Diamondback Energy, Inc.

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Diamondback Energy First Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 1-1 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Adam Lawless, VP of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Lauren. Good morning and welcome to Diamondback Energy's First Quarter 2025 Conference Call. During our call today, we will reference an updated investor presentation and letter to stockholders which can be found on Diamondback's website. Representing Diamondback today are Travis Deist, Chairman and CEO, Kate Fantoff, President, Danny Weston, COO, Jerry Thompson, CSO. During this conference call, participants may make certain forward-looking statements relating to the company's financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and businesses. We caution you that actual results could differ materially from those that are indicated in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. Information concerning these factors can be found in the company's fileings with SEC. In addition, we will make reference to certain on-gap measures. The reconciliation with the appropriate gap measures can be found in our earnings release issue yesterday afternoon. Now I'll turn the call over to Travis

Deist. Thank you, Adam. I hope everyone has had a chance to review our stockholder letter that was released last night. Most of our commentary today will be found inside that letter. Operator, would you please open the line for questions?

Thank you. At this time, we will conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. One moment while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from the line of Neil Mehta with Goldman Sachs & Co. Your line is now open.

Yeah, good morning, Travis Case. And Travis, congratulations, this is your position for retirement. And Case, congratulations again on taking on the new role. I think some important news this morning around changes in the activity plans and in response to obviously what is a tougher oil macro. So Travis Case, can you spend some time talking about the thought process that went into the decision and how you're thinking about the approach from here?

Sure, Neil, you know, our job is to allocate capital and allocate capital for the most profit we can for the shareholders who own the company. Part of our role is we have to have a view of the macro as we allocate capital. And the current view of the macro is certainly challenging at best. Over the weekend, OPEC made the decision to put an extra million barrels a day on the market in what's already an oversupplied world. And we still are looking at headwinds with what we're seeing as slowing economies around the world, which obviously has a read through to demand. So what we tried to put together was a response to those kind of macro conditions, which by taking, you know, $400 million out of our capital budget and three drilling rigs and one frac spread, allowed us to maximize the capex reduction while minimizing volume impact. And at the same token, provide us a runway for maximum flexibilities to respond in either direction in the future quarters as this evolving supply and demand imbalance works its way through the system. So that's sort of the background of what we talked to the board about, you know, well before Saturday's decision by OPEC and again, it's stemmed with how can we create the most value when we allocate capital. And when you look at what we've done with this announcement, we've actually made our program more capital efficient by spending less dollars this year.

Yeah, Travis, the follow up on that is we've certainly reduced your cash capex by $400 million. The impact on production is not that significant at least for 2025. And so is that a function of the delay between changes in activity and in production or is that you guys were just really tracking well in terms of your productivity to start the year from?

Yeah, let me give you some color on that because I think it's important, right? You know, on the outside, it looks like a 1% hit to production, but if you just look at Q2, you know, peak to trough, we're going to probably, you know, be down 20,000 net barrels of oil a day, you know, which on a gross basis is close to 30. So, you know, we had a great April, things were humming along, we were well over 500,000 net barrels of oil a day. Obviously now, you know, hitting the brakes a little bit with the reduction in the frac crews. And so if you think about it, you know, we're about 475,000 barrels a day net Q1, you know, Q2 guys, round numbers is about 495. And then we're going to decline off a bit into Q3 down to about 485. And, you know, at that point in today's market, you know, hold that flat. So, you know, on the outside, it looks like a flattish program, but, you know, and this is why we've kind of been saying that we think, you know, gross oil production's coming down in the Permian in the US. You just look at ours, for example, you know, going from five frac crews down to four is going to be a 30,000 barrel a day impact in just a quarter.

Thank you, Kay. Thanks, Trev.

Thank you. Thanks, Neil.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Scott Hanold with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Yeah, thanks. And, Travis, again, congrats, too, on your next stage. And look, I would say it's unfortunate it has to be on a bad macro note, but I think it's, you know, a testament to what you've created that Dimeback's able to kind of manage to this, you know, pretty well. My first question is, you're welcome. My first question is just your broad view of the oil macro. I thought it was pretty interesting in your investor letter, how you thought the US oil production was ready to roll over. And obviously you all have some pretty good eyes and feelers out on the ground. Can you give us a sense of what you're seeing real time in the Permian Basin and other places, and your view on maybe where oil production goes from here? And it's more of a US perspective versus Dimeback one?

