4.1 Article

Budge-Fudge method of pore-pressure estimation from wireline logs with application to Cretaceous mudstones at Haltenbanken

Journal

PETROLEUM GEOSCIENCE
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 219-232

Publisher

GEOLOGICAL SOC PUBL HOUSE
DOI: 10.1144/petgeo2014-088

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DECC
  2. Ikon Science
  3. Maersk Oil North Sea Ltd.
  4. GeoPOP3
  5. BG
  6. BP
  7. Chevron
  8. ConocoPhillips
  9. DONG Energy
  10. E.ON
  11. ENI
  12. Petrobras
  13. Petronas
  14. Statoil
  15. Total
  16. Tullow

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using wireline logs to estimate pore pressure in mudstones at the chemical compaction stage is not straightforward because clay diagenesis proceeds independently of effective stress, and neither density nor velocity is uniquely related to the maximum effective stress experienced by the mudstones. We propose the Budge-Fudge method, in which we assume there is a unique trend on the sonic-density cross-plot for mudstones at the chemical compaction stage that have not been unloaded. In addition to the sonic-density chemical compaction trend, an initial guestimate of maximum effective stress previously experienced by the mudstones is required. Additional overpressure from unloading processes is then estimated from the sonic log, referenced to the density response. The initial guestimate of maximum effective stress may be adjusted to fit any available measured pressures or pressures estimated from geological knowledge. We have applied the Budge-Fudge method to Cretaceous mudstones at Haltenbanken, and find that estimated pressures match measured pressures and expected pressure-depth profiles. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that the lateral variations in mudstone porosity, previously reported, result from lateral variations in overpressure build-up immediately following rapid burial by glaciogenic sediments; subsequently, overpressures have increased through clay diagenesis and equilibrated laterally across the area.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available