale Theory
of Abnormal Pressure

• Hydrostatic equilibrium within the

compacted layers is retained as long as
the expelled water is free to escape

• If water cannot escape, abnormal

pressures occur
Undercompacted Shale Theory
of Abnormal Pressure
Increasing overburden
Partially stress will cause
or totally
closed pressurization of pore
fluid above hydrostatic
pressure.

Porosity will be greater

than normal porosity at
that depth.
Examples of some abnormal
pressure seals

Restricted
water flow
during
compaction
 Buoyancy Effect
• It is always present Normal pressure
gradient
in a reservoir
• The lightest fluid
Abnormal
moves to the top Pressure at top
and the heaviest to
caprock
the bottom gas
gas gradient
• There is full vertical
oil
communication oil gradient
throughout the
reservoir, except water
through the caprock Normal Pressure
at bottom
(seal)
 Example : buoyancy effect
Well A Well B
Well A  normal pressure at
WGC = 9 ppg

Well B  pressure at top of gas

sand = ?

Normal pore pressure at WGC =

rg = 2 ppg 0.052 x 9 x 1,300 = 608 psi

Gas hydrostatic = 0.052 x 2 x 300 = 31 psi

Pore pressure at the top = 608 – 31 = 577 psi

rp,top = 577/(0.052 x 1,000) = 11 ppg

(abnormal)
Example : surface erosion

DH
z

pore pressure ( psi )

rp 
0.052  Z
Pp  0.052  r fl  DH r fl  DH
rp 
Z
 Example : man-made sources
(P2 = P1 – 0.052*rgas*h)

Three
examples
of shallow
P2
formations
h gas
being
charged
P1 with
deeper
Underground Casing Flow thru the gas
blowout leak cement sheath
 Pore pressure prediction
methods depend on an accurate
estimation of vertical
overburden stress with depth
overburden stress
 Overburden Stress
Overburden stress is a function of bulk density (rb) and
depth. Bulk density is a function of matrix density (rma),
pore fluid density (rfl), and porosity (f).
z
 ob   rb dz
0

r b  r ma (1  f )  r flf
s ob
 Overburden Stress
A common assumption for sedimentary
deposits is ob = 1.0 psi/ft
This is not a good assumption in young
sediments

Eaton predicts that an overburden stress gradient of 1

psi/ft be achieved at a depth of 20,000 ft in the GOM

Eaton predicts that an overburden stress gradient of 1

psi/ft be achieved at a depth of 7,400 ft in the Santa
Barbara Channel
 0.84 psi/ft 0.89 psi/ft

Eaton’s Eaton’s ob
ob stress stress gradient
gradient for Santa
for GOM Barbara
Channel

1 psi/ ft
1 psi/ ft at 7,400’
at 20,000’
 Overburden Stress
Bulk Density determination

1. density log
• Usually available only below surface casing depth
1. Empirical correlations
• Gardner (valid only for Gulf Coast area):
0.25
 10 6 
r b  0.23(v) 0.25  0.23 
 Dt 
where
r b  bulk density [ g / cm3 ]
v  sonic velocity [ ft / s ]
Dt  sonic transit interval [ s / ft ]
 Overburden Stress
Bulk Density determination (cont.)

3. Using an expression for the change in average

porosity with depth and r b  r ma (1  f )  r flf
for any assumed grain density and fluid
density.
Usually the trend of average porosity vs. depth
is represented by
 Kf D
f  f0 e
 Overburden Stress

 ob   r b gdD

 ob  0.052  r ma 1  f   r flf dD

D

0
 kf D
if f  f0 e ,then

 ob

 0.052  r ma D 
r ma  r fl f0

1 e
 kf D



 kf 
 Overburden Stress
In offshore areas, ob must be integrated in two parts:
1. From the surface to the ocean bottom, consider seawater
density and the porosity equal to 1

