bru vs nse geology, page-15

Persistentone

Yes I believe Buru has unrisked gross recoverable volume of 47 TCF on its tenements.

But let's leave Buru's potential to Buru's thread. I don't want to talk about Buru here anymore than this. I will not answer anything else about Buru. Sorry.

This is NSE thread and I posted a lot of information about NSE's potential (as this was your question on the other thread and I have moved it here and explained you above).

I need other people, especially geologists if there is any here on Hotcopper (there should be some), to make some critism or confirmation about what I said above.

I am saying that;

1 - Eastern Canning is more prospective than Western Canning in terms of all kind of marine based hydrocarbon accumulations.

2 - Marine based Goldwyer Formation is being more prospective towards to eastern part of the canning Basin.

3 - According to my MAP.1 above, prospective part of Goldwyer formation is making an arc from west towards to South-east (to Kidson sub-basin).

4 - Kidson sub-basin is being to depo-centre for hydrocarbons, also the kitchen for oil and gas generation.

5 - Hydrocarbon shows in the wells at the north of and northern west part of Kidson sub-basin should have been generated in the Goldwyer formation, (and there are some other formations as well. let's not get confused now) and migrated to those north and then northwest through the channel shown on MAP.1.

And some other things on my post.