EXHIBIT 23.2


             OPINION OF DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON

                      January 28, 2005


EOG Resources, Inc.
333 Clay Street, Suite 4200
Houston, Texas 77002

Gentlemen:

     Pursuant to your request, we have prepared estimates of
the proved crude oil, condensate, natural gas liquids, and
natural gas reserves, as of December 31, 2004, of certain
selected properties in the United States, Canada, Trinidad,
and the United Kingdom owned by EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG).
The properties consist of working and royalty interests
located in California, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming and offshore from
Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama; in Alberta and Saskatchewan,
Canada; offshore from Trinidad; and offshore from the United
Kingdom.  The estimates are reported in detail in our
"Report as of December 31, 2004 on Proved Reserves of
Certain Properties in the United States owned by EOG
Resources, Inc. Selected Properties," our "Report as of
December 31, 2004 on Proved Reserves of Certain Properties
in Canada owned by EOG Resources, Inc. Selected Properties,"
our "Report as of December 31, 2004 of the U(A) Block
Offshore Trinidad owned by EOG Resources, Inc.," our "Report
as of December 31, 2004 of the SECC and U(B) Blocks Offshore
Trinidad owned by EOG Resources, Inc.," and our "Report as
of December 31, 2004 on Reserves of the Valkyrie and Arthur
Fields Offshore United Kingdom owned by EOG Resources,
Inc.," hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Reports."  We also have reviewed information provided to us
by EOG that it represents to be EOG's estimates of the
reserves, as of December 31, 2004, for the same properties
as those included in the Reports.

     Proved reserves estimated by us and referred to herein
are judged to be economically producible in future years
from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating
conditions and assuming continuation of current regulatory
practices using conventional production methods and
equipment.  Proved reserves are defined as those that have
been proved to a high degree of certainty by reason of
actual completion, successful testing, or in certain cases
by adequate core analyses and electrical-log interpretation
when the producing characteristics of the formation are
known from nearby fields.  These reserves are defined
areally by reasonable geological interpretation of structure
and known continuity of oil- or gas-saturated material.
This definition is in agreement with the definition of
proved reserves prescribed by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).

     EOG represents that its estimates of the proved
reserves, as of December 31, 2004, net to its interests in
the properties included in the Reports are as follows,
expressed in thousands of barrels (Mbbl) or millions of
cubic feet (MMcf):

Oil, Condensate and    Natural       Net
Natural Gas Liquids      Gas      Equivalent
     (Mbbl)             (MMcf)      (MMcf)

     67,248           3,957,888   4,361,376

Note: Net equivalent million cubic feet is based
      on 1 barrel of oil, condensate, or natural
      gas liquids being equivalent to 6,000
      cubic feet of gas.

     EOG has advised us, and we have assumed, that its
estimates of proved oil, condensate, natural gas liquids,
and natural gas reserves are in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the SEC.

     Proved reserves net to EOG's interests estimated by us
for the properties included in the Reports, as of December
31, 2004, are as follows, expressed in thousands of barrels
(Mbbl) or millions of cubic feet (MMcf):

Oil, Condensate and    Natural       Net
Natural Gas Liquids      Gas      Equivalent
     (Mbbl)             (MMcf)      (MMcf)


     65,667           4,005,189   4,399,191

Note: Net equivalent million cubic feet is based
      on 1 barrel of oil, condensate, or natural
      gas liquids being equivalent to 6,000
      cubic feet of gas.

     In making a comparison of the detailed reserves
estimates prepared by us and by EOG of the properties
involved, we have found differences, both positive and
negative, in reserves estimates for individual properties.
These differences appear to be compensating to a great
extent when considering the reserves of EOG in the
properties included in the Reports, resulting in overall
differences not being substantial. It is our opinion that
the reserves estimates prepared by EOG on the properties
reviewed by us and referred to above, when compared on the
basis of net equivalent million cubic feet of gas, do not
differ materially from those prepared by us.

                              Submitted,

                              /s/ DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
                              DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON