119 comments on Jeremy Gilbert's Comments on TOD Saudi Analysis
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
119 comments on Jeremy Gilbert's Comments on TOD Saudi Analysis
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”
—Francis Bacon, Essays
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Dr. Husseini
Buried in the text down the page
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
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.
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???
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.
open a choke???
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...
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.