Eagle Ford - update until 2016-01 (New)

This presentation contains the latest oil production data from 10377 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford, supplied by the Texas RRC. Similar as last month, the data is shown until January. After reviewing the data, I concluded that the date for February was too incomplete to be useful. The data until January is much more complete than the last update, especially as several new leases, e.g. from Devon, are available now

I have made some improvements to the algorithm that estimates the individual well production, based on the total lease production that is provided. The algorithm now takes into account that wells can change between leases. The total effect was not large though, as can be seen from comparing the latest well quality overview, with the one in the last presentation.

As usual, the data from the last months is still subject to revisions, and it is too early to say for me how large these revisions will be. For more than 150 wells, January production was not yet reported. Also due to issues with the RRC data structure & quality, the information about the Eagle Ford & Permian in Texas has a lower accuracy than the other basins.

Gas leases are excluded, and thus also condensate production.

Next weekend I aim to have a new post on the Permian. I will skip separate updates on the Niobrara, and will combine that data with updates on the US as a whole.

====BRIEF MANUAL====

The above presentation has many interactive features:

  • You can click through the blocks on the top to see the slides.
  • Each slide has filters that can be set, e.g. to select individual or groups of operators. You can first click “all” to deselect all items. You have to click the “apply” button at the bottom to enforce the changes. After that, click anywhere on the presentation.
  • Tooltips are shown by just hovering the mouse over parts of the presentation.
  • You can move the map around, and zoom in/out.
  • By clicking on the legend you can highlight selected items, and include or exclude categories.
  • Note that filters have to be set for each tab separately.
  • If you have any questions on how to use the interactivity, or how to analyze specific questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Discussion

  • Nony says:

    Why leave out condensate? Couldn’t you include gas leases and resultant condensate?

    1. Enno says:

      Sure, that is possible.

      So far a few reasons hold me back:
      1. When I started this site, I was mostly interested in shale oil production, less so in gas.

      2. The gas to oil ratio for these wells is much higher than on average on the oil leases. In the EF, there are in addition to the 10.000 wells I show here, about 5000 wells on gas leases. But their contribution to oil & condensate is in my estimation less than 20%. If I would include them, then not showing the gas production as well would have some major drawbacks in getting a good picture. A good alternative is not easy; I want to avoid a metric like “BOE”, as I view this as almost always oversimplified (and quite often misleading). The markets, and prices are severely different.

      3. It would require much more interfacing with the TRCC, as wells on gas leases are reported individually (nice for accuracy, less for data volume).

  • Nony says:

    no problem

  • Nony says:

    BOE is too much of an approximation. The answer is to list gas and oil. That is a slight approximation since you have some NGLs within wet gas (usually making it worth more) and since lease condensate is lighter (usually making it worth less). But these are much smaller issues than either doing BOE or ignoring condensate or ignoring natural gas.

    Actually just getting more interested in natgas would be cool too. Love to see you mess with the WV/OH/PA data. That’s a big cool problem also. Oil and gas are different products sure, but they are found together and come from the same biological and chemical processes. Think that you learn something moving from one to the other (the companies, but even analysts).

  • Enno says:

    Nony,

    > The answer is to list gas and oil.

    I agree with you, and this is what I intend to do in the future, probably as a subscription feature.

    > Love to see you mess with the WV/OH/PA data.

    Thanks. There has been quite an increase in interest in the data shown here recently (especially through Oilpro.com, a website for professionals in the oil industry, see http://oilpro.com/links/detail/31122/visualizing-us-shale-oil-production). If I see in the coming months that there is sufficient interest in these, and additional analyses, I might enlarge the scope and look at the fields in those states as well.

    1. Nony says:

      I’m glad you are getting some recognition for your work!

      You might think to drop a link to John Kemp. I assume you are on his daily email list.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *