Technical pre-diligence and decision support for consequential Texas energy and infrastructure decisions.
We bring well, lease and production records together, name the sources and keep missing evidence visible.
Share a well or lease reference and your question. We can agree a useful research scope.
Start a written enquiry →If you are a technical partnerExplore how energy, equipment and field delivery come together.
Open ZAI-750 →If you need researchSearch by Texas API or browse six counties. Open dated records, identity links and evidence gaps.
Explore Asset Research ↗Search by Texas API number or browse the county inventory. Examine the dated source records and what they can — and cannot — establish.
Free public records, an interactive coverage map and planned research regions, together in Asset Research. No account or payment required.
Explore coverage and planned regions →Choose a room to explore our work. Each room shows its status; dashed outlines mark areas in preparation or planned.
Public-record research on Permian wells. Records reconciled, sources named, gaps marked.
Explore Asset Research →AVA Evidence Annex · 7-page PDF (opens in new tab)↗
EARLIER PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION · 7 PAGESPECAN 47 — Asset Evidence ReviewSelf-commissioned sample · Read PDF (opens in new tab)↗Sources connected. Claims checked. Open questions kept visible.
Start with the asset and its dated records.
Separate what is supported from what is still unknown.
Bring findings, limitations and next evidence requests together.
ZAI Asset Intelligence organizes fragmented technical, regulatory, public and provided asset evidence into structured, auditable decision support.
The objective is not to manufacture certainty. It is to expose provenance, separate knowns from unknowns, test material claims and produce a bounded body of work that can be reviewed.
What exists, what is missing and where it came from.
What the available evidence can and cannot establish.
Structured findings with limitations kept visible.
A reviewable deliverable rather than an opaque conclusion.
Begin with bounded source material, not assumptions.
Preserve where information came from and what it can support.
Test claims against explicit technical and evidentiary boundaries.
Turn validated evidence into structured technical understanding.
Keep consequential judgment and release authority with accountable people.
Deliver reviewable work with its evidence and limitations intact.
Engineering Intelligence connects systems thinking, validation architecture and traceable evidence without turning inference into fact.
| Item | Value | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Well identity | Example Unit 12 #1H | State well record | Confirmed |
| County | Example county, Texas | State well record | Confirmed |
| Lease reference | Two lease numbers in use | Well record vs. production report | Conflict |
| Last reported gas | Monthly volume, dated | Production report | Reported |
| Flaring or venting | Reported in some months | Operator filings | Reported |
| Gas composition | Not found in reviewed records | None found in this example | Missing |
| Wellhead pressure | Not found in reviewed records | None found in this example | Missing |
The source labels and statuses above are fictional examples of the format. Reported historical production does not establish gas available for a new project. Supply, access, gas quality and operating rights need direct confirmation.
Bring the asset and the question. We agree the scope before an engagement begins.
Choose the work your team needs: establish the evidence, answer one agreed question, or reconcile an integrated dossier. The fee reflects that scope and review responsibility.
“What do we actually know about this asset?”
For an asset team establishing a reliable starting point before commissioning more research.
You receive
An asset identity and source register, a dated records inventory, a discrepancy and gap register, and specific next records requests.
Starting inputs
One agreed asset, the review period and the permitted, accessible records.
Work performed
Match asset identifiers across records, preserve source dates, reconcile reported facts and expose missing or conflicting evidence.
Example of the work
A lease production total and a well record refer to different reporting units. The review makes that distinction explicit before the total is attributed to a well.
Handoff to your team
Use the reviewed evidence register in your asset file and assign the unresolved records requests to your research team.
Public evidence demonstrations
AVA STATE 36 — Featured Evidence Review
Dated public-record reconciliation, reported gas disposition and clearly documented unknowns.
Read AVA Asset Evidence Review (PDF, 9 pages) (opens in new tab)↗
Read AVA Evidence Annex (PDF, 7 pages) (opens in new tab)↗
PECAN 47 — earlier public demonstration (PDF, 7 pages) (opens in new tab)↗
Both are self-commissioned public-record examples, not commissioned or endorsed by the named operators.
“What do the reviewed records support about one agreed question?”
For an asset or research team that needs an evidence-supported answer to a defined question.
You receive
A question-specific findings memo, source-linked analysis, reproducible calculations where applicable, limitations and next research steps.
Starting inputs
One agreed asset, one accepted research question, source coverage and a defined period.
Work performed
Build the relevant comparisons and calculations, examine supporting and conflicting records, and explain what the evidence can and cannot answer.
