RE:RE:Continue to hope! Hi waitingstill,
It was never announced the amount of actual pay thicknesses specifically to the Campanian vs Maastrichtian. Just an aggregate 77ft total.
As a result, makes it super difficult to do specific high-level calculations.
Based on the presentation (https://cgxenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CGX-Energy-Inc_Corporate-Presentation-31Mar2023.pdf) slide 14, the channels in the Campanian and Maastrichtian are not as large in actual thickness or lateral extent as those in the Santonian. But as Oil_Run points out, there are likely prevasive stratigraphically as you move into the central area. So anyway, let's just use 2000 acres for an area in the calculation for the upper sandstone target channel sizes. We used 3000 acres for Santonian. As a note, the Campanian and Maastrichtian have multiple channels present, so some might be larger or smaller than 2000 acres. The Santonian, on the other hand, looks more continuous and thus makes it a much more attractive target and slightly easier to calculate aerial size.
In slide 11, the Campanian and Maastrichtian sands in Kawa showed really good porosities. For our calculation we will use 20%.
We will also use 70% oil saturation and 1.2 Bo.
On a gross basis, you can get 139 million barrels for the overlying Campanian and Maastrichtian. So definitely nothing to sneeze at. Hopefully the sands encountered at least have some intervals greater than 10 ft in continuous nature (would make attempting seismic mapping and thus estimation of acres much easier).
So 427 million barrels (Santonian) and 139 million barrels (Campanian and Maastrichtian) result in over 550 million barrels in place! Fantastic discovery... and yes, no doubt numbers have a large cone of error. But nonetheless, the geology and associated math suggest one hell of a discovery was made.