Re: "My interest was initially sparked by the comment in the...

Re: "My interest was initially sparked by the comment in the Edison research, highlighted in bold below - it is very clear IMHO that the anomalies are above the field..."

"Cairn estimates unrisked 2C contingent resources of 330mmbbls (with a fairly wide 1C-3C range of 150-670mmbbls), almost double pre-drill estimates of 182mmbbls (for the Albian sands alone). The reservoir is composed of both thick and thin sands. A key risk on volumetrics is commonly driven by uncertainty in OWC; however pressure data from the well provided a clear cut OWC and gas-oil contact (GOC) so that volumetric uncertainty comes from elsewhere in this case. The answer lies in the complex geology that overlies the 60-100km2 field and complicates the seismic time to depth conversion, giving varied results.


Hi Aqua

Just to clarify again, re your conclusion that it is very clear that the "anomalies are above the field".

Edison are, I think, merely saying that the geology above the field is complex (not that it contains oil) and that that leads to some uncertainty (within the ranges given) as to what the oil zone at SNE might contain (eg the overall shape of the field for example in terms of dip away of the blocky productive sands). One of the other main sources of variation over that range would be the productivity of the thin sands and that has been partly addressed at SNE2 and will be further assessed at SNE3/4.

That is my understanding anyway.

pj