2. From the mudline to the depth of interest, the fluid density is

assumed to be the normal formation fluid density for the area

 ob  0.052  r sw dD  0.052  r ma 1  f   r f f dD

Dw D

0 Dw

 ob

 0.052  r sw Dw  r ma Ds 
r ma  r f f0
 k D
1 e f s 


 kf 

where Ds = D - Dw
Example 1: bulk density known from
density log
depth (ft) rb (g/cm3)
0 2.050
500 2.100
1000 2.140
Find the overburden 1500 2.180

pressure at 7,000 ft
2000 2.210
2500 2.260

using the following bulk

3000 2.290
3500 2.320

density data for the 4000

4500
2.340
2.370

Santa Barbara Channel. 5000

5500
2.400
2.420
6000 2.440
Compare to Eaton’s 6500
7000
2.460
2.470
prediction. 7500
8000
2.480
2.490
8500 2.495
9000 2.500
9500 2.505
10000 2.510
Solution: Overburden pressure will be
the sum of all the interval weights with
constant bulk density, i.e.,
Solution (cont.)
overburden
average rb Dweight
depth (ft) rb (g/cm ) rb (lb/gal)
3
Dz (ft) cum. sum gradient
(lb/gal) (psi)
(psi/ft)
0 2.050 17.077 0 0 0 Overburden
500
1000
2.100
2.140
17.493
17.826
17.285
17.660
500
500
455
463
455
918
0.91
0.92
pressure @
1500 2.180 18.159 17.993 500 472 1390 0.93 7,000 ft =
7,017 psi
2000 2.210 18.409 18.284 500 479 1869 0.93
2500 2.260 18.826 18.618 500 489 2359 0.94
3000 2.290 19.076 18.951 500 496 2855 0.95
3500 2.320 19.326 19.201 500 502 3357 0.96 Overburden
4000 2.340 19.492 19.409 500 507 3864 0.97
4500 2.370 19.742 19.617 500 513 4377 0.97 gradient =
5000
5500
2.400
2.420
19.992
20.159
19.867
20.075
500
500
520
524
4897
5421
0.98
0.99
1 psi/ft
6000 2.440 20.325 20.242 500 528 5949 0.99
6500 2.460 20.492 20.409 500 533 6482 1.00 Eaton’s
7000
7500
2.470
2.480
20.575
20.658
20.533
20.617
500
500
535
537
7017
7554
1.00
1.01
prediction
8000 2.490 20.742 20.700 500 539 8094 1.01 = 0.995
psi/ft
8500 2.495 20.783 20.763 500 540 8634 1.02
9000 2.500 20.825 20.804 500 541 9175 1.02
9500 2.505 20.867 20.846 500 543 9718 1.02
10000 2.510 20.908 20.887 500 544 10262 1.03
Example 2: average porosity vs.
depth known depth (ft) f

0 0.374
500 0.342
1000 0.318
Find the overburden 1500
2000
0.293
0.274
pressure at 7,500 ft 2500
3000
0.243
0.224
using the following 3500 0.205
4000 0.193
average porosity data 4500 0.174
5000 0.156
for the Santa Barbara 5500 0.143

Channel.
6000 0.131
6500 0.118
7000 0.112

Compare to Eaton’s 7500

8000
0.106
0.1

prediction. 8500
9000
0.097
0.093
9500 0.09
10000 0.087
 Solution: First we need to determine
f0 and Kf for the equation:
f= f0 e-KfD
0.400 Assume:
0.350

0.300

y = 0.3579e-2E-04x
0.250
R² = 0.985
f0 = 0.3579
0.200

0.150
Kf = -0.0002
0.100 rma = 2.60 g/cm3
0.050

0.000
rfl = 1.044 g/cm3
0.000 2000.000 4000.000 6000.000 8000.000 10000.000 12000.000
  rma  r f f0
 
Solution ob  0.052 rmaD 
 kf
k D
1 e f 


 ob

 0.0522.6 * 8.33 * 7,500 
2.6  1.0448.33 * 0.3579
 
* 1  e 0.0002*7 ,500 
 0.0002 
 ob  7,509 psi

Eaton’s Fig. 2.21 shows a value of :

ob = 1.005 psi/ft
So,
(ob)Eaton = 1.005 * 7,500 = 7,538 psig
{ Difference = 29 psi or 0.4% }
Overburden Stress
water depth effect

Sea Level

300’
3,000’
6,000’
9,000’

10,000 ft
 Overburden Stress
water depth effect

Gob is the
Sea Level overburden
gradient in
psi/ft,
(Gob)3 (Gob)4 measured
(Gob)5
(Gob)1 from the
(Gob)2 rotary kelly
bushing
(RKB)

