One thing I should note in terms of my findings, interestingly in the event of the Jubilee find, of course all of the variables vary across the field. The average net pay across the entire Oil bearing section (outer outline of the Jubilee find) is 30 metres, but varies from 15 to 100 metres across the field. I have assumed that we could see a similar average as their's given the analogue. *note the Net pay (avg) in the following;
This then means that my disclaimer point 6 should read - "6. Porosity, recoverability, saturation and shrinkage are constant assumed to be averaged across the areal extent of the fields."
The guide for measurement of a field reads that you should use the maximum area and average thickness;
A = the Area of the structure (in square meters)
This is the maximum area that is expected to contain oil or gas, estimated from the visualisation created by the data from the seismic data. NP = the Net Pay (in metres)
The net pay is an interpretation of the average thickness (vertical height) that would hold the hydrocarbons. Sometimes it is quoted as a net-to-gross ratio; then you have to calculate the net pay yourself (i.e. when the net-to-gross ratio is 1-to-15 and the depth is 3000 metres, then the net pay is 200 metres).
I believe it is too early to know the average thickness but of course this would not be constant across the field, we are missing an average.
The other point I should note is your point around the Northern FAN and while we are at it, the Central FAN.
I am not convinced that the new quadrupling of the green sections relates to them. I have sent a series of questions to Cath around this.
In all probability all of the sections above may actually relate to just the FAN-1 find, in the past this is all that has been reported on. Irrespective, whether it relates all to just FAN-1 and is actually more like 60M net pay, or whether it is 29M net pay across the fields including Central and Southern the result will be similar;
Southern and central estimated combined resources @29M net pay provides 1.5BBLS
FAN-1 alone gives 1.56BBLS by my estimates.
Therein, if the new ~60M net pay applies only to FAN-1, or whether I can use 29M across the entire field the results will be similar, as we simply double FAN-1.
It is also worth noting that the RISC assessment does not include any results or updates post December 2015. i.e This is only the reinterpretation of the Seismic. Also that the results from SNE-2 and 3 seem to be better than expected, i.e the field size could be redefined significantly post drilling yet again as stated in the RISC ANN;
Interestingly even PJ is now saying that SNE is a 125km2 area, and that he expects the net pay is averaged across this area (impossible to tell at this stage the size and the average), in using the variables which we know, this equates to the following;
You might need some new columns in the spreadsheet PJ?
SNE2 and 3 + Bel will certainly see these numbers increase.
I have called 1.18BBLS as my call post the SNE programme, you are almost beyond my call? already.
To true up the entire area (356km2) I believe will take a lot more drilling, testing of the connectivity and is a long way off.
(20min delay)