I can think of 2 causes of the differential between your figures...

I can think of 2 causes of the differential between your figures and Teds- "time lag"(or a more broadbrush approach by Ted)and "natural decline". Under the first heading when Ted says "production is currently.." he is probably using the latest ,say, monthly
figures his people have provided him with- a more broad-brush scenario than your right-up -to-the minute scenario. Thus "currently" could be the figure for all wells on the 1st of November,or the 10th of November,or whatever day each month(?) figures are compiled. They are unlikely to be right up to the minute at the time any announcement is made .Under the second heading Claws has referred to old wells no longer producing-what about the decline of perhaps 1% a month for every well ,starting from day 1 for each well,and including the very latest wells? And what about the well that started off at 3944 bopd and before long was quoted as producing at "3300" bopd- a decline of a lot more than 1% a month (I dont know where this well fits in your schedule). And is the latest duo (1705 bopd) even in Teds latest figure ?(it doesnt have to be within my more relaxed "monthly "reporting scenario ). There is always a lag in the production numbers versus the real situation - I have referred so far to TIME lags above but what about the 2 wells,the first where they penetrated the shallowest layer (classified as a new field immediately) and started production,leaving (I think )5 more layers to be brought into production later and the well with the drill bit stuck on the end of the production tubing- 2 wells that are substantial hidden treasures in my view(based on the symptoms while drilling) and both bound to have hugely higher production when revisited . If you allowed for full eventual production from these 2 we might already be up to 16 or 17 or 18 thousand in reality. Cheers and relax-CVN is almost certain to always understate it results.