Texas Railroad Commission District 7C, in the southern Permian Basin around San Angelo, reported approximately 186.2 million barrels of oil produced in 2024, up from 163.2 million barrels in 2023. [1] District 7C is not the Permian’s largest producer; that distinction belongs to District 08, at over one billion barrels. [2] But it grew the fastest of any major Texas district in 2024. [3] That is a 14.0 percent year over year increase, the largest among the state’s major producing districts, while two other districts declined. [1] District 4, in South Texas, posted a 25.7 percent oil volume decline, and District 7B posted an 11.2 percent decline over the same period. [1] For compliance teams and operations engineers, the divergence matters most for associated gas volumes, equipment counts, and the denominator in methane intensity calculations. This post breaks down the district level figures and flags what compliance and operations staff should track through the 2026 reporting cycle.

How much did District 7C oil production grow in 2024?

Map of Texas Railroad Commission oil and gas districts, with District 7C (the southern Permian shelf) highlighted and the Permian core District 08 to its west

District 7C produced about 186.2 million barrels of oil in 2024, up from 163.2 million barrels in 2023. [1] That is a net addition of roughly 23.0 million barrels in a single year. [1] The growth came largely through continued horizontal drilling activity in the Delaware and Midland sub-basins. In percentage terms, the 14.0 percent year over year gain was the largest of any major oil producing district in Texas in 2024. [1]

Texas RRC District 7C oil production, 2023 vs 2024, showing a 14.0% increase to 186.2 million barrels

Two other districts moved in the opposite direction during the same year. [1] District 4, in South Texas along the Gulf Coast, reported an oil production decline of 25.7 percent. [1] District 7B, in West Central Texas, reported an 11.2 percent decline over the same period. [1] The concentration of growth in District 7C is the figure most analysts will miss when they model basin-level trends from state totals.

District-level production data comes from the Railroad Commission’s PDQ reporting system, which operators file monthly. [1] The TetraSoft Texas production dataset is rebuilt from these public filings, with each well assigned to its Railroad Commission district by county. [1] It covers more than 1.1 million wells and 339 million monthly production records across 250 counties. [1] The growth is real and concentrated.

What does rising oil output mean for emissions inventories and reporting thresholds?

Rising oil output in an associated gas basin is an emissions inventory expansion, not just a production story. Additional barrels typically come with additional separators, tanks, pneumatic controllers, flares, and compression equipment that each carry emissions reporting obligations. For a compliance team, each new facility or material equipment change has to be reflected in the next inventory. [4] The cutoff is the calendar year of the report, not the year the equipment was commissioned. [4]

Year-over-year oil volume change by Texas RRC district for 2024, with District 7C up 14.0% and District 08 the largest producer

Higher throughput also pushes more facilities above EPA GHGRP Subpart W applicability thresholds, which are set at 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year at the basin level for petroleum and natural gas systems. [4] Operators that were previously below the threshold can cross above it when new pads come online. They can also cross it when existing pads increase throughput and associated gas flashing.

GHGRP Subpart W is under reconsideration by EPA, which anticipated finalizing a broader suspension by July 2026. As of mid-July 2026 that final action has not been issued, so the applicability framework for reporting years 2025 through 2034 is not settled. For background, see GHGRP Subpart W Deadline Moved to October 2026. District level figures for every Texas district are available in the TetraSoft Atlas Dashboard, a subscription platform for oil and gas data. [5]

Methane intensity, which investors and European buyers increasingly treat as a procurement-relevant metric, is reported as methane emissions per unit of gas throughput or energy content. [6] When oil production grows in a basin that also produces wet associated gas, both the numerator and the denominator of that intensity ratio can rise. If operators do not track equipment additions and abnormal process emissions at the same pace as production, the numerator rises faster than the denominator. Reported methane intensity deteriorates. Satellites already flag that gap at basin scale, as covered in why satellites show about 2x more methane than inventories.

What should compliance and operations teams track in the 2026 reporting cycle?