Sure, well, certainly as the Permian Basin goes, US production is gonna follow that. And you know, at roughly six million barrels of oil a day, we've got a base decline that we have to offset every year of about two and a half million barrels a day. And it doesn't take much capital to come out of the equation for that base decline to really be seen in production. And so, you know, you can apply that also, you know, to the 13 million barrels a day that the US is producing, that's roughly four and a half or five million barrels a day of production and has to be replaced. So I think as capital continues to come out of the investment equation, you know, this decline that we're on is really gonna be magnified. And, you know, because we are in the more mature stage of the development, this is not one of the types of declines that can be offset by improved efficiencies, although we highlighted continued efficiency gains at the Dimeback level in the quarterly results. But we're picking pennies up now. And when we were going through this, you know, earlier in our history, you know, probably most recently, 2014 and early 15, you know, we were able to pick up, you know, dimes and quarters back then. And it's just where we are in the maturation cycle of, you know, depleting these resources that I think you're gonna see, you know, a really remarkable response on this base decline that's part of the equation. Yeah,

Scott, you know, we've been kind of well-trained in SHEL, right? This is the fourth time we've had to do this in 10 years, you know, the worst being five years ago, and you saw how quickly SHEL responded. You know, I think the only thing I would add to Travis's comments is, you know, the operators that, you know, we talked to in the field that live in, you know, work in Midland are, you know, right now pushing everything to the right, right, every little five to eight-well program that was gonna get drilled is now, you know, gonna get drilled and probably not completed or drilled later. And so all those little anecdotes start to add up, and, you know, you add that into what the companies like Diamondback are doing, and that starts to add up pretty quickly. So, you know, I think for us, you know, let's get this over with, you know, and move forward, because the other side of this is gonna be great for those that are left, and it's gonna be a great day for Diamondback shareholders.

And, you know, the comment I made, Scott, on the tipping point, you know, in US production, it just depends on how low and how low oil price goes and how long it lasts. But the scenario is with this base decline that's so extreme is that the amount of capital required to, you know, get back to, you know, 13 million barrels a day or six million barrels a day in a premium, you know, might be an untenable lift for the business model that we put in place where we're returning so much back to our investors that own the company. So that's sort of the final analysis is, you know, how low do we get, and then what is the reinvestment rate going to be required to, you know, to get production back up or to get it to start growing again?

Yeah, I appreciate the commentary. It definitely feels like it's a have and have not situation. And, you know, Kay's, you know, look, you gave a little bit of color on, you know, 2H this year, and you kind of mentioned, you know, in your brief comments just a while ago, you know, it's time to get over this and move forward. Like as Dimeback thinks about like moving forward in 2026, you know, what is it going to take, you know, for you guys to move maintenance mode in? And can you just give a little color on the setup for 2026 considering, you know, obviously we're declining and flattening out in the back half of the year?

Yeah, that's a good question, Scott. I mean, I think the key point for us is that we're not sacrificing anything in 2026 today. You know, we expect to run four crews here for probably the next, you know, three months, depending on where prices go. If things get worse, we could go lower. But, you know, basically the plan, you know, points to us bringing back a fifth crew and leveling off at 485,000 barrels of oil a day in Q4. You know, we'll still end the year with more ducts than we've ever had and more flexibility than we've ever had to increase production in 2026 should prices respond. And, you know, in my mind, that's a $65, $70 plus world where, you know, OPEC's spare capacity is lower and we have a healthier macro. So I'm hoping for that day. You know, we'd like to get back to that, you know, 500,000 barrels of oil a day net plus plan. But, you know, it seems like it's a long way away today

with the next couple quarters we have. And I think, Scott, just to finish this commentary, you know, I think our shareholders are lucky that Diamondback has such a long inventory because, you know, while this base decline that I talked about at the macro will present itself for Diamondback as well, in case gave you some very specific numbers for that, the breadth and depth of our inventory allows us to be, you know, more insulated from that than other investment opportunities where the inventory is a lot shorter or shorter and of less quality. So I hope that makes sense, but that's kind of how we think about, you know, 2026 and 2027.

Appreciate the comments and again, Travis, congrats.

Thank you, Scott.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of David Dekelbaum with TD Security. Your line is now open.

Thanks for the time, guys, and Travis, thanks for candid thoughts and the letter. Good luck to everyone in the roles ahead. Maybe, Kase, you could follow up a bit or anyone, perhaps Danny, just talking about sort of the optimal duck load. Obviously, you elected to drop the rigs and not build further ducks with the one frac crew coming down. Sounds like net-net this plan you're drawing down, perhaps, for building 20 fewer ducks this year going into next year. How do we think about the variables for maybe keeping those rigs and building a duck backlog in the context of what the right amount of duck inventory level is for you going into the next couple of years, or is it more of a function of where you expect drilling rig rates to be coming down in the ensuing quarters?