Since rock density is greater than seawater density then

(Gob)1 > (Gob)2 > (Gob)3 > (Gob)4 > (Gob)5 for any well depth
Overburden Stress (ppg)
water depth effect
ft ft ft ft
Overburden Stress
water depth effect
Pore pressure
 Pore pressures can be
estimated:

• Before drilling (predictive methods)

• During drilling

• After drilling (verification methods)

 Pore pressure prediction methods –
before drilling
• Based primarily on
 Correlation of available data from nearby wells
 Seismic data

• When using seismic data, the average acoustic

velocity as a function of depth must be
determined
• Sonic velocity in a medium increases with the
density of the medium and, therefore, can be
used as an indirect measure of porosity
 Pore pressure prediction methods –
before drilling
• For convenience, the reciprocal of velocity, or
interval transit time, generally is displayed
• The equation relating porosity to the transit time
in rock media, Dt, is given by

Dt  Dt ma (1  f )  Dt f f

• Dtma and Dtf are the transit times of the rock

matrix and pore fluid, respectively
 Pore pressure prediction methods –
before drilling
Under normal compaction,
porosity decreases with depth.
Since transit times are greater for
fluids than for solids, the
depth

observed transit time in rock

decreases with increasing depth.
A mathematical model of the
normal compaction trend for
interval transit time is developed
to extrapolate a “normal” value to
Average interval velocity deeper depths, where abnormal
(= reciprocal of transit time)
pressures are present.
 Pore pressure prediction methods –
before drilling
Interval transit time
Depth

Normal
pressure

Dtn
Dto
Abnormally
pressured
Normal Dto = observed interval transit time
trend line Dtn = “normal” interval transit time
 Pore pressure prediction methods –
before drilling
Two basic approaches:
1. Equivalent-depth method
2. Empirical correlation using Dto and Dtn

Interval transit time Interval transit time

Deq

Depth
Depth

Dtn Dto
D
 Pore pressure prediction methods –
before drilling

Interval transit time Equivalent Depth Method. Assumes that

the normally compacted shale at depth Deq
Deq has the same vertical matrix stress as the
abnormally pressured shale at D. Thus, if
Depth

z = ob - p
then, ob,D - pabn = ob, Deq – pn
D

At D At Deq

pabn = pn + (ob,D – ob,Deq)

 Pore pressure prediction methods –
before drilling
Pennebaker’s
Interval transit time
correlation.
Developed for gulf
coast sediments and
Depth

relates pore-pressure
gradient to the ratio
of the observed
Dtn Dto
interval-transit time
to the normal trend
extrapolation at the
same depth.
 Example

• Use the data in Table 2.7 to determine

the top of the transition zone, and
estimate the pore pressure at 19,000’
 using the equivalent depth method
 using Pennebaker’s empirical correlation
 Example
• Ignore the data
between 9,000’ and
11,000’ (known
highly calcerous
shales). Assume
Eaton’s Gulf Coast
overburden
gradient.
 Solution
• Plot interval travel time vs. depth on semilog
paper

• Plot normal trend line using the

6,000-9,000 data.

• Mitchell approximated Eaton’s curve (GoM):

2 3
 D   D   D 
 ob  0.84753  0.01494   0.0006   0.000012 
 1,000   1,000   1,000 
 Solution: Equivalent-depth method
Dt [s/ft]
From the vertical line,
2000
De = 2,000’
From Eaton (Mitchell):
ob,D = 0.997*19,000 =
18,945 psi
ob,Deq = 0.900*2,000 =
Depth [ft]

transition 1,800 psi

Assuming
pn = 0.465*2,000 =
930 psi, then
Dtn = 65
pabn = 930 + (18,945 –
19000
1,800)
pabn = 18,075 psig
trend
line
Solution: Pennebaker’s correlation

Dto = 95 sec/ft @ 19,000’

Dtn = 65 sec/ft @ 19,000’

Dto/Dtn = 95/65 = 1.46

pabn = 0.95 * 19,000
pabn = 18,050 psi
0.95
 Comparison

Pore Pressure at a depth of 19,000 ft:

• Pennebaker:

18,075 psi or 0.9513 psi/ft or 18.29 ppg

• Equivalent Depth Method:

18,050 psi or 0.9500 psi/ft or 18.27 ppg

 Comparison
Discrepancy in this case is very small, but results
between the two methods can show more disparity.
One of the weaknesses of seismic predictions is that
the interval lithology must be know to some extent.
Only shale data must be used to comply with
compaction theory, but lithology cannot be
determined accurately with only seismic data.

