the context in which this was inferred is the key.I can't recall...

the context in which this was inferred is the key.

I can't recall anyone at the preso saying resource est could be 5 -10x bigger.

I do recall a discussion along the following lines:

McD's - the resource estimators - used a rule of thumb 5% recovery factor for Cuban fields - in the absence of any flow test data.
We have all seen the pictures of oil over the shakers, and image logs showing nice large fissures in the reservoir...this tells you 5% is very conservative, and we my even see something closer to 20-25% recovery factors. This alone gives you 4-5X...we've said this before on this forum, and the company said it considered the RF's very conservative.

The cross section of Alameda/Marti shows some lines drawn to demarcate the interpreted oil filled sections. Those lines were put in there to provide a "boundary" so McDs can use to compute volumes. The company and McD have said in the latest interpretations the field could be bigger than currently interpreted, but need more seismic and drilling. So if it is 2x the size...we have 2x x 5x = 10x... They did not say this. But you can put 2x and 4x or 5x together and come up with it.