The concrete actions for a compliance and operations team start with an equipment delta review for every District 7C facility active in 2024. The underlying question is whether the equipment list that fed the 2023 inventory still reflects what is physically on the pad. New tanks, additional separators, changes in flare capacity, and new pneumatic controllers should each be logged with commissioning dates. Each should tie to the facility ID used in reporting.

Texas RRC District 7C oil production trend from 2020 to 2024, rising from 142 to 186.2 million barrels

The second action is a throughput reconciliation between PDQ production data and the operational data feeding emissions calculations. Production volumes reported to RRC should match the throughput assumptions embedded in equipment-specific calculations, including tank flash emissions and pneumatic controller vent rates. Mismatches between reported production and the inputs to inventory calculations are one of the most common causes of submission flags during agency review.

For operations engineers, the throughput question has a subtler dimension: emissions do not scale linearly with oil volume, because separator flash, controller venting, and tank breathing each respond differently to throughput changes. A 14.0 percent production increase at a facility does not mean a 14.0 percent emissions increase. Using a flat scaling factor to convert production to emissions is a common source of error. Compliance teams that rely on a mid-year or annual average throughput figure for a facility with material 2024 growth should document that average. The documentation should record how the average was calculated and which months drove the change.

Frequently asked questions

Did any other Texas district post double-digit oil production growth in 2024?

No other major Texas producing district posted double-digit oil volume growth in the TetraSoft Texas production dataset for 2024, based on annual aggregation of well level records. [1] District 7C was the single growth outlier in the major producing districts, while Districts 4 and 7B both declined over the same period. [1] Smaller districts showed mixed results within narrower percentage bands. [1]

Does rising oil production automatically push an operator above GHGRP Subpart W thresholds?

Not automatically, because the 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year threshold applies at the basin level for petroleum and natural gas systems, not at the individual well or pad. [4] Whether a given operator crosses or remains above the threshold depends on the basin-wide sum of reporting-category emissions across all covered facilities. [4] An operator already reporting in the Permian generally continues to report. An operator near the threshold can cross it as pads are added or as flaring and equipment counts increase.

Is the GHGRP Subpart W reporting deadline still March 31?

The GHGRP reporting year 2025 deadline has been moved from March 31 to October 30, 2026 through an EPA notice published in the Federal Register. [7] GHGRP Subpart W reporting requirements are also under reconsideration for reporting years 2025 through 2034. EPA anticipated finalizing that action by July 2026, but as of mid-July 2026 it has not issued a final rule. Operators should confirm current deadlines and applicability directly with EPA for their specific reporting obligations.

Where can I find the district level production data cited in this post?

The figures in this post come from the TetraSoft Texas production dataset, which is rebuilt from RRC public filings. [1] District, county, and facility-level Texas and Colorado production and emissions data is available to TetraSoft Atlas subscribers. [5]

This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or compliance advice. Consult qualified legal counsel or a compliance professional for guidance specific to your operations and jurisdiction.

Subscribe to TetraSoft Atlas for district, county, and facility-level production and emissions data across Texas and Colorado, and much more.

References

  1. TetraSoft Texas production dataset (well_production_annual.parquet), April 2026 data pull; derived from Texas Railroad Commission public production filings (PDQ). Coverage: 1.1M+ wells, 339M+ monthly production records, 250 counties.
  2. TetraSoft Texas production dataset (well_production_annual.parquet), April 2026 data pull; RRC District 08 oil ~1,056M bbl in 2024, districts assigned by well county mapped to RRC districts.
  3. TetraSoft Texas production dataset (well_production_annual.parquet), April 2026 data pull; District 7C the largest year-over-year oil gainer among major districts.
  4. U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W, Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems (Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program). Available at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-98/subpart-W.
  5. TetraSoft Atlas Dashboard, https://www.tetrasoftco.com/atlas.
  6. UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP) 2.0 Technical Guidance Document, Version 2.0, 2023. Available at https://www.ogmpartnership.com/sites/default/files/files/OGMP%202.0%20Technical%20Guidance%20Document.pdf.
  7. U.S. EPA, “GHG Reporting Program: Deadline Revision for Reporting Year 2025,” Federal Register notice, citation ID FR 2026-03995, 2026.