{"title":"Kicks and their significance in pore pressure prediction","authors":"Jack Lee, R. Swarbrick, S. O'Connor","doi":"10.1144/petgeo2021-061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Knowledge of subsurface formation pressures is critical for the calibration of predictions and models needed for safe drilling of deep wells, historically for oil and gas wells. The same details apply to the sequestration of CO2, ephemeral storage of gases such as hydrogen and for geothermal power. An estimated 10–14% of wells globally experience an unexpected influx of formation fluid, indicative of the controlling mud in the borehole at that time having a lower pressure than the surrounding formation. The drilling events, known as kicks and wellbore breathing, lead to, at best, downtime on the drilling rig which might affect the economic viability of the well, or in the extreme its safety with possible loss of life such as in the case of an uncontrolled blowout. Not all kicks are of equivalent value: dynamic and static kicks can be classified with a high degree of confidence and may become values for true formation pressure. Other types of fluid influx during drilling, including swab kicks and wellbore breathing, need to be identified and will not be accepted in a kick database. These types of influx may be eliminated as potential formation pressure values but, along with mud weights, can be valuable data to constrain the range of possible formation pressures, of significant where no other data exist. A new, rigorous evaluation procedure for determining formation pressure is presented, and compared with direct pore pressure measurements (e.g. RFT, MDT, RCI values). The comparison shows that the proposed methodology illustrates typical uncertainty of about 10 bar (145 psi) pressure over the full range of pressures for which data are available in this study. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Geopressure collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geopressure","PeriodicalId":49704,"journal":{"name":"Petroleum Geoscience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Petroleum Geoscience","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2021-061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Knowledge of subsurface formation pressures is critical for the calibration of predictions and models needed for safe drilling of deep wells, historically for oil and gas wells. The same details apply to the sequestration of CO2, ephemeral storage of gases such as hydrogen and for geothermal power. An estimated 10–14% of wells globally experience an unexpected influx of formation fluid, indicative of the controlling mud in the borehole at that time having a lower pressure than the surrounding formation. The drilling events, known as kicks and wellbore breathing, lead to, at best, downtime on the drilling rig which might affect the economic viability of the well, or in the extreme its safety with possible loss of life such as in the case of an uncontrolled blowout. Not all kicks are of equivalent value: dynamic and static kicks can be classified with a high degree of confidence and may become values for true formation pressure. Other types of fluid influx during drilling, including swab kicks and wellbore breathing, need to be identified and will not be accepted in a kick database. These types of influx may be eliminated as potential formation pressure values but, along with mud weights, can be valuable data to constrain the range of possible formation pressures, of significant where no other data exist. A new, rigorous evaluation procedure for determining formation pressure is presented, and compared with direct pore pressure measurements (e.g. RFT, MDT, RCI values). The comparison shows that the proposed methodology illustrates typical uncertainty of about 10 bar (145 psi) pressure over the full range of pressures for which data are available in this study. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Geopressure collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geopressure
期刊介绍:
Petroleum Geoscience is the international journal of geoenergy and applied earth science, and is co-owned by the Geological Society of London and the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE).
Petroleum Geoscience transcends disciplinary boundaries and publishes a balanced mix of articles covering exploration, exploitation, appraisal, development and enhancement of sub-surface hydrocarbon resources and carbon repositories. The integration of disciplines in an applied context, whether for fluid production, carbon storage or related geoenergy applications, is a particular strength of the journal. Articles on enhancing exploration efficiency, lowering technological and environmental risk, and improving hydrocarbon recovery communicate the latest developments in sub-surface geoscience to a wide readership.
Petroleum Geoscience provides a multidisciplinary forum for those engaged in the science and technology of the rock-related sub-surface disciplines. The journal reaches some 8000 individual subscribers, and a further 1100 institutional subscriptions provide global access to readers including geologists, geophysicists, petroleum and reservoir engineers, petrophysicists and geochemists in both academia and industry. The journal aims to share knowledge of reservoir geoscience and to reflect the international nature of its development.