OldGeo -- this is great content as always from you. I log in...

OldGeo -- this is great content as always from you. I log in here, mostly to see your comments as they are definitely thoughtful.

Maybe a few comments here -- FVF I think you are on the lower side. We know Namibia fields are very gassy, and Saturn should not be any different. Atleast we should not assume them to be any different. a FVF of 1.0 is usually an oily field with minimal gas, while an FVF of 3.0 will be oil with high gas content. I think the FVF assumption should be 2.0 or higher here. Now FVF value is inversely corelated to OOIP. Higher FVF = Lower OOIP. Accordingt to my own calculations, the OOIP will drop by ~30% if an FVF of 2.0 is assumed instead of 1.5. Again these are just another wild additions to a set of wild assumptions, as we know nothing about the reservoir, but I think it should be prudent to use 2.0 or higher.

Net Pay -- I think you could end up being conservative here. Venus is said to be 84 meter (275 feet) and Mopane is said to be ~100m+ (320 feet). Whilst you are assuming on an average 20 meter (60 feet) across Saturn prospects.

On Porosity and Oil Saturation -- can you please give your assumptions in 2 decimals please?

I am using 15% porosity, you using 20% / 15%?
I am using 55% oil saturation on average, while you have your assumptions different across prospects and higher than mine -- can you please elaborate on what you exact assumptions are and why up to 70%?


In summary, you have 4.3 bn boe of recoverable based on your assumptions
On my assumptions -- 50 meter net pay, 15% Porosity, 55% Oil saturation, 2.0 FVF and 30% recovery = 5.4 bn boe. Same at 2.5 FVF (all else equal) = 4.3 bn boe recoverable

Thanks again for your valuable comments!