Another point is that judgement must be exercised in

selecting the normal-compaction trend. Seismic
results are highly sensitive to the interpretation of the
chart reader.
Pore pressure prediction methods –
while drilling

Drill stem formation test; wireline formation test

 Penetration Rate as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
• Under normal compaction, penetration rate
decreases with the increasing depth.
• In a transition zone to abnormal pore
pressure, an increase in penetration rate with
depth may be observed, as a result of:
 Decrease in the overbalance (BHP – pp)
 Decrease in the rock strength with the increasing
porosity (undercompaction)
 Differential Pressure Effect
Decrease in
penetration rate
with increasing
differential
pressure
(overbalance) can
be due to:
Drilling
underbalanced • The “chip hold
can further down” effect
increase the
drilling rate.
• The effect of
wellbore pressure
on rock strength
Differential Pressure Effect
• “Chip Hold Down”
effect: mud pressure
acting on the bottom
of the hole tends to
hold the rock chips in
place
• Wellbore pressure
acts as confining
pressure: the greater
the confining
pressure, the harder
the rock to drill
 Penetration Rate as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
• In 1966, Jorden and Shirley proposed to
normalize penetration rate through the
calculation of a d-exponent defined by
 R 
log 
d exp   60 N 
 12W 
log 
 1,000d b 
where
R  penetration rate, ft / hr
N  rotational speed , rpm
W  weight on bit , 1,000  lb
d b  bit diameter , in.
 Penetration Rate as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
• The d-exponent equation can be used to
detect the transition from normal to abnormal
pressure if the mud density is held constant
• In 1971, Rehm and McClendon computed a
modified d-exponent, dmod, using
rn
d mod  d exp
re
where
r n  normal formation pore pressure, ppg
r e  equivalentmud densityatthebit whilecirculating , ppg
 Penetration Rate as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
• Rehm and McClendon recommend using
linear scales for both depth and dmod and
presented the following empirical correlation:

g p  7.65 logd mod n  d mod   16.5

where
g p  formation pressure gradient , ppg
d mod n  value of d mod read from the normal trend line
 Penetration Rate as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
Example (from Bourgoyne book): The following table shows
modified d-exponent data computed in shale formations in the
gulf coast area. Estimate the formation pressure at 13,000’
using Rehm and McClendon empirical correlation
Solution: A normal trend line having
a slope of 0.000038 was drawn through
the data available in the normally
pressured zone.
At a depth of 13,000’, the values of
dmod and (dmod)n are read as
dmod = 1.17
(dmod)n = 1.64
Hence,

g p  7.65 log1.64  1.17  16.5

g p  14 ppg
and
p  0.052 14 13,000  9,464 psi
 Penetration Rate as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
• Many factors may affect penetration rate:
Controlled by Operator Out of Operator's Control
Hole Diameter Lithology
Bit Type, Design, and Wear Rock Strength
Applied Weight on Bit (WOB) Confining Stress
Rotating Speed (RPM) Formation Permeability
Bit Hydraulics Porosity (Degree of Compaction)
Wellbore Differential Pressure (Overbalance)
Drilling Fluid Properties
Personnel and Equipment

• Changes on those factors can mask abnormal

pressure detection. It is often difficult to detect
formation pressure changes using only penetration
rate data
 Shale Density as a Pore
Pressure Predictor
• Boatman (1967) developed a correlation
using data from south Louisiana
• He recommended using linear scales for
both depth and shale cutting density and
fitting a normal-compaction-trend
• Abnormal formation pressures are
estimated by taking the difference
between the extrapolated normal density
and measured density
Shale Density as a Pore Pressure Predictor
Example: Shale-cutting-
density measurements obtained
from a south Louisiana well are
plotted on Cartesian coordinate
graph.
Estimate the pore pressure at
14,000 ft using Boatman’s chart.
rsho = 2.44

