some reasoning behind newsflow, page-10

I agree with agentm that the cannaccord statement is unsupported about TXN pushing flows rates.

I understand that chokes are opened with initial flow to remove frac fluids quickly, then the well is choked back to conserve natural pressure, which results in better EUR. Other oilers have pushed the peak IP and 30-day IP rates by opening the choke open more than usual. But this tactic might be apparent by the lower pressure and that the choke remains open longer than necessary.

I seriously doubt TXN opened the choke to achieve impressive rates because:
1. Although EF #6 and #7 well had very open chokes (22/64"), they also had high pressure (3201 psi in EF6; 2665psi in EF7). In contrast, TXN's 3rd and 4th EF wells had initial pressure ranging from 2000 to 3000 psi on wells with more choke (16/64" and 18/64").
2. The impressive IP rates were, IMO, due to the much higher fraccing (24 frac stages for EF6; 19 stages for EF7) than in earlier wells (about 17 frac stages).
3. TXN explicitly reported that the well would be choked back after the frac fluids were removed.
4. How could TXN try to "achieve impressive results" when it didn't even announce 30-day IP rates? The "initial test" (likely peak IP) rates are less reliable to oilers than the 30-day averages and later trend numbers.

An a comment about those elusive TXN "test IP" rates (not necessarily peak IPs): TXN stated these IPs as "boepd". That's "per day", so how could they be 3 hours of flow? Did they extrapolate one day from 3 hours of flow? Unlikely. For the record, earlier TXN announcements referred to "test rates", but mainly focused on the 30-day average rates.