Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to another Fireside Chat. My name is Anthony Linton. I'm the Canadian oil and gas analyst here at Barclays. I'd like to introduce our next guests, Mr. Ian Dundas, President and Chief Executive Officer of Enerplus, and Wade Hutchings, the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of what's the dual-listed E&P asset in North Dakota and the Marcellus. So I think Ian's gonna give us a quick update and overview of the latest, and then we'll get into some Q&A. So over to you. Yeah, thanks, Tony. Appreciate it. Just a few comments. $4 billion market cap, produce just under 100,000 BOE a day. 60% of that's liquids, the vast majority of that's light oil. We view ourselves as a Bakken producer. It would be our growth engine, it would attract 95% of our capital. We also have a non-operated position in Northeast Pennsylvania, Marcellus, been a cash machine for years. You know, when we think about what we have in the Bakken, we view it as somewhat unique. Built our position more than a decade ago, ended up putting a flag in one of the best places to drill black oil wells in North America. We were able to then replenish the hopper at what looks like sort of the bottom of the market, and now in front of us, we have more than 10 years of inventory, high-quality locations. When we think about the portfolio today, we don't see any holes in it. The plan's pretty simple. We're offering 3%-5% growth, liquids growth. Again, that's the Bakken is driving that, spending about half of our cash flow. Free cash flow yield this year, if you assume sort of $80 and $3 for the rest of the year, 11%, type yield. If you look at our, our return of capital model over the last five years, returning capital to shareholders has been a central thesis, as well as running a strong balance sheet. Sort of before we had a, an established framework in place, you know, we were returning about 60% of capital to shareholders. Traditionally, it had been in dividend, you know, more recently, it's been share buyback. If you look at us over the last two years, we've reduced our share count by just under 18%, and we've repaid 80% of our debt. Debt to cash flow now is 0.2%, something along those lines. So maybe I'll, I'll leave it there, and we can get into your questions. Sure, yeah. So maybe, maybe starting on the operations side, you know, past 18 months, we've seen some really strong well results in the Bakken. Can you give us some context on, you know, what's been working and how you expect that momentum to continue moving forward? Yeah. Wade, do you want to take that? Yeah. So two things have been working. One is really good reservoir rock, and two is continued optimization of how we develop each unit. So maybe just speak a little bit more about that. Almost all of those onstreams have been in the core of the play in Fort Berthold and in the new acreage we bought two years ago in Dunn County, in an area called Little Knife. We see those areas as fairly comparable in rock quality, and I think you're seeing that in the well results. Now, if you track back over our history, there was a period of time of rapid completion design changes where we really optimized and accelerated the production from that we were drilling. Then we moved into development mode, call it start of 2017. If you look at 2017, 2018 and 2019, very consistent development, well outcomes. What we saw in the last year and a half is, similar outcomes, but a higher early production, performance. Somewhere on the order of 20%-25%, higher production in the first, well, 90 days. We don't know yet if that'll translate into larger recoveries. In fact, you know, our recovery model, that we have across the basin would say, potentially, all we're seeing is acceleration of production, but certainly, that acceleration is driving higher returns for us, better capital efficiency for us in our annual capital program. Gotcha. Okay. So, you know, maybe focusing... You touched on Little Knife a little bit. First two operated pads were drilled there last quarter. Results to date have been really strong. Are you doing anything specifically differently on those two pads that's driving up performance, and any learnings that you can kind of bring across the rest of the asset base? Keep going. Okay. The development model, completion design are very similar to what we've used in Fort Berthold. In Fort Berthold, the development model is roughly 10 wells per unit. That's usually six Middle Bakken, four Three Forks wells. The only contrast to Little Knife is a little bit wider well density. We typically today think of most of those units being developed somewhere between six and nine wells per unit. Those two pads that we brought on in the second quarter were developed at an equivalent of eight and nine wells per unit. And so to see that strong of early production performance with that well density was certainly very encouraging for us. That's a mix of Three Forks and Middle Bakken wells. And so, you know, although we wouldn't point to any single thing that's materially different in the last 18 months versus the last four or five years, we continually are refining the development model in terms of how many wells we put in that unit and how many wells are in the Middle Bakken and the Three Forks. And a lot of that is really driven by the number of wells that are already producing at the unit, wells around that unit, what kind of depletion impact have they had? And so that guides us in terms of well spacing and well location. And then on top of that, based on all of those conditions, we design a custom stimulation for the unit, and often for each well. And then we also continue to optimize the way we flow the wells back, and the timing and method of artificial lift we put on. So we think the combination of all of those things is helping us drive incrementally better early well performance. Maybe I'll just add, I mean, you know, this has evolved over the years, right? And the Bakken, there's a tremendous amount of homogeneity. It's not even comparable when you think about what's going on in the Delaware Midland. But there's still a lot of differences, you know? And so, you know, we've mapped the entire basin. Our resource model goes from, geez, 140 million barrels in place, down to tens and twenties, depending where you are. And so the decision we made years ago was, we were going to avoid the cookie-cutter manufacturing strategy, and customize. And, you know, some of these customizations are pretty modest in nature, but we're talking about sort of modest uplifts. And over time, we think it's bearing fruit. For sure, early time, you know, you look at some of these plots over the last 2-3 years into it, and it looks like there's more oil coming our way, you know? And so even if it were something as simple as placement, yeah, you could convince yourself that