management won't listen, page-53

What GGP "does best" is put out releases like this one intended to take a bit of fact and provide just the right semantic contruction to allow the sort of inflated expectations one sees in this thread and the companion on "oil flows". Before you all jump on this think for a minute about what the frac job actually does.
In order to create the fractures and move proppant into them and very large overpressure needs to be imposed. As the well is allowed to flow back rates are ALWAYS much higher and rarely used as a starting point for any sort of long term estimates. In a well like this, one would be well advised to wait for a 30 day average number, before putting any serious bets on your convictions.
Secondly, why is GGP reporting and "oil equivalent" number for a well that is dominantly oil? On might assume that gas is converted at a 6:1 ratio to provide a favorable degreee of inflation to the underlying oil rate. With a price ratio closer to 30:1, this will provide highly distorted cash flow estimates(1200mcf/d equates to 200bpd, but is only worth about 40bo). A more transparent report would provide separate numbers, not to mention that at this point in the flowback procedure, the gas may not even be flowing through a meter.
Finally, the proposed "200+mbo of reserves per well" are an estimated total from 2 dramatically different intervals which will not be produced from the same well. The "other well" is likely to cost a lot more than this relatively standard borehole and the reserves are not proven (as yet).
The frac procedure and overall completion may indeed be much better than average, but since many of the shareholders are risking REAL money, it is a bit early in the game to get all hyperbolic on your forward projections. So have a beer but leave the champagne in the cooler for a couple months.