Hi DB "both the reservoirs [ plural ] at the base which are...

Hi DB
"both the reservoirs [ plural ]  at the base which are blocky  then the reservoir higher up, the thin sands"

What they mean by the "plurality" unfortunately is not absolutely clear either as the logs show the upper blocky sand at SNE 1 as "split". See log image post my post above 16761613.

And notwithstanding Hot's theories, plainly the extent of the double blocky sands (upper and lower) hold the key, both in area and pay and they won't tell us exactly where they think they are (obviously along the western margin but not clear over what area).

Still, looking at the famous FAR N-S seismic image again (the one Gridder has me as keeping on my bedroom wall), in contrast to the schematic images, the artist does seem to have gone out of his way to make the thickness of the lower blocky sand a lot thicker than the upper one. So I sit here imagining that even if the areal extent of the double blockies are limited, may be along the western margin we make up with it potential net pay. Imagine that as the image below draws to towards you the thick lower sand rises into the oil window:



As I say, in contrast, the "schematic" images both the blocky 520 and 540 sands are shown as about the same thickness.  Not suggesting that this could lead to any marked increase in recoverable volumes though (although very high recovery factors might do it), just that it might be another way of making up for any limitations of areal extent of double blockies.

Anyway, apart from the above musing, I think Mandurah has all the alternative possibilities pretty much covered

pj