Denbury Onshore vs Mcgowan Working Partners

Side-by-side comparison of two oil and gas operators in TX. Drawn from public well data and state-regulator production filings.

Important — Public-Data Disclaimer. The information shown on this page is sourced exclusively from publicly available oil and gas regulatory records (Texas Railroad Commission, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and aggregated public well data). Valor is presenting these public records side-by-side as an informational convenience only.

Denbury Onshore

TX · 1,120 wells on file

Mcgowan Working Partners

TX · 886 wells on file

Side-by-Side Statistics

MetricDenbury OnshoreMcgowan Working Partners
Total wells1,120886
Wells producing (any time)941729
Permits filed (last 24 months)60
Most recent permit date2026-01-142023-12-12
Most recent spud date2024-03-292019-08-30
Average lateral length (ft)1,0642,802
Top formationGulf Coast Basin (La - Tx)Gulf Coast Basin (La - Tx)
Top countyBrazoriaWharton
States operating inTXTX
Last-12mo oil production (BBL)628,84088,987
Last-12mo gas production (Mcf)17,583174,014

Shared Territory

Both operators have wells in these counties:

Fort Bend

Both operators target these formations / plays:

Gulf Coast Basin (La - Tx)Frio

Per-Operator Top Counties & Formations

Denbury Onshore

Counties: Brazoria (878) · Chambers (152) · Harris (38) · Fort Bend (17) · Galveston (10)

Formations: Gulf Coast Basin (La - Tx) (280) · Hastings Wes (216) · Frio (83) · Miocene (68) · A (64)

Mcgowan Working Partners

Counties: Wharton (163) · Jackson (127) · San Patricio (127) · Anderson (96) · Fort Bend (67)

Formations: Gulf Coast Basin (La - Tx) (146) · Cotton Valley (87) · Marginulina Zone (52) · Frio (48) · Eagle Ford (46)

Related Comparisons

About This Comparison