Solution: Transition is
approximately 13,500’. rshn = 2.54
The extrapolated normal shale
density at 14,000’ is 2.54 g/cm3,
while the measured (observed)
density is 2.44 g/cm3.
Shale Density as a Pore Pressure Predictor
Solution (cont.):
Taking the difference:
Boatman’s correlation
rshn – rsho = 2.54 – 2.44 =
0.10 g/cm3

Boatman’s correlation
gives a pore pressure
gradient of 14.6 lb/gal.
Hence, the predicted pore
pressure at 14,000’ is

Pp = 0.052*14.6*14,000 =
10,608 psi
Shale Density as a Pore Pressure Predictor
Field Measurement method:
1. Fill a standard API 3. The specific gravity of the
mud balance with shale is obtained with
shale cuttings (wash
and dry with a towel)
rw
until balance reads  sh 
8.33 ppg. 2 r w  r shw
2. Fill the cup to top The subscrits w and shw
with water and record mean fresh water and
the combined density shale/water mixture,
respectively
Shale Density as a Pore Pressure Predictor
Example:
8.33
13.3
The rider of an API mud
balance is positioned at
8.33 lb/gal, and dry shale
cuttings are placed in the
cup until the level is
balanced.
Solution :
The cup is then filled with 8.33
 sh 
fresh water, and the 16.66  13.3
mixture density is read as
13.3 lb/gal. Determine the
shale density.
r sh  2.48 g / cm3
Gas-Cut Mud as a Pore Pressure Indicator
(qualitative)

Possible sources of gas in

a drilling fluid
C
A. Underbalanced Gas Flow

B B. Gas Generated by Chemical

Gas sand or Thermal Reaction (in mud)

C. Gas Associated with Drilled

Rock
A
Gas-Cut Mud as a Pore Pressure Indicator
(definitions)
Background Gas (BGG): baseline concentration of
gas in mud, usually equal to few units under normal
drilling conditions

Drilled Gas (DG): gas released from rock cuttings

generated by the bit

Connection Gas (CG): small amount of gas that may

seep during a connection

Trip Gas (TG): amount of gas that may seep during

a trip
 Gas-Cut Mud as a Pore Pressure Indicator
(qualitative)
CG CG

BGG1
Show Show CG

time
time

time
CG CG
CG
BGG2
BGG

CG CG

CG
TG

A B C
 Gas-Cut Mud as a Pore Pressure Indicator
(qualitative)
• Situation A: indicates a gas formation drilled at an
overbalanced condition. BGG remains constant before and
after the show (drilled sand gas) and CG sizes are also
constant.

• Situation B: BGG increases after the show, although stable,

and CG also intensified. Probably the gas continues to flow
from the drilled sand at a small rate, but the underbalance
condition is evident.

• Situation C: This a typical behavior for drilling through a thick

shale transition. The increase amount of gas indicates a
negative differential pressure and mud weight must be
increased at once.
Shale Cutting as a Pore Pressure Indicator
(qualitative)

• Variations in size, shape, and volume of

shale cuttings in the drilling fluid can
provide indication of abnormal formation
pressures
• At a reduced overbalance, shale cuttings
sometimes become longer, thinner, more
angular, and more numerous (spalling
shale)
Shale Cutting as a Pore Pressure Indicator
(qualitative)

Normally pressured shales Abnormally pressured

shales
Flowline Temperature as a Pore Pressure
Indicator (qualitative)
• Rock grains have a much
higher thermal conductivity
than pore fluids. Under
normal compaction, we
expect easy transmission
with heat with depth

• At undercompacted beds,
heat is retained in the rock
and a temperature gradient
anomaly can be detected
heat
 Flowline Temperature as a Pore Pressure
Indicator (qualitative)
Example: Flowline Predictable
temperature from increase in
temperature of
a North Sea well. mud returns as
depth increases
It can be an
important tool if no
shales are
present.
A deviation from the
normal temperature trend
may signal abnormal
pore pressure
 Hole Instability as a Pore Pressure
Indicator (qualitative)

• Drilling torque when rotating pipe, and

drag during trips or connections, result
from friction between the drillstring or bit
and the walls of the hole.

• Torque and drag (T&D) will generally

increase with depth, gradually.
Hole Instability as a Pore Pressure Indicator
(qualitative)

• A sudden increase in T&D may be caused

by hole instability (spalling shale/sloughing
shale).

• Circulate bottoms up and observe samples.