Yeah, I mean, look, we're carrying probably the largest duck backlog in North America right now. And so, there's not a world where we're looking at building ducks, gross ducks, the top line level. So, the new plan, we're drawing down less ducks than we were in the original plan. I think probably a rule of thumb is for every frac crew you have running, you need one and a half to two pads of duck inventory behind, ahead of those pads. So, ahead of those crews, if we're gonna run five crews, you gotta have 10 pads-ish worth of duck backlog and call it eight to 12 wells a pad. So, that kinda gets you to a comfortable duck backlog inventory for a run rate. We're probably sitting at the end of this year another 100 wells above that number, depending on what prices do in the back half of this year.

And David, we put the comment in our letter that traditionally we would build more ducks in this environment, but our largest input costs on drilling wells, so let's just say that drilling a well costs $200 a foot, about $2 million. The cost of casing is $650,000 a well now, and that is up 12% quarter over quarter due to tariff impacts. So, we think that the demand side, as the rate count reduces, steel prices come back down, and we can look at logically bringing some rigs back to build ducks if costs are cheap, but that capital allocation decision today tells us drop the rigs, buy back stock.

Appreciate the color. And then maybe just as a follow-up, just given the environment we're in now, have your expectations changed with the ability to execute on some of the non-operated or non-core sales or the anticipated water infrastructure sale to Deep Blue?

Yeah, you know, listen, Deep Blue obviously is a subsidy, essentially a subsidiary of ours, we own 30% of it. We think the EDS, which is the Endeavor water system, logically belongs in Deep Blue, would make that business the largest water handler in the Midland Basin, and it seems that water has started to get a lot more attention in the public market, so I don't see that sale or deal being pushed too far to the right, just because we want to get those two businesses integrated and ready for what's next. Outside of that, we obviously participated a little bit in the sale of Bangle, the NGL-512 and PLX, that should close in July, and the last big piece of our equity method investments is the Epic Pipeline, which we own .5% of. I think that probably is a slower process today than it was three months ago, but I think lessons learned from past down cycles is that we don't have to force asset sales. We can be patient. I think we're gonna get a couple wins on the board, but we don't have to hit a specific number by a specific period of time, because we think the market's gonna recover, the balance sheet's strong, and we can be patient.

Appreciate it, guys. Thanks, David.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of John Freeman with Raymond James. Your line is now open.

Good morning, and congratulations again, Travis, on a fantastic career. I wanna follow up on some of the prior commentary, and again, really appreciate the leadership that y'all are showing with this meaningful reduction in activity, both in the shareholder letter and in those comments here earlier on the call. You talked about that $65, $70 oil price world where you'd look to maybe put your foot back on the accelerator, and I just wanna dig in a little bit more. Should we think of it as even if your cost structure was to continue to move lower due to service costs, efficiencies, whatever, and returns continue to improve, y'all would still probably wait until you're in a $65, $70 world before you'd wanna put your foot on the accelerator. Am I thinking about that right?

Yeah, that's right, John. I just think we wanna be patient. I think there's a lot of uncertainty on both the demand and the supply side. In our mind, the supply side's gonna figure itself out pretty quickly here, but demand obviously is something I'm not an expert in, right? We're experts in US shale and US supply and what we're seeing in the field. In my mind, a $70 plus crude environment is a relatively healthy environment, and that would be an appropriate time to bring some capital back into the equation.

Got it, and then y'all did highlight what you've seen in terms of the impact on your steel-related products with the tariffs on casing being up 12% since last quarter, but we're able to lower your middle and basin cost per foot guidance yet again, and just hoping you could maybe speak to the puts and takes that are allowing you to offset what you're seeing on the casing side.

Yeah, first of all, the team's had an incredible first quarter. We put some highlights in the deck. Under eight days average per well, 120 plus wells is a pretty impressive feat. So, I think we're on the lower end of our efficiencies, which is good, and I think unfortunately, the rest of that reduction is likely to come from the service environment here with rigs coming down and frac crews coming down, but I'll let Danny opine on what he's seeing in real time.

Yeah, I think we put some details out there around casing, and the 10% increase is about $6 a foot or so on the drilling portion of the well, so it's really not a huge number, and like I said, the execution from the drilling and completion teams is really driving the cost speed, and I think we anticipate that there's gonna be lower activity in the basin, which usually leads to lower service pricing. There's a lot of volatility out there right now with input costs and tariffs, but we do expect that, but activity is gonna come out of this basin in a meaningful way, and that should have a trickle down effect to pricing.

Thanks guys, appreciate it.

Thanks,

John.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Arun Jairam with JP Morgan Securities LLC, your line is now open.

Yeah, good morning, gentlemen. Travis Case, you highlighted how the trajectory of oil volumes could trend, call it to 485 in the second half of 25. Danny mentioned you'll have kind of a really high duck backlog, you know, kind of going into this period. I was just wondering if you could help us think about 2026 capex to keep that 485 flat, all else being equal, would a 900 million or per quarter run rate seem reasonable, you know, based on what we know today?

