the tree is still being shaken., page-8

G'day abuman. I tend to agree, but the one thing that I'm having trouble getting my mind around, is the fact that the 40m of sands we hit contained 10m of oil/condensate at the top and the remaining 30m is water. I wouldn't mind some comments from a geo to explain that if we intersect sands below this layer, how is it possible that these sands will not be water bearing? It's obviously to do with the migration of the oil into these seperate traps. It must migrate up from the source rock and then diagonally into the sand layers that we can see on the seismic, but how can the composition of each vary significantly as we are hoping here. Has anyone seen anything similar to this before, where a shallow target has oil and mainly water, but a deeper target has mainly oil? Unfortunately I can only think of Courbine (sorry to bring this up).....which had a 9m gas column with a water contact in the shallow secondary target and the main target sands were water bearing.

The explaination I'm hoping for, is that the oil migrated up into the primary target first, filled this up with predominantly oil, then the remaining oil and water was redirected up into the secondary target above, once the primary target was full.

I'm probably physco-analysing things too much.....need to be a bit more patient and just wait for the results I think.

Spudding uganda should limit downside for faucon as well.

Cheers,
Butcherano.