Data samples
TX public sample

Texas oil and gas production data sample

Texas Railroad Commission data is commercially important and structurally difficult to normalize. This reviewed public sample shows rounded statewide movement, three county examples, three source operator labels, and masked well fields without publishing the complete dataset.

Sept. 6, 2026 public review. Historical modeled production context through 2026-06. This static cutoff is separate from live database freshness; it is not a guarantee of complete filings. For source readiness, see Texas coverage.

Correction September 12, 2026: gas trend values are millions of Mcf, not billions of Mcf. The displayed values match the retained September 6 modeled query; no new production pull was made. These are historical modeled aggregates, not official filed lease totals. Model reconstruction remains under review.

Texas oil and gas production data

State production signals

In the retained September 6 Texas modeled snapshot, rounded oil moves from 112 million bbl in January 2026 to 89 million bbl in June. Gas moves from 522 million Mcf to 420 million Mcf. These changes describe the stored model snapshot, not a verified change in official statewide production.

Midland, Martin, and Reeves are shown as selected June county aggregates. Complete county rankings, individual records, maps, histories, and exports remain inside EnergyNetWatch.

Texas coverage depends on source-aware handling of RRC production, drilling permits, well records, and GIS joins. Lease-level and well-level reporting differences matter for serious analysis.

Change in public sample

Percent changes compare the rounded modeled snapshot values shown here, not official statewide growth or a live production forecast.

Oil change
-13.6%

May 26 to Jun 26

103M to 89M bbl

Gas change
-10.4%

May 26 to Jun 26

469 to 420 million Mcf

Oil over sample
-20.5%

Jan 26 to Jun 26

112M to 89M bbl

Gas over sample
-19.5%

Jan 26 to Jun 26

522 to 420 million Mcf

Source method

Texas source method

This public Texas view is built from real EnergyNetWatch Texas records reviewed Sept. 6, then rounded for public display. Texas requires source-specific handling because production can be reported at lease and well levels, and well attribution often depends on RRC identifiers, county context, and GIS joins.

Primary source familyTexas Railroad Commission production, permit, well, and GIS records
Public treatmentSix rounded state months, three counties, three source operator labels, and three masked API examples
Why it mattersTexas is the broadest public sample for Permian, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, and Barnett workflows
Public cutoffJune 2026, selected by the September 6 modeled-volume screening rule; not proof that all reports were filed

Source basis and limits

  • State/operator values come from a modeled monthly rollup; county values and masked examples use modeled views/facts. Historical model reconstruction is still under review. Zero in a modeled example is not proof of a filed zero.
  • The cutoff screen rejects a trailing month below 60% of the prior six-month average BOE. Passing that screen does not establish full reporting coverage.
  • Texas production reporting has lease-level and well-level differences that matter for well-by-well analysis.
  • Public preview pages do not include raw records, exports, normalized matching logic, or advanced analytics.
  • Use the app for full filters, production histories, maps, exports, saved filters, and repeatable workflows.

Mcf means one thousand cubic feet. See the EIA unit explanation. This unit definition does not validate the underlying production estimates.

For official filed lease production, use the verified Texas API-to-lease example.

What this public sample includes

  • Retained modeled monthly trend with a stated source date.
  • Rounded state, county, operator, and masked well examples.
  • Source notes and public-sample caveats.

What app access adds

  • Current records where the source supports them.
  • Unmasked wells, coordinates, full monthly histories, maps, exports, and saved workflows.
  • Operator, county, permit, production, and infrastructure context in one workspace.

Questions this dataset answers

  • Which Texas counties carry the visible production concentration?
  • Which operators appear in the public Texas sample rows?
  • How current is the public production clock for Texas?
  • Which records would require current app access before making a business decision?
Indexed well records
677K+

Rounded from 677,228 Texas rows reviewed Sept. 6

Production cutoff
Jun 2026

Screened modeled month; not a complete-filing guarantee

Public proof
3 + 3

Three county and three operator summaries

Masked samples
3

Full identifiers, coordinates, and histories require app access

Production trend sample

Rounded modeled monthly values from the retained source snapshot. Oil and gas bars use separate scales because they are measured in different units.

Through 2026-06
Latest oil
89M bbl
Change since Jan 26: -20.5%
Latest gas
420 million Mcf
Change since Jan 26: -19.5%
Sample range
6 months
Jan 26 through Jun 26
112M522MJan 26104M472MFeb 26111M499MMar 26105M468MApr 26103M469MMay 2689M420MJun 26
Oil GasOil: million bbl. Gas: million Mcf. One million Mcf equals one Bcf (one billion cubic feet), not one billion Mcf.
Jan 26
Oil
112M bbl
Gas
522 million Mcf
Feb 26
Oil
104M bbl
Gas
472 million Mcf
Mar 26
Oil
111M bbl
Gas
499 million Mcf
Apr 26
Oil
105M bbl
Gas
468 million Mcf
May 26
Oil
103M bbl
Gas
469 million Mcf
Jun 26
Oil
89M bbl
Gas
420 million Mcf

Need current data instead?

This page is an aggregate public sample. App access is for teams that need current availability, unmasked well records, full monthly histories, maps, exports, and operator-level workflows.

  • Current source refreshes where available by state
  • Well-level records, coordinates, and production histories
  • Exports, maps, saved filters, and repeatable team workflows

Counts and production figures are rounded or summarized for public pages. Source-level interpretation and normalized exports are available with app access.

Source status and caveats are tracked on the Texas coverage page.

Create account for current Texas dataView related state watchlist

Selected modeled county examples

Three reviewed aggregates provide public context. Complete county rankings and record lists remain inside EnergyNetWatch.

Midland County
Selected June aggregate; 13,328 contributing well rows
13.7MM modeled BOE
Martin County
Selected June aggregate; 11,281 contributing well rows
12.9MM modeled BOE
Reeves County
Selected June aggregate; 7,182 contributing well rows
12.5MM modeled BOE

Selected modeled operator examples

These are source operator labels in the reviewed production aggregate, not consolidated company identities. Complete rankings and profiles require app access.

DIAMONDBACK E&P LLC
Source operator label in the June reviewed aggregate
12.7MM modeled BOE
PIONEER NATURAL RES. USA, INC.
Legacy source label; not a consolidated company identity
11.6MM modeled BOE
EOG RESOURCES, INC.
Source operator label in the June reviewed aggregate
7.6MM modeled BOE

Masked sample well records

These are selected modeled records with masked identifiers and rounded volumes, not direct well measurements. A zero in the modeled output is not proof of a filed zero.

Masked public view
42-317-*****
2026-06

Martin County modeled sample

OperatorPIONEER NATURAL RES. USA, INC.
CountyMartin
Modeled oil (bbl)
~26K
Modeled gas (Mcf)
0
42-329-*****
2026-06

Midland County modeled sample

OperatorAPACHE CORPORATION
CountyMidland
Modeled oil (bbl)
~46K
Modeled gas (Mcf)
0
42-389-*****
2026-06

Reeves County modeled sample

OperatorCONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY
CountyReeves
Modeled oil (bbl)
0
Modeled gas (Mcf)
~209K
Included here

Masked API, well label, operator, county, month, and rounded modeled volumes.

Available with access

Full histories, coordinates, exports, source joins, maps, saved filters, and workflow tools.

Not included publicly

Current records, precise coordinates, complete histories, exports, maps, and repeatable workflows require app access.

Related research