Matador & San Mateo Q2 2026: Delaware Permits, Spuds & Midstream Records

Matador reported Q2 average production of 215,631 BOE/d, including record average oil production of 126,106 barrels per day. Separately, after the quarter, San Mateo closed its Cardinal Midstream acquisition on July 31. The transaction added a cryogenic processing plant complex in Loving County, Texas with designed inlet capacity of approximately 320 MMcf/d. Matador also reported that San Mateo's expanded system now has more than 1 Bcf/d of designed natural gas processing capacity.

The current state records are strongest in New Mexico. MATADOR PRODUCTION COMPANY has 41 permits and 38 reported spud rows in the current 90-day view. Texas has no current permit or matched spud rows under the Matador/San Mateo pattern in this pull, although the facility layer contains direct Texas records under Matador and San Mateo labels.

For the recurring operator view, use the Matador Resources operator brief. This page preserves the Q2 event and the current NM/TX record comparison.

Q2 company figures and post-quarter event

The company reports both upstream and midstream figures. The EnergyNetWatch records below keep permits, reported spuds, production rows, and facility rows separate.

Current EnergyNetWatch record check

The New Mexico permit layer is current. The Texas permit layer is not current for this operator label in the reviewed pull. San Mateo water and pipeline labels do not carry current drilling permits in the same table.

For a current operator view, the app keeps Matador's New Mexico drilling records separate from the Texas Matador and San Mateo facility labels. That preserves the distinction between upstream drilling activity and midstream records following the Cardinal transaction.

New Mexico counties

Lea contains most of the current Matador permit and reported-spud rows. Eddy is smaller in the current window. This is a state-record distribution, not a map of the Cardinal acquisition and not a statement that every row is tied to the same asset package.

Production-month context

The current production rollup has May 2026 as the latest complete month for the primary numbered rows.

These are source-state production records and should not be added to the company's 215,631 BOE/d figure.

Matador and San Mateo facility rows

The direct facility layer contains Texas rows under MATADOR PRODUCTION COMPANY, SAN MATEO WOLF WATER RESOURCES LLC, and SAN MATEO WOLF PIPELINE LLC. Examples include 18 OTHER records for Matador Production in Loving County, 3 for San Mateo Wolf Water Resources in Loving, and 2 for San Mateo Wolf Pipeline in Loving. The Matador label also has 2 OTHER records in Winkler County with a latest source date of July 31, 2026.

The facility rows identify source-filed labels, facility categories, counties, and source dates. They do not prove that the rows are part of Cardinal Midstream, that a facility is in service, or that a particular operator owns a connected system.

What the records show

The company release provides the operating result and the San Mateo acquisition context. The current records show where Matador's New Mexico drilling rows are concentrated and how the related Texas facility labels appear in the public infrastructure layer. They also show an important split: current New Mexico permits and spuds are visible, while the Texas drilling layer is stale for the Matador label in this pull.

That split should remain visible in the page. It is more accurate than combining upstream and midstream records into one activity total.

What to watch next

• Whether Texas drilling permits begin appearing under a current Matador or related operating label after the August 7 New Mexico clock.
• Whether Lea remains the dominant New Mexico county for both permits and reported spuds.
• Whether new Loving County facility rows appear under Matador or San Mateo labels after the July 31 acquisition close.
• Whether later filings identify the Cardinal assets with a state-record operator or facility label.
• Whether the production rollup advances beyond May 2026 for the primary numbered rows.

How to read the comparison

The company table reports Matador's Q2 upstream result and the post-quarter San Mateo transaction. The state tables report public permits, reported spuds, production-month rows, and facility labels. The current New Mexico drilling rows and the Texas facility rows should remain separate; neither one by itself proves that a record belongs to the Cardinal assets.

Sources and definitions

Company figures come from Matador's Q2 2026 SEC release and the Matador news releases. Texas records are based on the Texas Railroad Commission public data sets. New Mexico records are based on New Mexico Oil Conservation Division source records.

Permits, reported spuds, production records, and facility records are separate layers. A permit is not a spud, a spud is not a completion, and a facility row is not proof of a contract, ownership, or in-service status.

For current operator records, aliases, permits, wells, production histories, infrastructure records, exports, alerts, and API access, request EnergyNetWatch access.

What to request

The next useful table is a Matador/San Mateo view with New Mexico permit and spud rows, Texas facility labels, Loving County records, source dates, and the related company filing context. The upstream and midstream layers should remain separate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Cardinal transaction part of Q2?

No. Matador reported Q2 operating results, but the Cardinal Midstream transaction closed on July 31, after the quarter ended June 30. It is shown as a post-quarter event.

Do the New Mexico spuds represent the Cardinal assets?

Not from these rows alone. The New Mexico records are Matador drilling rows; the Texas facility rows are Matador and San Mateo labels. The source records do not independently assign those rows to the Cardinal assets.

Why does Texas show facilities but no current drilling permits?

The reviewed Texas drilling label is stale, while direct facility rows have newer source dates. Those are separate layers and should not be collapsed into a single activity count.