Eagle Ford - update through September 2016

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from 18525 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford region (TRRC districts 1-5), through September 2016.

Oil production has now declined with about 1/3rd since the top in early 2015, to just over 1 million bo/d. Although total production in September was roughly the same as 3 years earlier, the number of horizontal wells responsible for this production has more than doubled over this time frame. The result of these factors is that now about 2/3rd of these wells produce less than 50 bo/d (see “Well status” tab).

The charts in the “Well quality” tab show that the decline profiles are remarkably similar over time (especially since 2012/2013), except that recent wells recover more oil in the first year. The straight curves on the semi-log plot after this initial period indicate an approximately exponential decline.

The last tab (“Top operators”) makes clear that EOG is by far the largest oil producer in this region, with almost double the production compared with number 2 (Chesapeake).


The new ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below:



This first overview shows the path that wells from a certain quarter are taking towards their ultimate return. This reveals the very clear relationship between production rate and cumulative production, and how this relationship has changed over time. By clicking on the quarters in the legend, the related wells are highlighted. As in the “Well quality” overview, the number of wells is also here represented by the thickness of the curves.

In the second overview (“Cumulative production ranking”), we can see that 6 counties have been responsible for most of the oil production to date in this region, with Karnes clearly on top.

On Thursday I will have a post on the Permian, followed by an update on the Niobrara on Monday.

Production data is subject to revisions, especially for the last few months in Texas. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources:

  • Texas RRC. Individual well profiles are estimated from well status & lease production data, as this data is not provided by the RRC. Detailed location data is available for more than 90% of the wells displayed, the remaining wells are shown near the center of the county in which they are located.
  • FracFocus.org


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
  • Note that filters have to be set for each tab separately.
  • The operator who currently owns the well is designated by “operator (current)”. The operator who operated a well in a past month is designated by “operator (actual)”. This distinction is useful when the ownership of a well changed over time.
  • If you have any questions on how to use the interactivity, or how to analyze specific questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.


  • Mark Loyd says:

    Looking ever more likely 200 kBO Type Wells will be called “Hype Wells” soon enuf. In this vein, what should we refer to those UFSA TBTF WS Public Portfolio PONZI Fraudsters’ 1 MMBO PwrPt Type Wells?


  • Greasy Wheel says:

    Here’s a fun fact – Wood Mackenzie (who are quite sensible overall) have ‘type curves’ for all companies for all areas – their current ‘type curves’ for oil in Karnes county ranges from just over 300kbo recovery of oil at the low end (Penn Virginia) to >600kbo (Conoco) and generally around 450kbo for most companies.

    1. Enno says:

      Indeed very interesting Greasy.

      I hope to see once how they can back up these claims.

    2. Greasy Wheel says:

      Not sure what happened to Mark’s reply, or mine to his – but to clarify, the Hmmmm…. is aimed at Wood Mackenzie, not the conversation on here!

    3. Mark Loyd says:

      [Edited by Enno, waiting for Marks feedback]

      1. Greasy Wheel says:

        Hi Mark

        A clarification: I agree with you. The “Hmmmm….” was aimed at Wood Mackenzie!

        Because with this (frankly excellent) tool we can see that Conoco isn’t getting close to 600kbo, and the industry isn’t getting close to 450kbo.

        For what it’s worth, I also know they assume future improvements in IP rates in their forecasting (which I don’t have a problem with) but then no change in decline rates, so IP improvements are mirrored by improvements in EURs (which I do have a problem with).

        You may have seen that I posted elsewhere that Pioneer book a fraction of the reserves that they claim they can produce in their ‘type curves’.

        As for the pseudonym… well, I can only apologize for that. But my experience (more limited than yours) is naturally fractured reservoirs, and I have seen first hand the effects of low matrix permeability, and I share your skepticism.


        PS I think Wood Mackenzie are sensible vs other consultants – Rystad are the worst. Although they are all captured by a need to present a picture that their customers – oil companies themselves – like.

