Thank you for the tip Older!My opinion is, these are your...

Thank you for the tip Older!

My opinion is, these are your options your analysis and your number crunching based on assumptions. Eg You have mixed the number of natural flow and assisted lift, then for some reason taken the average flow rate over the test period to get an hourly flow rate just to post a low number.

My opinion they have a short test window, they were satisfied with results therefore they didn’t want to spend more time optimising and try to increase the numbers. That’s without reading between the lines and going into conspiracy mode:

A 20ft perforated interval in the Upper SFS reservoir was stimulated via a single fracture stage of241,611 lbs proppant volume. The well was cleaned-up and flowed for 111 hours in total, of which88 hours was under natural flow back and 23.5 hours utilising nitrogen lift.The USFS test produced at a peak flow rate of over ~70 bopd. Oil cuts increased throughout theflow back period as the well cleaned up, reaching a maximum of 15% oil cut at the end of the flowtest program. Oil rates and cut would have likely increased further should the test period havecontinued. The well produced at an average oil flow rate of approximately 42 bopd during thenatural flow back period, with instantaneous rates ranging from approximately 10 – 77 bopd withaverage rates increasing through the test period. Importantly, the USFS zone flowed oil to surfaceunder natural flow, with flow back from other reservoirs in adjacent offset wells only producingunder nitrogen lift. A total of 3,960bbls of fluid was injected into the reservoir and 2,882bbls of waterwas recovered during the flow back period, most of which being injection fluid. Total flow rates(inclusive of recovery of frac fluid) averaged ~600 bbl/d over the duration of the flow back.