ConocoPhillips & Burlington Operator Intelligence: Bakken Permits & Labels
ConocoPhillips and Burlington research with corrected North Dakota date interpretation: well-status dates do not establish permit issuance.
By Johnathan · Reviewed by EnergyNetWatch Research · Maintained page · Content updated 2026-09-12
Living operator brief
This page is maintained as an operator intelligence brief, with refreshed permits, spuds, production windows, counties, source labels, and watch items where available.
Key Takeaways
- North Dakota well-status dates do not establish new permit issuance; earlier permit counts are withdrawn.
- Burlington and ConocoPhillips source-filed labels should remain visible before any company rollup.
- Company production, historical reported spuds and well-status dates answer separate questions.
Correction — September 12, 2026: Earlier North Dakota permit counts are withdrawn as issuance evidence. The well-index feed stores WellStatusDate in issue_date; the historical cohorts have not been reconstructed as issued permits. Production and reported-spud snapshots below retain their original review dates and are not refreshed by this correction.
EnergyNetWatch tracks ConocoPhillips through parent-company and source-label records, including Burlington Resources.
The August 8, 2026 review included North Dakota well-index records and 13 trailing-90-day reported-spud rows. Its 389 trailing-12-month and 113 trailing-90-day counts are no longer presented as permits. Burlington remains an important label to inspect.
Key Takeaways
| Signal | Current public read |
|---|---|
| Parent company | ConocoPhillips |
| Main source-label issue | COP, Burlington Resources, ConocoPhillips Alaska, and legacy Conoco labels |
| Main activity layer | North Dakota Burlington Resources |
| Permit-issuance count | Withdrawn; well-status dates do not establish issuance |
| Current spud signal | 13 trailing-90-day North Dakota matched reported-spud rows |
| First request | Current COP/Burlington state-source identity and activity table |
What The COP/Burlington Records Show
Burlington matters because state records can preserve source labels that do not look like the parent-company name. A ConocoPhillips account screen that ignores Burlington can miss Bakken, Texas, and New Mexico source-record context.
This page is the durable COP/Burlington operator layer. The Q1 2026 brief remains a historical event page and should feed this page rather than replace it.
Source Labels Reviewed
| Source-label group | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| ConocoPhillips | Parent and current operating identity in several source views. |
| Burlington Resources | Material state-source label in North Dakota, Texas, and New Mexico. |
| ConocoPhillips Alaska | Alaska production and project context should stay separate from Lower 48 activity tables. |
| Legacy Conoco labels | Older or legacy labels can matter for historical review. |
State And County Activity
North Dakota Burlington provides well and operator-label context, not a verified new-permit ranking. New Mexico and Texas add production and permit context, but the filed labels should stay visible before parent-company rollups.
For a commercial or data user, the first table should show source label, state, county, production month, permit count, reported-spud count, latest source dates, and map context.
Latest North Dakota Source Clock
The historical review was August 8. Its well-index source clock reached August 5; that is not verified permit issuance. The separate DMR rig snapshot was August 3, and the modeled production snapshot was April 2026.
Those dates describe source availability; the operator counts above are the matched Burlington and ConocoPhillips rows from the current pull.
Well Status And Reported Spuds
| Field | Current public signal |
|---|---|
| North Dakota 12M permit-issuance count | Withdrawn |
| North Dakota 90D permit-issuance count | Withdrawn |
| North Dakota matched 90D reported-spud rows | 13 |
| Historical matched well-status date | August 5, 2026; not permit issuance |
| Latest matched operator reported spud | July 12, 2026 |
The well-status and reported-spud layers are separate from company production. Neither establishes a new permit count.
What To Monitor Next
- North Dakota Burlington well-status history and separately reported spuds.
- New Mexico ConocoPhillips and Burlington Permian source-record layer.
- Texas Burlington production timing using latest nonzero production month.
- Alaska project context as a separate project-monitoring layer.
- Legacy label treatment before parent-company rollups.
Infrastructure And Midstream Signals
| Layer | Public page treatment | App follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Bakken and Lower 48 infrastructure | Not expanded into a free COP/Burlington lead list. | Review operator-linked facility, gathering, route, county, map, and source-date rows where source records support the connection. |
| Why limited here | The public page shows how source labels carry activity without publishing the current account-ready export. | Request the current COP/Burlington package with maps, exports, alerts, and API fields. |
What To Request
Request the current ConocoPhillips/Burlington source-label activity table with production month, permits, reported spuds, wells, counties, source dates, maps, exports, alerts, and API fields.
Related EnergyNetWatch Pages
- ConocoPhillips Q1 2026 Lower 48 Signals
- North Dakota operator production snapshot
- Operator activity chase lists
- How to track drilling permits by operator
- Oil and gas data API
Sources And Data Notes
Company-reported production and public state records answer different questions: corporate quarterly performance versus follow-up by operator label, state, county, permit, well, and production month.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a Burlington permit represent ConocoPhillips production?
No. A state permit is a filed activity record. Production is reported in a separate source layer, and a reported spud is separate drilling-start evidence.
Why does Burlington appear under a ConocoPhillips brief?
Burlington Resources is a material source-filed label in North Dakota, Texas, and New Mexico. Keeping it visible helps preserve the state and county detail before any parent-company rollup.
How current are the North Dakota counts?
The retained reported-spud snapshot is from August 8, 2026. The permit-issuance interpretation was withdrawn September 12. Ask for a reviewed current scope rather than treating this historical sample as current data.
Data notes
Permit interpretation corrected September 12, 2026 using retained ND well-index evidence. Historical issuance cohorts were not reconstructed. Original company and reported-spud snapshots retain their stated periods; this is not a data refresh.
Recommended next pages
ConocoPhillips & Burlington Q1 2026 Signals: Bakken and Lower 48
ConocoPhillips and Burlington research with corrected North Dakota date interpretation: well-status dates do not establish permit issuance.
North Dakota Operator Production: March 2026 Oil And Gas Snapshot
EnergyNetWatch reviewed modeled North Dakota well production for March 2026, ranking top Bakken operators by oil and gas volumes while excluding partial April rows.
Operator Activity Chase Lists: Turning Public Oil And Gas Records Into Account Workflows (2026)
Build operator activity chase lists from oil and gas permits, spuds, completions, source dates, and account-ready EnergyNetWatch records.
How to Track Drilling Permits by Operator Before Production Shows Up (2026)
Learn how to track drilling permits by operator, connect permits to later production signals, and avoid common state-source mistakes.
Related EnergyNetWatch pages
Want the current table behind this analysis?
Public articles use selected examples. Request access if your team needs current source refreshes, exact identifiers, maps, exports, alerts, saved workflows, or API access for this market.