• If abnormal pressure caused an increase in

T&D, the rock samples will help to tell the
story.
 Pore pressure verification methods –
after drilling
1. Using well logs
 Resistivity log - parameter is formation
resistivity or conductivity (the reciprocal of
resistivity)

 Sonic log – parameter is interval transit time

2. Direct measurement
 Drill stem test
 Wireline formation test
 Pore pressure verification methods –
using well logs
• Acoustic travel time is thought to give the most
accurate results
• Only the shale formations are included in the
analysis
• Selecting the most pure shales data include
 Maximum values of gamma ray
 Maximum conductivity (minimum resistivity)
 Maximum values of interval transit time
 Data from shales of thickness greater than 20 ft
 Pore pressure verification methods –
using well logs
Eaton’s equations (1975) are widely used
Porosity parameter k
for geopressure prediction
m
p S  S  p   k n 
       
D D  D  D  n  ko 
Depth

p/D = pore pressure gradient

S/D = overburden gradient
kn ko m = Eaton’s exponent

The subscript n means the extrapolated normal

normal trend value
trend line
 Pore pressure verification methods –
using well logs
Porosity parameter k m
p S  S  p   k n 
       
D D  D  D  n  ko 
For the gulf coast area, the value of m
Depth

is as follows:
k m
kn ko Conductivity 1.2
Resistivity -1.2
normal d-exponent -1.2
trend line Interval transit time 3.0
Pore pressure verification methods –
using well logs
Procedure for estimation of pore
pressure using Eaton’s equation:
• Evaluate the parameter values from
clean shales
• Plot the values vs. depth in a semilog
paper
• Establish the normal compaction
trend. Use experience and any
known data to aid
• Determine S/D from density data
• Determine (p/D)n from known normal
pressure gradients or water salinity
data
 Pore pressure verification methods –
direct measurement: DST

• Drillstem test (DST) is performed to determine whether a

well has found a commercial hydrocarbon reservoir, typically
on exploratory wells.

• These tests are usually conducted with a downhole shut-in

tool that allows the well to be opened and closed at the
bottom of the hole with a surface-actuated valve.

• One or more pressure gauges are mounted into the DST

tool and are read and interpreted after the test is
completed.
 Pore pressure verification methods –
direct measurement: DST
• The tool includes a surface-actuated packer that can
isolate the formation from the annulus between the
drillstring and the hole, thereby forcing any produced
fluids to enter only the drillstring.

• The most common test sequence consists of a short flow

period, perhaps five or ten minutes, followed by a buildup
period of about an hour that is used to determine initial
reservoir pressure. This is followed by a flow period of 4 to
24 hours to establish stable flow to the surface, if possible,
and followed by the final shut-in or buildup test that is
used to determine permeability and flow potential
 Pore pressure verification methods –
direct measurement: DST
empty

Tester Tester Tester

valve valve valve
closed open closed

packer

Pressure
gauge

Perforated
pipe

1. Running-in 2. Flowing 3. Shut-in (Buildup)

 Pore pressure verification methods –
direct measurement: DST
(A) Run in hole, gauge
measuring hydrostatic
Pressure recovery chart pressure of mud column

Pressure
(B) initial flow period

(C) initial buildup

(D) final flow period

(E) final buildup

(F) release packer and

Time pulling out of hole.
 Pore pressure verification methods –
direct measurement: RFT
Repeat Formation Tester (RFT) is a wireline tool usually run
to achieve the following objectives:

1. measurement of formation fluid pressure at a number of

depths, permitting the estimation of initial reservoir
pressure and fluid contacts.
2. sampling of reservoir fluids at selected depths, to confirm
the reservoir contents indicated from petrophysics
3. collection of PVT samples of the reservoir fluid to
determine composition and yield data for the preliminary
design of processing facilities.
4. indications of formation permeabilities.
Pore pressure verification methods –
direct measurement: RFT
The RFT uses an electrically driven
hydraulic pump to provide repeated set-
retract capability. Sample chambers are
available in the tool to take samples from
different zones. A strain gauge pressure
transducer is located in the flowline to
monitor pressure continuously during test.

Pressure drawdowns during this period

and the following build-up curve are
recorded at the surface and provide data
for formation pressure and permeability
calculations.
Last Slide