Hi Gridder. You are correct of course but all it does is point...

Hi Gridder. You are correct of course but all it does is point out how rubbery the numbers are atm. VR-1 is 5 km away from SNE-1. They found thicker sands and more of them over a 5 km interval its a large area. We have no clue what RF factor was/is being attributed to the 500 sands before VR-1 all we know is CNE were using around 18% based on their STOIIP of 2.7 billion [ even that is rubber because they say greater than ]. The difference between FAR's 2C and CNE's 2C has been discussed here. Edisons are saying its recovery factor because of a question asked around the difference in a Q&A session.
It could just as easily be argued that FAR have a higher STOIIP and are using the same recovery as CNE.
My opinion is the CNE spokesman was asked a question on the spot and answered without knowing the real answer as it would seem that they both have different views on the amount of oil in SNE.
FAR at 18% would be saying around 3.5 billion barrels STOIIP.
CNE at 18% are at 2.7 billion barrels STOIIP.
I made the mistake of using CNE's STOIIP number before and applying it to FAR's 2C, but Mandurah set me straight.......we don't know what STOIIP FAR are using or recovery factor to arrive at 640 mmbbls.
I guess my point is unless Edison asked FAR how they arrived at 640 mmbbls then they are guessing....just like me. DB