So we’ve got third-party handling and process facilities that are constrained by that and can’t handle all the CO2. So we’re choking wells back. There’s a new federal regulation that I won’t get into the details. But it affects how we meter production. And it prevents co-mingling. And so we’ve got wells choked back until we can get some new meters in place. And then we’ve got some produced water limits that have come into effect in some areas. So there’s a number of things that are not indicative of well performance, but other surface realities that we’re working on our way through that are impacting co-op production a little bit. In New Mexico, you’re right. We got more POPs in the second half of the year. We’ve POP-ed about 60% of the planned wells in New Mexico.
So the balance, almost half, come on in the fourth quarter. POP performance has generally been strong. Some of those wells are hit by the facility constraints that I’ve talked about. But overall, well performance is aligned with our type curve expectations. I think when we get to the fourth quarter call, Biraj, we’ll come back with some more detail on type curves. We’ll have enough of them online. We’ll have enough months that we can start to give you some of the same kind of evidence that we did last quarter to show you the performance.
Biraj Borkhataria: Okay. Understood. Thank you very much.
Michael Wirth: Thank you.
Operator: We’ll go next to Sam Margolin with Wolfe Research.
Sam Margolin: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the question.
Michael Wirth: Good morning, Sam.
Sam Margolin: Maybe we’ll stick with the U.S. and ask about just the U.S. upstream CapEx number. There’s a lot of moving parts in here. You’ve got incorporation of PDC. You have kind of GOM projects and Ballymore coming into play, inflation and then timing effects that you alluded to. I guess, when you think about this quarter’s U.S. upstream capital, how would you characterize it just overall? Would you say it’s sort of on plan or like overly influenced by any one of these factors that may or may not be mitigated over time? Thank you.
Michael Wirth: Yes. Sam, you’re right. I mean, we are seeing pressure in the U.S. And I think we’re probably going to end up higher than our budget as we end the year. PDC is being integrated into the factory pretty much as we expected. And so it’s an increment because it wasn’t in our original plan. But it’s really not a driver of this. The big thing is we’re seeing actually more feet drilled per rig and more completion feet than we had planned. And so the productivity of the primary development activity has continued to improve. But that means we spend more money on tubulars, on sand, on water than we had anticipated. So it’s kind of a good news, but it brings with it some costs. We’ve got some long lead items, where we’re seeing supply chain realities that say we need to place long lead orders earlier.
So some things we otherwise would have ordered next year that we’ve actually moved ordering and initial payments on into this year. So there’s some long lead dynamics going on. And then I mentioned earlier, produced water is becoming an issue, the reinjection of that and doing that in a way that minimizes the incidences of induced seismicity. So we’ve got some more produced water handling infrastructure spend. So I would say those are kind of the primary drivers. And that’s pushing the Permian to be a little hot. Gulf of Mexico is pretty well right on plan. And so what you’re seeing there is really a function of PDC, which is just an increment that’s been added, and then some additional costs in the Permian program that we really hadn’t anticipated as we went into the year.
