As we celebrate, page-60

For the benefit of Whisky and others, in summary this is what I have been trying to get over on this thread (but have obviously failed to do):

1. I had previously indicated that the productivity of the upper thinner sands at SNE 2 would be all important as not only have Cairn indicated they have provisionally allocated them with lower recovery factors, but they might also be a good clue as to what we might expect at SNE 3 and therefore crucial to expanding the total structure recoverable volumes to the higher levels we are hoping for as none of the blocky sands are expected to be present at the North, South and East peripheral locations.

2. If FAR’s labelling of WEST – EAST dipping is correct and the dipping continues W - E in general in that direction over the whole structure , as SNE 2 is due north of SNE 1 (and not “to the left” as Whisky was starting to say it would have to be to get the water blocky sands in) then the water blocky sands would not be expected at that location – the expected sands would be much the same as SNE 1, albeit with thicker expected net pay as intimated by CNE.

This scenario is also consistent with FAR’s N-S seismic image through SNE 1 and SNE 2, which shows only the upper blocky sands present at SNE 2 and the water blocky sands still well below the oil water contact. In this situation, all the upper thinner sands present at SNE 1 will be expected at SNE 2 and be likely very relevant to SNE 3 (unless the lower part of the upper thin sands dip out).

3. If CNE’s labelling of NW – SE dipping is correct, then it’s likely that the water blocky sands will be present at the SNE 2 location, which means as Whisky also concluded, that at least the upper part of the upper thinner sands will be lost to the gas leg and the relevance of the remaining thin sand productivity to SNE 3 correspondingly reduced (especially if the remaining lower part of the upper sands dip out).

And yes, Whisky I am upset that you so disparage my opinions in public as in your post above. If you followed my opinions more closely without the pre-judgement you are applying by not even looking I feel sure you and I would often be in agreement. I have only in this thread been extending what you started to do yourself in the absence of being privy to what I had already posted.

pj