Agent,
I do agree with what you've said, however
the San Miguel flowed at 775 bop/d and 1100 mcfpd, resulting in 867 boep/d using a 12:1 ratio, whilst Tyler Ranch flowed at 1202 bop/d and 782 mcfp/d, resulting in 1267 boep/d using a 12:1 ratio. (TXN used 12:1 back in their first announcement).
Tyler Ranch (on a restricted choke) initially flowed at a rate almost 50% higher than the San Miguel. Whilst it is great that Tyler Ranch had such great initial flows, the fact that it's 30 day average was in line with San Miguel is a disappointment.
Obviously fantastic declines shouldn't have been expected from TXN's first eagleford well, but the 30 day results (considering the IP) were disappointing.
As for the 60 day results, they were fantastic (considering the 30 day average).
All i'm trying to say is that the 30 day averages were disappointing considering the IP. Happy to leave it in the past though, as these 60 day figures shine the well in a much greater light.
Cheers.
I do agree with what you've said, however
the San Miguel flowed at 775 bop/d and 1100 mcfpd, resulting in 867 boep/d using a 12:1 ratio, whilst Tyler Ranch flowed at 1202 bop/d and 782 mcfp/d, resulting in 1267 boep/d using a 12:1 ratio. (TXN used 12:1 back in their first announcement).
Tyler Ranch (on a restricted choke) initially flowed at a rate almost 50% higher than the San Miguel. Whilst it is great that Tyler Ranch had such great initial flows, the fact that it's 30 day average was in line with San Miguel is a disappointment.
Obviously fantastic declines shouldn't have been expected from TXN's first eagleford well, but the 30 day results (considering the IP) were disappointing.
As for the 60 day results, they were fantastic (considering the 30 day average).
All i'm trying to say is that the 30 day averages were disappointing considering the IP. Happy to leave it in the past though, as these 60 day figures shine the well in a much greater light.
Cheers.