Yeah, Arun, I mean, I think that's reasonable. You know, I hope that doesn't end up being the plan, but you know, clearly with service costs coming down, efficiencies high, you know, a little lower production base, you know, I think that's logical. You know, we also had a few more one-time items in the budget this year that will be reduced next year. So I think that's a logical baseline. You know, again, I'm kind of hoping that the market recovers quickly here, and we can be talking about 500 plus thousand barrels of oil a day next year, but I think we gotta wait a few months here to see where things settle out.

Understood, that's helpful. Maybe my follow-up is in the shareholder letter, Travis, you mentioned how Diamondback will allocate a higher mix of free cash flow to repurchases if the volatility continues. I was wondering how you and Case think about kind of balancing, you know, leverage, you know, reducing leverage versus buybacks, and perhaps tell us how you think about, you know, give us a sense of what type of mix could we see towards the return of free cash flow to shareholders versus the 50-50, you know, kind of overall guidance.

Yeah, you know, listen, I think obviously improving the balance sheet is important, but I think that the best, the smartest capital allocation decision today is to repurchase shares. You know, I think generally around, you know, round numbers probably allocate 25 to 30% of free cash flow to paying down debt. You know, you saw that we repurchased some of our longer-dated notes at well below par, you know, those notes that come down in price due to the 30-year treasury blowing out, so we took advantage of that. I think you can expect to see more things like that on the debt side. You know, I think some of our non-core asset sales coming in, you know, should reduce our term loan we put in place for a two-year term loan that we put in place for the double-legal closing. And then you get to the other 75% of free cash flow or 70% of free cash flow, and in our minds, you know, that needs to be allocated to 100% repurchases and the base dividend. You know, I think obviously the variable dividend is out the window at these prices, and you know, repurchasing shares grows per share of all volumes and per share cash flow and free cash flow when the market recovers.

Great. Travis, best of wishes to you. If you do write the book, I look forward to the chapter on how you got the Endeavor deal with Case to the finish line.

Thank you, Eric. It was all Travis. Thank you, Eric.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research. Your line is now open.

Good morning. If I think about the capital reductions, you guys get to choose which crews you keep, and you guys get to choose which locations you drill. To what degree are those real levers where you're making choices, or are those, you know, most of the crews are about the same and most of the locations are about the same?

Yeah, I mean, I think from an execution standpoint, most of our resources, you know, on the service side are, you know, pretty well in line with each other, you know, and so there's not a lot of high grading that's going to occur and, you know, slowing down the activity. It really becomes, you know, a commercial decision and discussions with our business partners on, you know, who's going to work with us as activity comes down. And, you know, on the project side of things, our job is to always try to allocate capital to the best projects. And, you know, I think if you look at the consistency of our program over the past few years, it kind of speaks to the consistency of the projects we're doing. So, again, there's not a whole lot of high grading to be done in the projects themselves. I think, you know, you will see us probably prioritize the projects where Viper has interest so we can continue to support Viper in that regard. But, you know, I don't think there's material high grading to be done in the PADS or resource allocation.

And that's a blessing of having an outstanding inventory as well, too. You know, we're still allocating wells with very small range of outcomes because they're the top quartile of our inventory. And as Danny pointed out, we've been doing that for several years now. So, again, durability of inventory matters when you go into one of these cycles. And that's what our shareholders are lucky to have with Diamondback.

Yeah, that's very clear. Quick follow up. At your run rate, you're going to get through the remainder of your share buyback authorization. That's a trivial exercise to top up when you need to.

Yeah, you know, we thought about looking at it this quarter, but felt that we want to get through another quarter. There's probably enough noise with all the changes in the capital plan this quarter. And, you know, we'll discuss it with the board. But I think the board is certainly behind management in believing that buybacks are the right thing at these levels. And, you know, we expect to increase it when we get closer to the to the authorization.

Very good. Thanks and congrats. Thank you, Bob.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Scott Gruber with Citigroup. Your line is now open.

Yes, good morning. I found the the comment in the shareholder letter about geologic headwinds, outpacing technology and process efficiency gains. Interesting. I assume that's a broader industry comment. So I'm curious, do you see the technology and process efficiency gains slowing from here or are the geologic headwinds becoming more severe, just the more color behind that comment and kind of what's changing on the margin?

Yeah, I think that's a natural evolution of a maturing basin. I mean, we've been now exploiting this Shell resource in the Permian Basin for 15 years. And we still expect, you know, some some R&D and some, you know, some really innovative breakthroughs coming. But in a general sense, as dollars get allocated to lower and lower quality inventory and the longer you're in the game, if you're focused on excellence in execution, you know, your your natural decline will be impacted where you're making less improvements than you did early on in the development of that asset. So it's more of a general comment that, you know, from my experience, we've seen play out in the Eagleford, the Bakken and some of these other in the Barnett Shale in the early days as you continue to deplete these reservoirs.