        1. Mark Loyd says:

          Thanks for the reply Greasy. Quick triggered around here after watching my life’s work (producing Oil & Gas Assets) get destroyed and stolen, via depressed fossil prices by TBTF WS Public Portfolio PONZI Fraudsters’ pulling forward uneCONomic production via access to infinite supplies of Free (ZIRP) Taxpayer monies due to their member-owned and private US Federal Reserve (nor more “Federal” than Federal Express) which financially repressed the private sector and citizenry as a whole (going on 10 yrs now); including, guys like myself effectively diverting our interest payments due on our life savings taht we use as our capital for drilling, maintainence, etal, to their IPO’d TBTF WS Public Portfolio PONZI Fraudsters.

          We in private sector don’t have access to literally “Free” capital printed and credited (entirely unbacked) from “thin-air” as do these Public COs. Where they are exempt from the GAAP, laws (rehypothecating assets and shareholders anyone?) and rules taht BK private sector E&P actors should we choose to engage in same. Where they get to privatize the profits and leave the losses for the Public Taxpayers and Retail Equity in BK Court, etal, where the assets get transferred to the Fiat Lowest-Cost of Funds (ZERO, from thin-air) TBTF WS Banksters via fractional reserve fraudnance and US FedRes financial repression of the masses via manipulated rates of money costs. And don’t get me started on my recent dragging-into the “Pre-Packaged” shameful BKs in S Dist NY of Sabine O&G where Shelley Chapman stole my Mineral and Royalty Interests to again bailout TBTF WS Banks and C-Ste such taht the only two parties undamaged by “their actions” are themselves!

          And Wood Mac was as bad as any thruout this whole debacle. I’ve attended Houston NAPE since inception until about 2 yrs ago. No one advertised more than Wood Mac nor participated more in teh “Unconventional” Frauds of PowerPt “Type Wells” repetitions, Break-Even Cost representations, etal. A quick web scrape proves this.

          Forgiveness for these fraudsters is earned. Not deserved and certainly not prior to capitulation and settlement of thefts. Not a single person has been indicted, much less jailed for these ubiquitous frauds in Public CORP ‘Murika these days. Hell, I think MERS still exists and Fannie and Freddie certainly do. Remember them?

          I expected the next step to be a flooding of “apologists” on Enno’s wonderful site for Wells Fargo, Frost, WoodMac, Goldman – OakTree, etal.

          I am sorry if you think I was too terse in my reply to your couching of WoodMac as “who are quite sensible overall”. Again, it’s a very sensitive subject around my parts and I’ve posted on MBs for 8 Yrs the frauds – with associated Arps’ DCAs and later-term econometric post-mortem and prospective analyses that PROVE they can not possibly be Positive RORs at even “Half-Cycle” Costs. And received nothing but abusive posts from furtive posters claiming to be Public Corp Big Whigs. Yeah, right.

          My experience in 30+ Yrs in this biz is longer than many of these IBers, Advisory Services providers, etal in US TBTF WS Public PONZI Fraud Shaler space to be quite frank. This is teh second generation for me of this Fraud. Mid-1980s was the first and I cautioned on my MB in 2013 that within the next year or so, the industry would enter a phase that would make the last such similar major downturn, mid-1980s, look like child’s play. It will and is only beginning IMO.

          Again, Thank You for your clarification post. And I agree with teh telling discrepancies on PXD and others’ “booked reserves” versus advertised “PowerPt Type Wells”. But, IMO, WriteDowns have NOT been forthcoming as they should and the Dallas FedRes and SEC are complicit in these matters. The trip to Houston Energy Bank / Lender mtgs and suggestions? XOM anyone? Their “reserves” are different than others? I suppose they soon will be if Rex is confirmed but that will only serve to expose our country further as the Banana Republic it has become.

