Aqua Even you are surprised? That's because what you have done...

Aqua

Even you are surprised? That's because what you have done just doesn't hold water: .. (or oil )

1. The 36m of net pay you have entered here to come up with 3 billion barrels was the net pay encountered (but not tested as all productive) at SNE 1, and included the blocky sands which dip away to the east (or SE). SNE2 seemed to demonstrate reduced middle thin sand pay, incidentally. Basically, rather than blindly extrapolate the results of a well that's in a high pay zone location, you have to come up with an average over the whole area.

2. The total area over which the any practical net pay is applicable is, according to my extrapolations of FARs infamous artistic N-S seismic image is likely to be closer to 125sq km, not the whole 356sq km delineated in green (this also obvious from the RISC analysis results which would be much higher if similar net pays to what you are using (or even much lower net pays) were applicable to the whole green area).

3. I am still waiting on a response from FAR as to what their explanation is for the apparent gross disparity in the peripheral oil water contact limits implied by their seismic image and their areal map. In the mean time, assuming both to have an element of truth, the only explanation I can think of is that most of the outer green area beyond 125sq km may technically contain oil but in sands so thin as too make it unlikely any of it would be economically recoverable.

Meanwhile, when you get a result that surprises you, please think about what the explanation might be before pressing the button

pj