Hi Guys and FWIW and notwithstanding CVs assurances that the...

Hi Guys and FWIW and notwithstanding CVs assurances that the schematics have been reviewed at the office by all and sundry:

I have for months noted inconsistencies in the oil water contact limits in FAR's "areal" and "artistic seismic" presentation images, all of which appear at one point or another earlier in this thread (without double checking, in aqua's post mainly I think):

In the latest NS artistic seismic it does appear that they have stretched out the oil water contact limit to mitigate this a bit - particularly at the northern extremity as it now goes a bit beyond the BEL structure instead of stopping in the middle.

However the limit indicated on the artistic seismic still falls well short of the limit indicated by the green area periphery on their areal map.

To further illustrate this here is a map with a black ovoid added to illustrate what would be a total extrapolated  areal difference for the two images (including an unjustified assumption that this difference can be extrapolated from a single N-S image to one in all directions - give me a bit of artistic license too!).



Incidentally the circled area is more equivalent to what Cairn have identified on their areal images.

When I previously pointed out apparent discrepancies to FAR they responded by saying the presentation images were "illustrative" and "not geologically accurate". In any event it all goes show we need to be a bit circumspect in drawing any conclusions from these images, updated or otherwise. One just hopes that the data they supplied for the RISC evaluation was in fact more geologically reliable (ooh, ah, sorry FAR I couldn't resist that one).

pj