Typo Or New Metric: Oil Production By Rig

A very alert reader noted this paragraph in a Reuters story I linked earlier:

The report also tracks the productivity of each play by calculating oil production per rig. Production per rig is seen rising to 482 bpd from 459 bpd for the Bakken, increasing to 404 bpd from 396 bpd for Eagle Ford and remaining stable at 79 bpd for the Permian. 

I don't know if that is Reuters or the US EIA that writes: "calculating oil production by rig."

One would assume that this is a typo: that the EIA is tracking production by well, and not by rig. I find it hard to believe that these guys would make such a basic error. I assume it's an error/typo but I suppose someone could be tracking by rig.

It also begs the question: "rising to 482 bpd from 459 bpd for the Bakken" over what period of time, or is this the IP? If this is the IP, most of us agree IPs are interesting, but not exactly bellwethers for tracking productivity.

Just an observation from a very alert reader. I don't expect any clarification.

[Update: that was fast. Another reader also wondered about this and asked his "smarter brother" what he thought. The "smarter brother" suggested that indeed, it is "by rig." I had blogged earlier about the increased effectiveness of the huge H&P flex rigs and so I thought it might very well be a new metric. If so, it's an incredible metric. This is the note I got from a reader:

[My brother's] take on it is that it is by rig, not by well, and the increase is more to do with decreased drilling times and pad efficiencies with walking rigs then with better individual wells.  The wells do get better but not anywhere near enough for that dramatic increase.

So there you have it. More to follow, I'm sure. Again, I really appreciate folks sending me their thoughts. I won't use names unless folks want credit for their contributions, which are much appreciated.]