Upload AFEs, compare opportunities, and model economics backed by 25 years of proprietary energy intelligence. Every answer is queried from Enverus well, production, and transaction data in real time.
Part of Enverus ONE™, the AI Platform for Energy.
It's Thursday morning and three AFEs just landed in your inbox. The consent deadline is next week. But you're already managing a well that's actively drilling, and that's where your attention needs to be. You open the first AFE, start pulling together the evaluation, and get pulled back into an operational issue on your active well. The other two AFEs sit untouched.
By the time you circle back, the deadline is close. You run a quick look at the numbers, consent on all three because the economics seem reasonable enough on the surface, and move on. There wasn't time to dig into the operator's track record in that formation, compare costs against recent offsets, or stress test the assumptions. The decision got made, but the deep dive didn't happen.
This is how Non-operated AFE management works for most teams. It's not that the data doesn't exist. It's that the people making consent decisions are stretched across too many priorities to do the analysis the decision deserves.
Non-op teams have a limited window to evaluate each AFE and decide whether to consent, sell, or go non-consent. Manual processes can’t keep pace with the decision timeline.
Teams naturally build the case for consenting. The upside is often where evaluation starts. But operator underperformance, cost anomalies, and red flags in the AFE documents themselves are easy to overlook when you're evaluating under time pressure.
When two packages come in from the same area, each one gets evaluated separately with whatever data the analyst can pull together. There's no consistent framework for side-by-side comparison using the same parameters, so deciding which one is actually the better investment takes longer than it should.
A single static report answers the first question but not the follow-ups. But what if you need to change the commodity assumption? How does this compare to the other AFE you received? Non-op teams need depth, not just a summary.
Generic AI tools reason from public knowledge. They can’t access proprietary well performance, QC’d completion detail, production histories, or M&A transaction data. Non-op evaluation requires energy-specific data that only exists inside platforms like Enverus.
Non-op analyst evaluates AFEs, benchmark costs, and model economics daily, and needs faster access to comparables, offset well data, and production histories without pulling from multiple disconnected systems. The consent window drives everything.
“Three AFEs come in the same week. I run a quick look at the first one, consent because the economics seem reasonable, and move on to the next. There wasn't time to dig into the operator's track record or stress test the assumptions. The decision got made, but the deep dive didn't happen.”
Upload one AFE or a batch for structured evaluation. Or ask the agent a question directly: compare opportunities, explore a basin, or model a scenario. The agent meets you wherever your workflow begins.
Receive an executive summary with election paths: consent, sell and take a carry,
or non-consent. Economics, risk flags, and a recommendation,
all in one view.
Compare AFEs side by side. Derive EURs from offset wells normalized using recent vintages. Benchmark costs against real comparables from Enverus data.
Ask follow-up questions. Change a commodity assumption. Test a different scenario. The agent queries Enverus Wells, M&A, Production, and Forecasting data in real time to build your answer.
EUR comparisons, economic scenarios, and offset analytics delivered as charts, maps, and graphs within the interface.
Consent, sell, or non-consent. Every recommendation is backed by the right Enverus data, delivered within the consent window.
Ingests non-op AFEs, standardizes assumptions and structure, and delivers a structured evaluation with election paths fast enough to respond within the consent window.
Queries Enverus Wells (7M+), M&A ($1T in transactions), Production, and Forecasting data in real time. Every answer backed by proprietary energy intelligence, not public data.
Surfaces potential risks alongside the economics so your evaluation covers both sides. Operator track record in the target formation, cost anomalies across AFE line items, well status flags, and inconsistencies in the AFE documents themselves.
Derives EURs from offset wells using recent vintages. Apply them across consent, sell, and non-consent scenarios to model each election path.
Compare AFEs side by side with a recommendation, economics, and rationale. Or compare basins, operators, and scenarios to build a broader investment thesis.
Charts, maps, and graphs produced within the interface. Type curve comparisons, economic scenarios, and offset analytics your team can see and share, not just read.
Ask follow-up questions, change assumptions, and explore scenarios as deep as you need. The agent is trained on non-op understanding so it reads between the lines when you ask about cost, risk, or performance.
The AFE Evaluation Agent is built on the Enverus ONE™ security foundation, designed for high-consequence energy operations from day one.
Independently audited and certified. Your AFE data and economic models are handled with the same rigor you apply to capital decisions.
Generic AI tools send your data to shared public models. The AFE Evaluation Agent does not. Your AFEs, economics, and election decisions stay in your environment.
Control exactly who sees what. RBAC ensures team members access only the data and workflows their role permits. Sensitive deal data stays compartmentalized.
Every evaluation is traceable. What was uploaded, what data informed the recommendation, and what assumptions were used. Your team knows exactly how every consent decision was built.
Upload AFEs, compare opportunities, and model economics backed by Enverus’s proprietary data. Every answer queried in real time. Every output ready to act on.