          I was drilling and completing unconventional Bakken wells in Williston Basin and unconv Monterrey Shale wells in Santa Barb Cty, CA for 3rd largest Public US E&P in mid-80s in my first life. I was sent to the Pearsall Austin Chalk play for them to kick that off as we spun out as new Corp post-Green Mailing by Pew Family Trust – and needed big rates to pump big “paper” reserves. No different today in whoring out Arps’ Equations and will be met with similar results.

          So I know and have posted simiarly for about 8 yrs now on MBs of what to expect with linear fractional flows only whether it be carbonates or clastics when little to no matrix contribution is available. I had just jetted off on my own in S. TX and watched Aubrey and CHK file thier first such BK for the same reasons in the Chalk.

          Ennos’ work is proving just how exponential those declines will be right into uneconomic rates certainly for EF, Bakken, Haynesville, Barnett, and Permian.

          Time will be a harsh judge………..will anyone be held to account is my question and goal here today and tomorrow. I’ve got plenty of time, God willing.

          Regards – Mark.

  • nuassembly says:

    EF is a special case of shale — when compared to Barnett (the grandfather of new shale gas revolution) or AB (the climax of shale gas) or Bakken (the queen of shale oil), or today’s king of shale oil, Permian. It has fastest decline of gas and oil production.
    Barnett results are already setting an example for shale gas production after over 15 years of production, it shows it has a “b=1.94” on average! see attached file.

    Attachment  SPE166205-Vanorsdale2010.pdf

    1. S Doyle says:

      How can I access the attachment?

    2. Mark Loyd says:


      Can you show me some b=1.94 in the Barnett? I am a 30-Yr Practicing and Licensed PE and have yet to see one in the Barnett. And I’ve drilled more than a couple wells there.

      First my Usual Disclaimer: The following is subject to everything I freely share on this site. I was paid nothing for it and it is worth exactly what one paid as far as I am concerned should you utilize it for investment or other purposes. It is not advice, nor proferred as any reliable “investing” product nor opinions, but purely to proffer datasets incorporating commonly used PE methodologies within the industry for such – GAEP, if you will. Rely upon it at your own peril and without warranty of any kind, express nor implied.

      Attached I will provide you a couple of typical Barnett Wells: the CHK – Willis #1H and the CHK – DFW North #A-5HN. I am not picking on Chesapeake, its’ just they have drilled far more than most but their results are all very similar from what I’ve seen.

      I show the Decline Curves first and then the eCONometrics for these wells. These wells and this acreage trend in particular, was the most coveted back in the 2008-09 vintage you referenced when the Barnett “Pump” kicked off – based upon seismic and other Petrophysical and Production analyses – this was (and to my knowledge and review still is, the best for the Barnett play due to favourable petrophysical properties and production response). But I long ago gave up on this area so if there is something “new” please present it.

      It was also the most expensive area for many reasons; given it is in and around the DFW Airport and the populated communities surruonding same for the literally dozens and hundreds of well pads and wells per pad; respectively, drilled all along this trend forced to meet more stringent safety requirements, tougher lease burdens from cities, etal in the regions.

      You will note the following from my DCA and eCONometric attachments:

      1. the good-fitting b = 0.8 found to me to be very consistent across just about all of not only the Barnett but the better “shale” plays. Fetkovich fitting suggests exponential region exited and PSS flow regions with reasonable fits to b=0.8 for these 15+ year producers.;

      2. incredible levels of invested Capital that was destroyed in drilling these wells with “Negative” PDP10 of -$5.72MM and -$5.60MM, respectively; based upon assumptions included therewith, ie, “Half-Cycle ONLY Costs – NO LEASEHOLD, G&A, etal included”, SWD Disposal Costs, Strip Pricing, etal.;

      3. I have yet to find any Barnett well that is “special” and not beholden to Messrs Arps and Fetkovich nor the brutal conclusion I have arrived at that they are uneconomic long before any “forever flattening” of hte curve might even be suggestive. They are just more UFSA TBTF WS Public Portfolio PONZI Fraud Shalers and their IPOers’ “MisDirects, Lies, Greed, Arrogance, Hubris, and Frauds”.

