It isn't at all specific on which of the proven properties it includes in the analysis, and which it doesn't... although there might be more about that in the text of the document. Just from looking at the attachment, there will be obvious questions left to be asked about where the lines were drawn on which wells or properties were included in the analysis and which weren't, including where lines between the proved developed and proved undeveloped were drawn.
Otherwise, whatever it is that it does include in the list of wells and properties that were considered, it looks like they project a rough doubling of production between the ten months of 2010 and the full year 2011... again, only from those properties that were included. Beyond that, it will be interesting to see how actual performance from here actually compares to the estimates...
I guess some bit of that will be hard to parse, given that there will be new projects that come on line that aren't a part of these projections ?
Then, I note, there also isn't anything at all that was included in this analysis as "probable" or "possible"... so, it seems it meets expectations in that it seems it is certainly a fairly conservative view.
This is the first analysis I've looked at, for any company, that was done under the new SEC rules. My first take on that aspect of it from looking at the attachment, is that by fixing the rules for market pricing they've made it far more transparent... a lot easier to make adjustments for change in market prices than under prior rule sets.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
