This is an older blog post, you will find one on more recent data here
This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from 19217 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford region (TRRC districts 1-4), that started producing since 2010, through June 2017.
Oil production in the Eagle Ford appears to have slowed significantly during the 2nd quarter, although part of this decline will disappear once revisions are in. Gas production has remained more balanced in the first half of 2017, at ~5.3 Bcf/d.
As can be seen in the “Well status” tab, the level of new well completions has hovered around 100 wells per month in the past 1.5 years. The bottom graph in that overview gives an indication of the ‘ageing’ of the Eagle Ford; in June the percentage of horizontal wells that was producing below 50 bo/d climbed to almost 74% (it was below 40% in the early years of this play).
The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below:
In this “Ultimate Recovery” overview the relationship between production rates, and cumulative production is revealed. Wells that started production in 2014 peaked at a monthly rate of 400 bo/d, and are now just above 50 bo/d, with cumulative production of 133 kbo. Although 2016 wells peaked at 537 bo/d, their production profile is not significantly above these 2014 wells.
In the “Productivity distribution” tab, the cumulative production distribution is shown after a given number of months. If you follow the black curve, you’ll see that about 20% of the wells, with at least 2 years of production history, produced more than 150 kbo over that time frame. The average was 109.7 kbo, as is shown below the graph. Note that I’ve preselected the “Eagle Ford” and “Austin Chalk” formations in the Formation selection.
On Friday I plan to publish a new post on the Permian, followed by an update on North Dakota on Wednesday next week.
Production data is subject to revisions, especially for the last few months. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources:
- Texas RRC. Now individual well production data is estimated from a range of data sources, including regular well tests that measure actual well production (oil, gas & water).
The above presentations have 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 the related data.
- 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.
Can you explain why your DUC well count seems to be different from all other organization that tracks DUC activity? EIA? DI? IHS? Navport?
Most of the companies I have listed above have very similar numbers, yours however seems significantly lower.
The DUC numbers I show here for Texas are indeed incomplete. Wells are currently included once they are assigned to a specific lease. In my next Texas updates, I will add pending production and well data (for wells not yet assigned to a lease). For the Eagle Ford, that will raise the number of DUCs with ~150.
My well data is mostly based on very detailed well completion reports (W2-forms). However, there are sometimes delays in the way the RRC receives, or processes these reports. Therefore my DUC data will still be somewhat incomplete after this change. In the future I also plan to add other data sources to reduce this gap.