OK, got it. And then coming back to the the cost saving side of things, you know, as you selected which rigs and frac crews were retained, were you able to capture some immediate savings, you know, from those that that the crews that you retained or are you seeing service companies more willing to do blend and extends with any contracts in place? I'm just curious about kind of how quickly you're able to secure some statements from your service providers.

Well, I'll give a high level comment. I think for us, you know, we've always tried to have very short term contracts so that we can have these conversations quickly, both on the completion side and the drilling side. You know, I think it's kind of a different story on both sides. On the drilling side, we use a multitude of contractors and, you know, those conversations are probably more fluid. You know, on the completion side, you know, we've always been big fans of the Haliburton, Zeus, E fleets. We run four of those today. And so I think I truly think that that relationship is more of a business partner type relationship where we're going to get through it together. But I'll let Danny give some some details. Yeah, I think, you know, case kind of

kind of hit the nail on the head. We

are

constantly in commercial negotiations with our service providers based on market conditions and, you know, what we're seeing in the pricing market and, you know, what kind of service quality we're receiving from them. And, you know, so when we when we lower activity internally, it's a discussion with all of them on, you know, who's going to be willing to work with us and, you know, as the market can soften more broadly, we'll continue to have those conversations. You know, I think cases that before every day is RFQ day, Diamondback. And, you know, we continue to just keep our ear to the ground on where the service market is and, you know, want to recognize the best commercial value for for our shareholders and those discussions around our procurement process.

Great. Appreciate the color.

Thanks,

Scott.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Philip J. Jungworth with BMO. Your line is now open.

Thanks. Good morning, guys. Morning. On the macro commentary around US oil production, one of the things analysts often underappreciated in the downturn is just the industry's ability to high grade capital, and this could include coring up to more tier one or two acreage, private activity getting cut at a faster rate or just targeting more primary zones or upspacing. So wondering how you see that high grading ability today for the Permian more broadly. And is there any reason, as Chael's more mature, to think that this could be less upside to capital efficiency for the industry than we've seen in prior downturns?

Yeah, kind of relative to my prior comment about, you know, we're in the later stages of development of these resources. You know, I would argue that most of the high grading has been occurring over the last three to four years as all of these zones, particularly the Permian, have been well defined and the focus has been on efficient execution. So if someone hasn't been allocating capital to their very, very best projects, well, then I guess they can take this opportunity to do that. But our reconnaissance and monitoring of the industry says that, you know, everyone's trying to drill the best stuff first, and that's the way we think it's going to play out in the

future. Yeah, I think, you know, if you look at this, the market today, just generally, you know, balance sheets are healthier, free cash flows being generated. And so what we're trying to say is, you know, I think in the past, the decision to cut capital was to protect the balance sheet for a lot of, particularly when there's a, you know, multitude of smid caps and mid caps that are no longer here. And now today, I think, I think decisions are being made to preserve precious inventory because inventory is scarce. I think the plays are well defined. There hasn't been, you know, there's little things going on around the basin, like the Dean plan, Dawson County, Middle Sprayberry down in Hector County, things that are adding resource, but not nearly to the level of what we saw in the past down cycles. So I think decisions to cut capital and defer turn lines or defer inventory is being made to preserve inventory life rather than, you know, protect balance sheet.

Great, thanks. And then there's been a number of gas pipeline projects that have been further along the Gulf Coast. What's your appetite currently for incremental FT on gas? It looks like Waha tightens materially in 2027. You also have power opportunities. And how's that influenced by any expectations around future permean oil growth?

Yeah, sadly, the gas growth is going to continue out of the basin, you know, in our, in our models. So, you know, we're going to keep putting more FT on the balance sheet. I think we have a lot of confidence in what we've committed to. We have about a 750 million a day total commitments that will be in place by the end of 26. You know, we are reserving some space for power generation should that come to fruition in the basin. But in general, I think you can expect us to continue to support, you know, new pipelines out of the basin. You even there's even some talk of pipelines going west. We'll see if that happens. But, you know, we want to have a diverse, a diverse set of marketing arrangements on the gas side. And, you know, I think we generally believe in the long term gas thesis and so therefore should make some more money off of our gas.

Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Derek Whitfield of Texas Capital. Your line is now open.

Good morning, all. I echo everyone's congrats and also appreciate your capital discipline leadership as well.

Thank you, Derek.

With my first question, I'd like to use your driving analogy from the investor letter and ask what price do you see as the next natural tipping point in activity or the point where you firmly press on the brakes, assuming current service costs?