      But I am certainly open to seeing something new if you have it. That paper has long since been kicked to the waste bin for the Barnett and everything I have seen in the balance of the “shale” basins. Again, excl AB. I’ve done little to no work there but I am very very suspicious of anyone proffering it is “special” and exempt from teh laws of mother nature and the evaluation tools Messrs Arps and Fetkovich spent their lives developing for my free use and other generations PEs to help explain and project mother nature’s bounty for we humans to enjoy and benefit from.



      1. Mark Loyd says:

        CHK – WILLIS #1H ECON


        1. Mark Loyd says:

          CHK – DFWN5H DCA


  • Mark Loyd says:



  • nuassembly says:

    somehow, I could not load the new Vanorsdale paper (2010) up here, and I lost the link where you could download from public domain.
    but, you could also reference to the Guru of this overblown EUR

    1. jim brooker says:

      That author uses a $3.5 million dollar well cost. This 2011 study says over $7.


      1. nuassembly says:

        well, the adjective before “marcellus well” is “single”
        they did not consider a dozen on a single pad. I put a guess on the discount if EQT goes pad drilling, also they did not consider the fracking cost if one goes with cheap sand instead of ceramics, the reduced days (from 1 month to <4 days) for lateral drilling, the use of air drilling for vertical (cost of air drilling is 1/4 of regular)

        ? X60% Land acquisition and leasing: $2.1 million
        Permitting: $10,000
        X30% Vertical drilling: $663,000
        X50% Horizontal drilling: $1.2 million
        X50% Hydraulic fracturing: $2.5 million
        X70% Completion: $200,000
        X20% Production to gathering: $472,000

        It's not that bad — because they are leveraging on an ever-innovating technology driven resources.

      2. Mark Loyd says:

        I was being kind / generous Jim in my use of $6.5MM for those “Best” Barnett DFW trend wells. They actually had to expand what is an Interstate 635, utilize sound and concealment and safety barriers, and many many other items that I expect easily exceeded $6MM for each facility ALONE. NOT counting the actual D&C Costs as those facilities are around and at the entrance to DFW Airport.

        Anyone believing these wells recover even 50% of their “Half-Cycle” Costs will be sadly disappointed when asked to pay their prorata share of an AFE. But this is never commented upon by folks. They instead use usefool fools to give ridiculous opinoions of costs, b factors, payouts, ROIs, etc as though they have the slightest clue to that of which they espouse. Or maybe some do and are using pseudonyms for obvious reasons.

        SHOW.ME.THE.MONEY UFSA TBTF WS Public Portfolio PONZI Fraud PEs, Shalers, and Pumpers……..the actual data does not support 25% of your fraudulent PwrPt Type Wells in the main……..and even less recoveries of your equity partners’ “investments”.

        But for the ubiquitous “Drilling the Equity Shareholders” and TBTF WS infinite access to FREE US Taxpayers monies, this massive destruction to Public COs BalShts and this Nations’ Currency and Credits would not have been possible by these fraudsters.


  • jim brooker says:

    A tribute to Gary Swindell- who wrote SPE paper 158207 on the Eagle Ford Shale Ultimate Recovery and was trounced for his pessimistic projections. The SPE paper is here http://gswindell.com/sp158207.pdf

    I pulled the Karnes County shot from Gary’s paper showing a Median recovery of 193 MBOE for the 2010 and prior wells. Enno’s graph of oil recovery shows about 164, gas is 540 MMCF. Dewitt uses a 20 to 1 MCF to bbl. Guess what? The number works out to 193 MBOE, the wells are about uneconomic.

    I didn’t look at the other counties. But there is a right up about NGLs which I wholeheartedly agree with in the paper.


Leave a Reply

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