Example of the work
How did reported gas change between two defined six-month periods? Separate total-volume change from daily-average change and distinguish reported production from available fuel.
Handoff to your team
Attach the findings and their supporting evidence to your existing research review; retain the unanswered questions alongside the conclusion.
“How do the asset records, findings and unresolved dependencies fit together?”
For a team handing a coherent asset evidence dossier between research, technical review and further document collection.
You receive
An integrated reviewed dossier with evidence-linked findings, reconciliation and coverage records, unresolved dependencies and specific next research requests.
Starting inputs
The agreed asset dossier, sources and periods, plus any accepted research questions and deliverable sections.
Work performed
Integrate identity, dated records and analysis; reconcile cross-source conflicts; connect findings to their evidence and unresolved dependencies.
Example of the work
Production history, a permit record and a gas analysis cover different subjects or dates. The dossier shows which findings remain supported and which require new evidence.
Handoff to your team
Give the receiving team one versioned dossier that preserves source references, open dependencies and the reasoning behind each finding.
A record mismatch resolved. A production claim bounded. The missing field evidence made explicit.
Read the CAPITAN reference case →
Methodology reference only. CAPITAN did not commission, purchase, endorse, approve or certify ZAI’s services.
One engagement. Its evidence. Its review. Its controlled release.
In active development; not an open self-service customer portal.
The ZAI Private Digital Office is the governed product boundary for structured engagements, evidence and reviewable outputs.
Begin here with free public-record research or a scope request. A scope check identifies the service boundary; it is not a technical approval of your asset. For accepted work, evidence preparation, human review and controlled report delivery follow.
The Private Digital Office is a separate application surface in active development, not an open self-service customer portal.
Immersion-cooled mining.Bitcoin and Zcash, designed together.
ZAI-750 concept visualisation · BTC + ZEC immersion cooling · not an installed site or a validated equipment design.
Mining hardware immersed in dielectric fluid, with heat carried to an external cooling loop.
Target concept balance. The allocation basis and final equipment sizing will be defined in engineering.
Flow, composition, pressure, access and gas-use rights need direct confirmation. Historical production alone does not establish a usable supply.
Energy at its source, immersion at the hardware, and evidence behind every environmental claim.
Identify whether gas otherwise flared or vented could support useful on-site generation. Supply, rights and the existing emissions baseline need site evidence.
Dielectric fluid takes heat from the mining hardware to an external cooling system. Pumps, heat rejection and fluid management are part of the design.
Compare the site baseline with generator emissions, methane leakage and total energy use. Record water use and cooling-fluid handling before claiming a benefit.
These are design objectives, not measured ZAI-750 outcomes. Immersion cooling alone does not establish a lower environmental impact; any claim requires a defined comparison and site measurements.
U.S. DOE · Energy-efficient data center design and U.S. EPA · Methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Accessed October 8, 2026. General design and measurement resources; neither verifies this ZAI concept, endorses it, nor establishes its environmental performance.
¹ Shared by cooling, other auxiliaries and any tuning. Performance and power draw must be measured together.
The 498.3 kW figure describes the earlier reference fleet; it does not validate the new 50/50 allocation target. Final immersion-compatible equipment, layout and loads require engineering validation within the operating cap. BTC and ZEC performance are measured separately; this target does not establish equal power consumption, machine counts or returns. No ZAI-750 installation is operating yet.
AI is an execution capability within the methodology. It is not the source of professional authority.
AI systems are tools. Human judgment directs.
The latest dated research and design notes, with their source boundaries.
The complete 9-page Asset Evidence Review and its 7-page Evidence Annex are now publicly available.
Read the Report (PDF) ↗ · Evidence Annex (PDF) ↗
Self-commissioned public-record demonstration. No operator affiliation or endorsement is implied. Not a site-qualification determination.
Source: ZAI-750 daily research brief, run 20261008001706-04a6be0dbb4f. This is a dated snapshot, not a live counter. Research candidates are not qualified sites.
Source: ZAI-750 reference design basis, October 8, 2026. Design basis only; no field-performance claim.
Start with the asset name or public reference and the decision ahead. We’ll confirm the appropriate service scope and price before any engagement. Please don’t send confidential documents. Email is our preferred starting point.
Use the scope form below, or send your question by email.
Please do not send confidential documents or information. We cannot accept non-public material at this stage. If your request would need it, tell us that first, without sending it, and we will reply in writing whether and how we can proceed.
Status snapshot · October 8, 2026
Scope determination precedes any engagement. Live checkout remains on hold.