Yeah, we like that analogy, too. But, you know, I think I think red is probably something with a four in front of it. I would say yellow is something with a five in front of it. And in green needs to be, you know, somewhere in the mid to high 60s with a path to 70 to accelerate through that green light.

And then thinking about your DNC activity or non DNC activity, could you offer some perspective on the amount of non DNC capital you could take out of the business if we were to assume a more protracted period of lower prices?

Yeah, you know, we lowered our non DNC budget by about 50 million at the midpoint. You know, we do think if we ever get our midstream business, you know, merged into deep blue, that would take another 50 to 60 million out of our non DNC budget. You know, but there's some pretty interesting things we're doing on the non DNC side. You know, some of these capital workovers that we've put in the budget are starting to, you know, pay dividends and help improve the base decline. So, you know, I think those projects stay in there. But, you know, as the total amount of wells turned in line goes down, the, you know, the associated infrastructure, you know, also goes down or gets pushed to the right. So I think we had a good cut, you know, for what we what we said today. But mentioned earlier in the call that there are some onetime things in the budget this year that are probably coming out next year as well. So we always try to get that non DNC budget number down. And I think it's I think it's headed that way, even in a flat environment next year.

That's great. Thanks for your time.

Thanks, Derek. Thank you.

Our next question comes in line of Kevin McCurdy with Pickering Energy Partners. Your line is now open.

And good morning. Good morning, Travis and Kase. In past cycles, Dimeback has been a consolidator and has taken advantage of M&A opportunities, you know, taking back to the COVID years. Is that different this time? I know that Double Eagle was the last coveted undeveloped position in the Midland Basin. But are there other ways that you guys are kind of thinking about taking advantage of industry distress on the M&A front?

Yeah, Kevin, I mean, that's a good question. We've obviously been very busy over the last over the last year and a half with Endeavour and Double Eagle. You know, those are two premier, premier assets that in our mind, you know, wouldn't be available in a more volatile environment. So we're fortunate that we took advantage and consolidated those two when we could. I think, you know, I think we're in the period right now where there's so much noise and volatility that not a lot gets done. You know, I think we have to be very patient on our side. I think we're very focused on reducing our share count and getting, you know, the best of it. So anything that we would look at would have to be extremely, extremely cheap. And I just don't think we're there yet today.

Appreciate that. Just one question for me. Thanks.

Thanks,

Kevin.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Charles Mead with Johnson Rice. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Travis, Case and Danny. Travis, you made up, you made up, I'm not sure how much you intended to, but you, I think you made a big splash with your shareholder letter. And I'm curious, you know, it's titled letter to shareholders, but, but are there other audiences you had in mind as you, as you pen that letter and, and, you know, I'm thinking it could be the, the Midland community more broadly or the permeabase community, Washington policymakers, policymakers, or even OPEC, perhaps.

Yeah, you know, Charles, the intent of that letter is for our stockholders and they're the ones that own the company and are making future investment decisions based on the way management allocates capital. So, you know, we always focus that letter on as if they are our only audience. But we also recognize that this is a public document and based on some of the feedback we've seen overnight, it's reasonable to expect others that read that letter besides just our, just our stockholders. So, you know, I wouldn't necessarily intimate that there was any other, you know, effort out there besides communicating to our stockholders, but we weren't, you know, we're at least aware that, you know, that this was a message that was going to be read by, by more than just our stockholders.

Yeah, it sounds like you've seen a lot of messages already this morning. Travis, I want to go back to, to Scott Gruber's question, just push a little bit further on the, on the rate of change. You talked about the headwinds, the geological headwinds and the tailwinds of more efficiencies, you talked about the rate of change on the efficiency. You said, you know, you said we were picking up, you know, quarters, dimes and nickels, and now we're picking up pennies on the efficiency side. What, what is the rate of change feel like on the geologic headwind side? Is it, is it kind of a persistent, you know, headwind that's just now, you know, bound, kind of balanced out versus the pennies or is it picking up?

Yeah, I mean, I think we think it's picking up, you know, these plays are very well defined now, right? I mean, I think if you look at past down cycles, we've, we've always learned something in the down cycle, whether it's a new completion design, you know, co-development, spacing studies. So we're certainly not going to let this slow down go to waste and we're going to learn something coming out of it. I don't know what it is today. But, you know, the basin has been well tested by, you know, 300 plus rigs, used to be 600 plus rigs, you know, over the last 10 years. So I think what we're trying to say is, you know, we're, we're drilling average wells, average 10,000 foot wells in eight days. There's not, you know, three, four more days to come out of those on, on average and therefore the cost side of the equation is going to be harder to get down by 10 or 20%. And this is why we've been so aggressive on building our resource base and our inventory, because we, we feel like, you know, from a, from a scale perspective, the vast majority of the inventory in the basin has been well defined.

Got it. That is helpful color. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Chang with Scotiabank. Your line is open.

