<The Case for Inflation from a Plateauing SupplyThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: April 13, 2007>

119 comments on Jeremy Gilbert's Comments on TOD Saudi Analysis

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Fractional_Flow on April 13, 2007 - 10:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Dr. Husseini

Buried in the text down the page

"If this commitment to prudence is adhered to in the future,

the risks of reservoir damages will be minimized. On the other

hand, if cost cutting strategies and high risk production

practices are allowed to prevail, the consequences can be both

devastating and sudden. Examples of such ill considered

strategies might be an early shift to in-field water injection

patterns, a shift to dry crestal production strategies away

from wet flank areas, and the heavy dependence on artificial

lift without an adequate number of wells to tap into the

various complex reservoir zonations."

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Interest...

Look at the previously debated xsections. THe water saturations are 65% when the residual oil saturation is 21%, the theoretical end point water saturation is 79%. To take the post breakthrough water saturation as high as you can ... is where the potential lies.

The crash of this 200kbopd around 1998 might have been caused by shutting in the best oil cut wells in the wet area... only 20,000 bwpd was lost. But why did the dry oil area production increase at the end of this drop and continue on an upward trend ????.... Possibly answer- the oil was needed to supply world markets.

You are trying to post peak model- what happens when the degree of freedom to pull the dry area is gone??

FF

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
garyp on April 13, 2007 - 10:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

OK, try this on for size.

1991-1992 the waterfront nears a set of vertical wells, all along a isofront. As it does so the watercut increases.

1992 the waterfront nominally hits those vertical wells, converting them to nominal 'wet'. However you can still produce at about the same level without too many issues.

1997 production begins to drop off.

1998 you take significant action, cutting off some high water cut wells, drilling new infill higher up the slope to increase the number of dry wells. Overall the water cut situation continues to get worse (why?).

1998-1999 you stabalise the production figures.

1999-2005 you continue to drill new wells, possibly vertical to horizontal sidetrack conversion, probably MRC to keep the water cut and production to a figure.

I'm not convinced it explains the shape.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fractional_Flow on April 13, 2007 - 10:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

1998 you take significant action, cutting off some high water cut wells, drilling new infill higher up the slope to increase the number of dry wells. Overall the water cut situation continues to get worse (why?).

I cannot see any high water cut wells being shutin on the water produced.

1998- You sit around in meetings all day and discuss "where is it going to bottom" .... where can we make up this production... "we have to start producing the crest " Is it not interesting that there was no where else to turn but to violate the "prime directive" in the most mature field.

... this period is not defined by action, but by inaction.

You are right to see dry oil wells being assimilated by the Borg of the wet area... it had to happen on that WOR vs. cumulative oil that you have.... look at the production logs in 93439.... I did an exponential fit of the WOR versus cumulative but that includes the influence of absorbing those good dry oil wells..... if that field has no more dry area (which was the point of the last 3 weeks discussion) Where are we now???

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
garyp on April 13, 2007 - 11:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

1998 has to see either new dry wells, or wells reclassified as dry after sidetrack drilling - how else can dry area production increase.

However the water cut rate of change increase doesn't tie in with that.

Are you sure you've comparing apples with apples? Where did the water cut %age come from? Its not measuring the physical geology rather than the well classification is it - they would be two different things and might explain things, a little.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fractional_Flow on April 13, 2007 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

open a choke???

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Korg on April 13, 2007 - 1:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

C'mon guys....Fractional Flow just gave you the proof of the looming catastrophe on a silver platter. He might be the next deep throat. Look what he found that Mr Hussieni said:

"if cost cutting strategies and high risk production

practices are allowed to prevail, the consequences can be both

devastating and sudden. Examples of such ill considered

strategies might be an early shift to in-field water injection

patterns, a shift to dry crestal production strategies away

from wet flank areas..."

DRY CRESTAL PRODUCTION!
That's what they've been doing the past few yrs and FF's data shows that.

So they are doinng the worst possible thing the last 3 yrs!!!

Desperation.

They are drilling the crests, opening up every well they have and just plain producing flat out to try to keep production up. In the VERY near future the whole thing will collapse. Maybe by the end of the year...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dragonfly41 on April 13, 2007 - 7:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So...if this is true...back there in 2000-1 timeframe...KSA and BushCo "probably" knew there was going to be a problem with Ghawar...SOON...meaning 3-4 yrs. down the line?

Just trying to piece together my conspiracy theories.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.