Hi OOO @Oddoneout Further to Gridder's enquiry (which I have...

Hi OOO @Oddoneout

Further to Gridder's enquiry (which I have tried to answer myself, but perhaps better hear it from CN as at least it will indicate to her how confusing adding three dimensional stuff to two dimensional images can be)....

I emailed the following to FAR back in February. Their response, which I was asked not to reproduce, made no sense to me, so I gave up at that time, but it did include a suggestion that I discuss the matter with management at the March 15th presentation. As you know, I can't attend so here is the email anyway:

---------------------------------------
Email to FAR Feb 11th 2016
"This enquiry relates to apparent marked disparities in the public released information contained in FAR’s Feb 2016 Investor Presentation. The two images below are copied from that presentation. Both of them have notes appended by me to make what I am asking clear.





I have transferred the approximate limits of the oil water contact as shown on the N-S cross-sectional first image to the areal image below it. There is a huge disparity between the two in what represents the northern and southern limits of the oil zone. This disparity is way beyond what one may reasonably expect by way of “not geologically accurate artistic licence”.

Do we have a 125sq km field or 375sq km field? Since one is 3 times the other, I’d really appreciate it if you, the geos or preferably Ms Norman could give me an explanation, please"
--------------------------------

Thanks in anticipation OOO - sorry if it is an awkward question, but as it stands at the moment at least one of the images shown could be taken to be misleading, for the reasons given.

pj