DB. I would tend to agree more with @whisky49 on prospective...

DB. I would tend to agree more with @whisky49 on prospective resources for Samo. In initial presentations, Samo was shown in cartoon form in relation to SNE in a N-S cross-section with an oil-water contact slightly lower than the SNE field.

Subsequently, this was then presented as two primary targets (upper and lower Albian) on a seismic cross-section in an E-W section.

We therefore need to consider the possibility that the stated 825mmbbl target is the total of the two primary targets and the 50% COS is the probability that either or both targets come in a prognosed. Since both targets would very likely exhibit some degree of co-dependency (e.g. source) it is difficult (if not impossible) to simply present two targets each with a different chance of success (as they are not independent of each other).

I have questioned FAR on this and agree with their approach to simply state a P50 number and a chance of success of either or both targets coming in without going too much into the full technical probabilistic detail/analysis (which is beyond most investors anyway).

Inversion and modelling has probably shown that the 4000 series sand are thicker moving south from SNE to Samo and gives us confidence of a possibly simpler geological setting. One on hand, the Samo structure appears to be more geologically simpler (?) than SNE (single thicker sand) but the second picture above says - maybe not so simple.

An integrated 3D of Senegal/Gambia and the extensive geological knowledge learnt by FAR to date gives me confidence in the 825 number as a total for both targets and probably more "accurate" is some sense than the initIal stab "guess" for SNE.

Drilling will sort out good initial guess, which I (also) suspect may trend towards the higher P10 number as appraisal wells get drilled.

But as @whisky49 rightly cautions, lets not put the cart before the horse on this one or get too bogged up in the detail of what might be / can be.

One step at a time.