PJ
Many years ago I had a pig dog that once given a bone would never release it until he was satisfied that he was finished and that he had won the tussle. Sound familiar!
I can't understand that for someone who pronounces that he has a scientific brain, that he continues to argue points based on schematic diagrams that are deeply flawed and should never be used for any detailed scientific analysis or interpretation.
You highlighted yourself in a previous post that …. Well, I agree about FAR and CNE maybe leaving out the image details for confidentiality etc. etc, but they could at least agree to make the simple essentials they have left in like directional labelling and peripheral oil water contact limits consistent!
These simple essentials your refer to above are of utmost importance and without them you are lost with respect to any decent interpretation.
A couple of other points to consider.
In point 2 above re FAR W-E section you state …. and the dipping continues W - E in general in that direction over the whole structure. You are making a very big assumption here. Dips and strikes of stratigraphy will often vary significantly over many metres, let alone km’s and they are often even more pronounced in variation over domal structures. Also do not assume a dome structure is similar to perhaps what you might see on top of a cathedral. A dome structure can have a long anticlinal axis with similar stratigraphy preserved along it. They can sometimes even be refolded to have extra subtle highs and lows or faulted and rotated to complicate matters even more. You wont see any of this shown on any ASX schematic diagram approved for release by FAR!! It will be simplified to the extreme for the general punters!
I am not sure which seismic section you refer to but again be wary about making too much from them based on something FAR or CNE post in an announcement. For example, I noticed a schematic diagram inserted onto a seismic section (in a FAR presentation) and the diagram was an extreme oversimplification of what was represented on the section. As I alluded to in a previous post don’t make broad scale assumptions based on schematic diagrams.
You also made mention in a previous post some PJ "words of wisdom" when you said “hence my decision just to look at the "end result after three wells" and not worry about how we get there.” In my opinion that's sound, simple, straightforward, "scientific" thinking!! Besides not long to go before we start getting all the facts anyway.
My advice ………..Give your bone a rest!
FAR Price at posting:
8.3¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)