Loving County Texas Drilling Permits And Reported Spuds (2026)

Loving County had 76 Texas drilling permit records in the 90-day window ending October 9, 2026. The same review found 153 trailing-12-month permit records, 11 source-filed operator labels, and 7 reported-spud records in the separate source window.

Among the 122 Texas counties with permit activity in this public collection, Loving ranks 8 by 90-day permit count. This rank covers the counties shown here, not every county in the state. It does not measure acreage, production, rig count, capital spending, or commercial awards.

Loving County permit snapshot reviewed October 15, 2026

This is a fixed snapshot reviewed October 15, 2026. The permit source runs through October 9, 2026 and the reported-spud source through September 26, 2026. Newer records may be available in the app and API. Those clocks are shown separately because permits and reported spuds are different record stages.

Leading source-filed operator labels

ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC leads this public preview with 26 permits, or 34.2% of the county total. The 5 displayed labels account for 57 permits (75.0%). Operator names are preserved as filed; similarly named entities are not consolidated without separate identity evidence.

Permit and reported-spud timing

7 reported-spud records appear in the separate window through September 26, 2026.

Texas reported-spud records are deduplicated by API-10 and spud date.

A permit is an authorization or filing-stage record. A reported spud is a later drilling-stage record. The two totals should not be added together or divided into a conversion rate because their reporting cadence, coverage, and population differ.

How Loving County records are assigned

Texas county assignment uses the three-digit county FIPS segment in a valid API identifier. Field geography is not used as a substitute because an oil or gas field can cross county boundaries. Rows that cannot support valid county attribution stay in the statewide dataset and are not forced into Loving County.

This method produces a county lookup page that can be refreshed from the same state snapshot. It does not publish individual permit numbers, API identifiers, well names, coordinates, or the complete operator table. Those record-level fields remain in the app and API workflow.

Browse the Texas county permit directory to compare reviewed county totals, or use the Texas and New Mexico county permit hub to switch states.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many recent drilling permits are in Loving County?

Loving County has 76 permit records in the reviewed 90-day window ending October 9, 2026 and 153 trailing-12-month permit records.

Which operator has the most recent Loving County permits?

ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC leads the reviewed source-filed preview with 26 permits. This is a filing-label ranking, not a corporate-family, acreage, production, or spending ranking.

Does a drilling permit mean the well was drilled?

No. A permit is a filing-stage record. Reported-spud, completion, and production records are later stages and should be checked separately.

Where can I get the individual Loving County permit records?

The EnergyNetWatch app and API workflow provide the record-level identifiers, dates, operator labels, map context, filters, exports, and monitoring options that are intentionally omitted from this public county summary.

Researching Loving County beyond the totals

Compare the exact source-filed operator labels in the dated table above. A permit count does not establish acreage, production, purchasing activity or corporate-family ownership.

For a land or service-territory review, start with the operator and permit date, then check the individual permit identifier and well identity. In Texas API identifiers, 42-301 identifies the state and county portion; it is not a complete well identifier. Preserve leading zeroes and treat identifiers as text. A well API number and an application programming interface are different uses of the term API.

The public snapshot above uses the county segment of valid well API identifiers. With state=TX, the REST search now resolves complete recognized county names to that county segment, using the W-1 identifier when the permit identifier is null. It accepts spelling variants such as De Witt and DeWitt. Original county labels may still contain a town name; inspect meta.request.canonicalCounty, countyFips and countyBasis for the selected geography. Numeric codes and partial names retain stored-field filtering. The live rolling dates and cancellation rules still differ from the dated public snapshot, so their totals need not match. This county selection does not establish a precise surface location.

Loving County permits through the data API

Use this server-side example with your own API key. It requests the first five permit rows in a rolling 90-day window, not every record and not the fixed reporting window above. Store the key in a secure environment variable; never put it in browser code or a public notebook.

curl --fail-with-body --get \
  'https://api.energynetwatch.com/api/public/permits' \
  --header "X-API-Key: $ENW_API_KEY" \
  --data-urlencode 'state=TX' \
  --data-urlencode 'county=Loving' \
  --data-urlencode 'days=90' \
  --data-urlencode 'page=1' \
  --data-urlencode 'limit=5'

The response contains data.permits, data.pagination, data.countWindow and source freshness metadata. Inspect the returned county values, dates and identifiers before using the records. A blank completion or spud field is not proof that the event never occurred.

This request was checked on September 11, 2026 and returned five Loving rows. That dated query example is separate from the public snapshot reviewed 2026-10-15 above. The lookback is relative to the request date; this endpoint does not expose fixed start/end date parameters. Later calls can return different records.

To build a complete filtered operator table, follow data.pagination.nextPage while hasMore is true, within your request budget. Aggregate only after collecting the intended pages. Label a five-row result as a sample rather than ranking operators across the county. Record the request date and filters, and retain permit identifiers to check repeated records.

The published cost for this endpoint is six API units per request. At the $50 / 2,500-unit starter rate, that is $0.12 per request; each additional page is another request. Other tools have their own costs. Review API pricing and the developer documentation before a larger pull.

Using an AI assistant with the returned county table

After exporting the intended rows, ask your assistant:

Using only this Loving County permit export, group rows by the exact source-filed operator name. Show record count and earliest/latest permit issue date for each group. State the export filters and whether pagination was completed. Flag missing county values, dates or identifiers. Do not infer drilling, completion, production or purchasing activity from a permit.

This is an export-analysis prompt, not a claim that the MCP permit-search tool accepts a county filter. The checked MCP server version 0.1.10 does not expose that filter on its permit-search tool. Do not pass a county name as an operator search or silently substitute a statewide sample. See MCP setup and supported workflows for connection instructions; confirm the installed tool schema before asking it to reproduce a county search.

For a returned well identifier, completion and official production are separate follow-up lookups with their own coverage and costs. Texas official production must retain its lease reporting context. See the Texas well research example before treating a lease total as individual-well production.

Request a Loving County research table

Need a reviewed table rather than code? Request a Loving County research scope. Include the date window, operators and the question you need answered. Scope, available fields and delivery are agreed before purchase; this is not an advertised recurring subscription. For repeatable programmatic research, compare prepaid API credits.