I agree that no recovery factor has been documented by the JV in any of their announcements. However, I'm pretty sure I recall Cath saying that the RF used in the calcs for SNE was 30%. But I wont speculate further, as I just can't say they absolutely were her words in this context.
On your second point, yes it is plain simple mathematics to calculate an overall recovery for varying sands, providing you have accurate data to enter into the equation. Given the quick timing of the release of the initial estimates after the discovery, I doubt they had such figures. My guess is they used a conservative RF for the poorest sand within the net pay, and used that in the modelling across the board. The fact that they are saying that the thin sands were not included in the estimates supports this. At least this would give them some room to move. Would be great if @Ya or any other geo guru could clarify this process?
FAR and Cairn have made it pretty clear that there is significant upside potential at SNE, and I'm sure that there are many ways to realise this eg. more pay, additional sands, RF. Hopefully they have an ace or 2 up their sleeve to ensure the upside.
Does any one have an idea of what sort of net pay we are expecting at SNE2, based on the info released so far? I did ask Ian Howarth a few weeks ago, but he wouldn't tell me (understandably so). He did say that they had a figure in mind though.
FAR Price at posting:
8.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)