RE:RE:RE:Link to Interview True. At first, due to the lower overall fluid rates from test 2, I was discouraged about test 3 but am now cautiously optimistic.
After thinking about it, the lower total fluid from test 2 may have been due to keeping flow on a small choke - they didn't disclose choke size like they did on test 1. If you've recovered your load water and are making high water cuts why flow on a large choke and then have to haul off and dispose of 1000's bbls of water.
So, if and a big if ( which is why I would love to see the logs), we have low water saturations in the test 3 intervals we are set up potentially for a good flow rate. One, we are slightly thicker in pay than the intermediate test, two we should have better absolute perm due to assumed higher quality rock, three we should have better relative perm to oil due to hopefully lower water saturation's due to being higher in column and four we can flow at larger chokes (drawdowns) if we have low water cuts.
Lots of assumptions here and mother nature can certainly surprise ( in either direction as we have learned the hard way) but I remain hopeful for a good result from test 3.