Thank you. Hey, come on in guys. Um, Charles, I saw Casey, I just curious that, I mean, based on your comment, uh, is the business model need to be changed? I mean, historically that the company is growth for acquisition and have a growth, uh, bias. Uh, but if the, uh, if you're ready, consolidate most of the, uh, the best offset is that means that you have to go outside the permit or that the time business model perhaps that need to be changed going forward.

Yeah, Paul, I don't think there's a need to go outside the Permian because I don't see any other basin and certainly in the U S that has, um, that has the inventory quality and depth of the Permian. You know, we, we have a big, we have a big motto internally and it's no, you don't know, and we're really, really good at the Permian basin. We're really, really good at drilling wells in the Permian basin. And that's our, you know, that's our expertise. So I don't, I don't think we need to, to go outside the basin. You know, on the business model comment, you know, I think we've grown the business through acquisition. We're obviously extremely large now. Um, you know, we've always focused on per share metrics. I think there's still a world where we grow per share metrics significantly with our current asset base. And, you know, while, while it's a long way off from today, I do think there's going to be a time period where significant organic growth is going to be required from someone like Dynabek to fill the gap in US supply that, you know, probably, probably struggles over the next five to 10 years. And that, that in our mind is what we've been positioning the company for long term, you know, for that proverbial pot of gold on the end of the rainbow. And, you know, we're last man standing in the basin, drilling high return wells at high oil prices.

The second question is that just curious, is that something happened in the first quarter in the NGO and natural gas production seems like dropping far more than that type curve we have suggest.

Yeah, we had some adjustments that we made to some contracts that went from fixed fee to POP percent of proceeds. And, you know, we think that that reverses a bit in, in Q2. So I think you can run essentially 55% oil as your baseline for us going forward.

Okay. We do. Thank you.

Thanks Paul.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Leo Mariani with Ross. Your line is now open.

I just wanted to ask about a couple of these cost items, certainly in your guidance looks like LOE came down a little bit, but transportation rose a little bit, not sure if that's related to perhaps some of the adjustments you just talked about on the gas and then GL slide, but just looking for a little bit of color there.

Yeah, I'll take GPT quickly and give LOE to Danny. But GPT basically we decided to take more molecules in kind on the gas side. So GPT goes up, but our gas realizations as a percent of, you know, NYMEX should go up a little bit. So that's the ship there. And I'll let Danny talk about the decrease in LOE. Yeah, on

the LOE side, really we had a little bit of one time issue or noise around the Endeavor Close with regards to some of the water business. And, you know, we anticipate that, you know, there's a little conservatism based around the close and we anticipate that LOE will come up from the one queue number, but, you know, we do like a little lower number than we had originally planned for the year. And so, you know, we like our forward guide for LOE and know that it's going to come up from one queue, but, you know, we'll be lower than we originally planned.

Which is a good thing. Why don't you just ask a little bit more kind of around the buyback here. So you guys were kind of good enough to kind of articulate your sort of red light, yellow light, kind of green light, you know, sort of activity levels, you know, with some good oil price kind of commentary there. Should we really kind of think about the buyback kind of being, you know, sort of in the opposite direction? So when you guys are kind of green light and we're 65 plus, you know, oil approaching 70, should we just naturally assume that the buyback comes down a little bit? We're obviously in the red light situation. It's where you guys kind of push the pedal a little bit more. Is that generally how you're kind of thinking about the framework?

Yeah, that's right. You know, I think that's a great way to think about it. And it's, you know, as we said in the letter, in our minds, the first test of our new business model of, you know, high free cash generation, high return of capital and, you know, making the right decision to, you know, cut drilling cutbacks in exchange for buying back shares at these levels. So, you know, again, I think in today's environment, it makes sense to pay down, continue to pay down some debt, but allocate more capital to the buyback. You know, again, we see our dividend as a fixed obligation and, you know, every million shares we get rid of in the market is a four million reduction, four million dollar reduction annually to our dividend payment. So that that in our mind translates to about a three and a half to four percent dividend yield, depending on the depending on the day. And, you know, that's a fixed obligation that goes away.

Thank

you. Thanks, Leo.

Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Kalei Akhamein with Bank of America. Your line is now open.

Good morning, guys. I've got a couple here. Maybe first, can you talk about frac efficiency? I think on a prior call, you guys mentioned that you were doing 100 per year, kind of up from 80 and you've highlighted visibility on call at 120. Now, if all four fleets are doing 120, then I think you're replacing a good chunk of one So can you just update us on where the progress is with respect to that goal? And if you kind of get these efficiencies before oil gets back to 65, I guess there wouldn't be much to add back.

