Addendum. After doing some AI searching, I learn that Chevron has built and operates a large central operations control in Midland Tx, fully comparable to the XOM facility albeit with a different intent. (More on that later). Oxy and other large independent Permian operators have also built local remote operations centers. Their scale depends upon size, and may also involve local service companies.

However, strategic intents appear different according to Wall Street. Chevron intends to hold Permian production at one million B/D, and use it's local control and monitoring facility to focus on max efficiency via both reducing costs and improving recovery. Oxy and the large independents seem more focused on near term cash flow focused on dividends and buybacks. Thus they may focus more on the higher productivity layers of the Permian at the risk of lower later recovery from the less attractive layers. These early "parent" wells drain reservoir pressure, also lowering future recovery from later "child" wells.

XOM intends to drive future Permian production to 2.5 million B/D. It's focus is on maximizing recovery from all zones at one time, i.e. ultimate ROIC, while still growing production to offset declines in other oil fields. To do so requires large, up-front, capex that few others can match. Chevron could, but has a different strategy.

There's another factor as well - large blocks of contiguous acreage. Some early Permian operators experimented with a "cube" development strategy. Drill all the layers in a "cube" of reservoir, and then produce them simultaneous to avoid the "parent-child" issue. When XOM entered the Permian in a major way by purchasing a large, contiguous block in the Delaware basin from the Bass family, it chose to adopt the cube approach in a massive way. This requires large upfront capex with delayed returns until all the cube wells have been drilled. But improves recovery and reduces future capex. In turn, other large Permian operators have followed the XOM approach, depending upon the size of their contiguous leases. XOM greatly expanded in the Midland basin via acquiring Pioneer. Chevron did so with Hess, and Oxy with two acquisitions. XOM is now large enough in such that it can drill 4 mile laterals, reducing the number of wells required to develop the cube. Others may be limited to 2-3 miles via the size of their contiguous acreage. It's going to be difficult for the smaller producers to compete with the big ones longer term. Hence their focus on immediate cash flows.

Re BRK, through Chevron, they have a share of sustained production. Through Oxy, long term decline would be expected, but Oxy has acquired enough acreage to keep going for significant time. Both will generate cash flow - for maybe as long as BRK thinks necessary? The beauty is that BRK is holding them as equities, so it can leave if something better pops up. As a shareholder, I've no objection to holding Oxy, but I still don't want BRK to acquire them. I don't think BRK has a "Permian" strategy per se, especially where growth is concerned.

I'm reminding my self of some famous R&H lines from South Pacific.

Who can explain it? Who can tell you why?
Fools give you answers. Wise men never try.

So I'll quit trying at this point.