
Originally Posted by
vinomarky
I guess we may have to agree to disagree
You scenario of 2mD vs 200mD is a good one to explore - you rightly point out that the number of wells to develop it would be different, but why?
If you waited 100 years or so - on a technical basis - you'd get the same recovery (with obvious exceptions related to things like tenure periods etc)
As an example, for a given field with no internal baffles, why would you select 6 wells, not 5 wells or 7 wells? If you don't have any economic rate or time limits, then 1 well will generally give you similar ultimate technical recoveries (except situations like outrunning aquifer influx for gas fields)
The reason that you'd likely have more wells in the 2mD case is because of economic abandonment rates, and the time value of money. You still need to have properly technically characterized the field in order to do the economics, but if you are deciding on a purely technical basis what the developable reserves are then either (a) you are doing it wrong or (b) implicitly in your technical work you are already integrating some shorthand economic modelling anyway - for example rules of thumb that you should design to be on plateau for a certain portion of the of the project life, what the maximum project life is, or one well will 'develop' a certain area etc.... - Like it or not, these are ECONOMIC criteria that you are already incorporating
There's nothing wrong with this as a way to more efficiently arriving at a preliminary development plan envelope of options to consider - but you should still test the options by subsequent economic modelling to (hopefully) validate your earlier assumptions.
5, 6 or 7 wells?.... Technical work alone will rarely give you the answer.
Bookmarks