Yeah, I mean, we always look at, you know, what is the will count required to, you know, execute our plan? But I certainly think the completion team has done a fantastic job of driving execution efficiencies. You know, I think we highlighted in the release that, you know, they're completing, you know, mid 3000 feet per day on average, but we've certainly seen them touch well above 4000 feet per day on a pad. And so, you know, we know that's possible and we know that, you know, that number of 100 to 120 wells a year per crew is certainly achievable. It's just doing the things we need to do from a well board construction, from a pad configuration and water infrastructure standpoint to be able to, you know, execute to that level on a programmatic basis. And I don't I don't think we're that far away from from being able to achieve that. And certainly once we do, you know, it just means less fleets to achieve our our total well count for the program.

Thanks for that. The second one is on the 25 capital range. It's kind of been lowered here, but it's not been narrowed. So 400 million dollars spread between the low and the high end. Can you help us understand the path to the lower number, 3.4, i.e. what needs to go right to hit that number?

You know, I don't think it's going to be necessarily be a positive thing for the macro if we got to the low end, right. At 3, 4, that's kind of the use the analogy, the red light scenario sub 50, you know, probably dropping another crew. You know, I do think, you know, the midpoint at today's service prices is is kind of the world where we level off at four hundred eighty five thousand barrels of oil a day in Q3 and bring back a fifth crew to stay there in Q4. So that's kind of midpoint. You know, high end feels far away today. But, you know, there is a world where prices do snap back and we want to get back to our five hundred thousand barrels of oil a day run rate. And well, that seems far away today. It would be a good problem to have.

Thanks, Kees.

Thank you.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone. Our next question comes from the line of Doug Leggett with Wolf Research. Your line is now open.

Hey guys, thanks for for getting me on. Case and Travis again, I'll add my congrats to both you guys and I look forward to see what's next. I want to ask a question about the capital efficiency because you made quite a big deal about that in your in your presentation deck. And I kind of want to walk you through the matter quickly. You've cut four hundred million dollars off your capital and you've lost five five million barrels for the year. So I'm trying to understand what's the trade off to decide to add that capital back? Because it seems to me that you get higher free cash flow in the current plan than you would if you added four hundred million back to get five million barrels. So how do you think about sustaining capital and what's your optimization decision around that? I've got a quick follow up, please.

Yeah, I think I think the nuance there is the path of the production throughout the year. Right. You know, we were well above five hundred thousand barrels of oil a day net in April declining off. And so you put this big gap in activity in the middle of the year. You know, it's really not a full year run rate number. So I think it comes down to what what what level of production you sustaining and how much capital does it take? And I still think that if we were at five hundred thousand barrels of oil a day run rate, we're closer to a billion dollars a quarter of CapEx, you know, but down to four eighty five, four eighty. You know, it's closer to this this nine hundred a quarter with two quarters below nine hundred in Q2 and Q3. So I think there's just a little nuance here with how quickly things are changing and how quickly production is heading down for a couple of quarters while then stabilizing in Q4.

Got it. That's really helpful. My follow up is I think you're moving the oil market today, frankly, and I wonder if you could share maybe, Travis, ask you to elaborate a little bit on some of the comments you made. You basically called a top on US oil production of shale anyway. What is your non-operated insight to what others are doing? And I'm just curious if you could maybe put some numbers as to how you see the the sensitivity of, you know, rig decline relative to the rollover in production, any color you can add from the work you've done to be helpful.

Yeah, I think I think we really focus on anecdotes, right? We know a lot of people in the business, we know a lot of people on both the public and the private side. And, you know, Midland's a well, we're a large public company based in Midland. We know everybody that's picking up a rig to go drill, you know, three bar net wells or three dean wells or, you know, this this unit they picked up in the Delaware basin. And every single conversation I've had with those types of operators is that this oil price doesn't work and they're going to be very, very and then traditionally, you know, those are acreage positions that have higher break evens. So, you know, all of that is getting pushed to the right. Very clearly, other basins that don't have sub 40 break even inventory like the Permian are having these same discussions. And so our kind of commentary is that the Marshall Barrel in the U.S. is just not being produced today. And we're seeing it already in terms of frac activity, frac channel, even some pipeline scrapes are down. You look at, you know, Midland Houston spreads, you know, those have narrowed. So, you know, I just think the Marshall Barrel is being pushed to the right. Again, we don't have a crystal ball in the rest of the world, but we have a very good view of what the U.S. looks like. And right now, that's a business that's slowing dramatically and likely declining in terms of production.

Terrific, guys. Good luck and thanks for your answers.

Thanks, Doug. Thanks, Doug.

Thank you. I'm showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn it back to Travis Dice for closing remarks.

Thank you guys for listening in today and for your questions and thanks for your support over these last 15 years as well. Y'all have any questions, you know how to get a hold of us. Y'all have a great day. God bless you.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.