RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:New Highs?Drillex; Thank you sincerely! FINALLY, someone who responds with some numbers, some facts, some thought in their interpretation, an opinion that is backed up (go VERBOSE!). We don't have to agree but people should be encouraged to express ideas, ask questions, look for information. We don't need some disgruntled butler that insults people at the door, banishes them to "IGNORE" or cites metaphoric BS involving the Easter Bunny and circling shadows.... the poetry blog is three floors down.
I was intentionally vaque in the post you responded to ('Fox Bash') because I had given up on this site. My comment re. "tilted water" and the K-2 EWT was meant as a good thing (no water in the EWT). EXPLANATION: Overpressured basins depressurize by flow from High (basin center) to Low (subcrop edges) pressure. This is obvious, it's how oil is produced, balloons deflate etc. In this case that water flow would be from roughly south to north. Tilted O/W in this instance would see the structural oil/water contact higher in the vicinity of K-3 than in the vicinity (down dip) of K-2.... hence a thicker oil leg at K-2 where the reservoir is much better quality. This is my qualitative assessment but could be checked by using measured pressures supported by mud weights to produce a "potentiometric map" - a map showing the head of water supported by the pressure at the o/w contacts.... again water flowing from high to low water head and o/w tilted down in the direction of flow. Other factors come into the degree of tilt such as the low perm section along the south edge of the Olig reef, the API gravity of the oil and the potentiometric gradient (speed of flow). Having a thicker oil leg in the better quality reservoir, supported by both water and gas cap expansion drive would be a good thing. However, I'm still concerned by the high GOR of the oil and not convinced that it is coned from the gas cap - see March 13th post.
Re. K-3 and the water mess, I have proposed an alternative interpretation to the channelled or perched water explanations proposed by WZR. The reservoir quality in K-3 is cited as poor perm, particularily toward the base of the reservoir. This the ideal environment for a "Transition Zone" to set up shop.... basically a zone in which oil and water intermix because of poor permeability and the high pressure needed for the oil to displace water. - see March 13th post.
Re. K-3 and the water mess, I have proposed an alternative interpretation to the channelled or perched water explanations proposed by WZR. The reservoir quality in K-3 is cited as poor perm, particularily toward the base of the reservoir. This the ideal environment for a "Transition Zone" to set up shop.... basically a zone in which oil and water intermix because of poor permeability and the high pressure needed for the oil to displace water. - more detail in my March 13th post. I emphasize that this is my preferred interpretation (I've seen it before) but I could be wrong. This could affect the contigent resource numbers. Re. The S-1 and H-1: I noticed that WZR (April Presentation) is looking for an exit 2014 production rate of 10000 bopd from Sarqala. Maybe, this slide is outdated, but I was hoping that the S-1 WO would achieve 10,000 bopd along with some production from H-1 in the 5-10,000 bopd range. Just an observation. Additionally, when I look at the section in slide 15 (April presentation) I see the Jeribe S-1 section as approximately 120 m thick whereas there is a deliberate attempt to thin H-1 to approximately 70? m. The L. Dhiban also thins at H-1 (likely dissolution). If these thicknesses are accurate I would imagine that there is some corresponding thinning of pay (though not necessarily). Some support for the superior pay in S-1 suposition is offerred by the location for the proposed Sarqala-2 horizontal well tip less than 500 m. from the S-1 deviated tip. That last observation in itself raises pressure depletion questions down the road. What a 60m LKO and a halfing of pay at H-1 would do to contingent resources is a question for another day.
I'm not here to bash or I wouldn't waste my time with the science. WZR has terrific potential but things have to go right in the right sequence. JMHO
more detail in my March 13th post. I emphasize that this is my preferred interpretation (I've seen it before) but I could be wrong. This could affect the contigent resource numbers.
Re. The S-1 and H-1: I noticed that WZR (April Presentation) is looking for an exit 2014 production rate of 10000 bopd from Sarqala. Maybe, this slide is outdated, but I was hoping that the S-1 WO would achieve 10,000 bopd along with some production from H-1 in the 5-10,000 bopd range. Just an observation. Additionally, when I look at the section in slide 15 (April presentation) I see the Jeribe S-1 section as approximately 120 m thick whereas there is a deliberate attempt to thin H-1 to approximately 70? m. The L. Dhiban also thins at H-1 (likely dissolution). If these thicknesses are accurate I would imagine that there is some corresponding thinning of pay (though not necessarily). Some support for the superior pay in S-1 suposition is offerred by the location for the proposed Sarqala-2 horizontal well tip less than 500 m. from the S-1 deviated tip. That last observation in itself raises pressure depletion questions down the road. What a 60m LKO and a halfing of pay at H-1 would do to contingent resources is a question for another day.
I'm not here to bash or I wouldn't waste my time with the science. WZR has terrific potential but things have to go right in the right sequence. JMHO