RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Not a mystery....You are posting SELECTED data though. It's not ALL the real production. There is over 100 wells you have to complie and average. Could be done in a few hours, but posting onyl a few select data points and trying to say that they invaidate the company's disclosures does not pass muster.
I will make this my last post, as I think I've done as much to address this as needed.
The company stated a while back, either to Benny or in some other inquiry, that the more current wells are actually doing better than the 112 average. But because BNE and GF are conservative and transparent, they have opted to not adjsut up from the 112 figure yet.
So I do beleive that number is accurate, and I don't think the Company would actively mislead us and quote that figure if the recent, and/or go forward well results were materially below that. It was in the last few presentations. And i don;t think GF would have bought several million $$ in shares since 2016 if the wells were bombing results.
Given the their type curves, the number of wells drilled from 2016 to present - they have a much higher weight in the mix now than wells 4 years and older. I.e. the average is going to be weighted to recency as it is. Thus, the 112 number you are seeing is already largely refecting the 2016-2018 period. And the quoted figure will continue to do so as new wells are brought on, following the type curve. I think the company is being honest and forthright, and that their quoted figure is a true refelction of their ops.
Again, the easiest litmus test you have for validity is a CEO who is putting up millions of his money to buy the stock. Seems dubious that he would do so if the economics were as you are stating.