that's gonna have to help with your own recoveries. You know, we're not sure about lift systems and that stuff. That's probably more acceleration, but, you know, it's a pretty small little company, and we're focused on it, and so it seems to be serving us well. Gotcha. Okay. And then maybe, you know, putting all the parts together for us, how do those returns with Little Knife kinda compare within the asset portfolio? They're comparable. Like... Again, it's-- we're pretty transparent. There's not that much going on. Yeah. So, you know, if you go to our deck, and we've just sort of shown actual results over time, economics. If you want to talk payouts, for example, both Little Knife and Fort Berthold payout at eight months at an $80 deck. You know, both of those wells, undrilled, assuming $8 and $7.5 million well costs are NPV $10-$12 million. You know, and subtle differences. The big difference with the areas we'd highlight is you don't have the same resource package on a continuous basis, and so, you know, we've managed that as we've thought through—we've managed that thinking about it. And again, coming back to that recovery factor model. So 6-9 wells across the Little Knife area, and you know, Fort Berthold, we think 10 or 11 with these line wells. Okay, gotcha. Staying on the asset, the operational side, you know, there's been talk of the potential for three-mile laterals to improve economics in the Bakken. Can you give us some context how that might fit in the asset base? The punchline for our asset, it's not gonna be that significant. You know, fun fact, I think we might have been the first company in the U.S. to drill a three-mile lateral, certainly in North Dakota, 12-13 years ago. But our land isn't based for it broadly in the core. When we did the Bruin acquisition, it actually came with a nice little area in Williams on the eastern side of the acreage, and then what we called sort of lower tier optionality on the west. You know, that area, which is more marginal, and I think it's those kinds of assets that people are now taking another look at, is to see viability of three-milers. I think they're viable, and I think they're probably gonna help more marginal areas. I think the jury's out a little bit on exactly what that looks like, you know? And, you know, obviously, a lot of this is about rate of return and, you know, early time productive capacity, certainly the first year. I think there's some open questions, but, we're interested, and I think it's gonna be good for the basin and good for other operators, and, you know, maybe it's gonna open up opportunity for us on our more marginal stuff. Okay, gotcha. With the operational momentum over the past, you know, 18 months, when do you start to think about updating that five-year plan you rolled out a couple years ago? For those who haven't seen, 3%-5% liquids growth over the next five years, it's not a generic plan. Ties to our long-range plan. There are actual units into the entire piece. You know, in an $83 dollar kind of world, we think cost structures will be such that we'll be able to spend around the same amount of money, $5 million-$550 million, and deliver that plan. You know, we don't give you the granularity to see, but, you know, what's embedded in that are capital efficiencies that are pretty similar to what we're delivering right now. And so, hey, we did some great wells. How's that gonna shift? Yeah, we give some thought to it. I mean, what we're just thinking right now is this is a little more acceleration, right? And so that's good. That, you know, gives you a little more flush, and it actually allows you not to have to keep moving up your capital. So we think we're sort of accounting for it on a real-time basis. And, you know, obviously, these things get dominated by inflation effects if you miscall them and those sorts of things. But we think it's a reasonable plan. You know, fun, fun fact, the last couple of years, we've been able to beat it a bit. You know, not dramatically, but two years ago, we delivered 6% organic growth, sort of normalizing for acquisitions. This year, guiding, you know, 3%-5%, we're sort of tracking the high end of that. Trying to stay on top of it. As you move through, you know, the next three years of the 5-year plan, and you think about, you know, a bit above that growth over the last two years, how do you think about, you know, the CapEx spend if that trend continues? Do you, do you pull back a little bit and kinda, you know, just, just take the growth, or how do you think about that? I like a growing business better than a business that's not growing. Yeah. In accelerating the generation of free cash flow strategically, it feels pretty important. You know, today, we've got two uses for that. We've almost paid all of our debt down, so that's becoming less significant. But buying shares at these levels, we've seen as a real value opportunity. So I think everything being equal, I'd sort of like to do all of the above. Growth at the higher ends without spending more money, you know, and it, that may seem trite, right? But you think about sustainability of inventory. We've got a lot, a lot of inventory. If we doubled our cadence, we shrunk the inventory. You know, that impacts sustainability. Our view, you know, if you decided that your capital spend levels and your growth levels was exclusively maximizing free cash flow over a five-year window, you know, we could double spend, or certainly add another rig to the whole thing, and then look at free cash flow gen, and if you use the backwardated curve, you don't generate much more free cash flow. So that feels like a bit of a strange thing to do. And strategically, we're convinced that we are shorter inventory in North America than people think. And so I think there's gonna be a revaluation of that inventory as that recognition, and soft scale, so global comment happens. So keeping ample inventory and reserve feels like a thoughtful thing to do. Got it. Makes sense. When you think about, you know, how activity sort of ramping into the back half of the year, what are you seeing on inflation trending relative to what you saw a year ago? Yeah, it's pretty straightforward. So I do think it's really hard to figure this out externally. People have different procurement policies, different strategies, different contracting terms, all of that stuff. Maybe I'll just put it in the context of a typical well for us in North Dakota. We guided to 10%, to 10% inflation, 2022-2023, and we're on track for that. You know, as we see sort of what's... We have contracts that support that and a lot of things. The only thing we really got exposed to the spot market was steel, because we just didn't think steel was gonna stay where it was. So at the beginning of the year, steel would have represented 15% of an AFE, over $1 million. You know, as we look at Q4 now, that looks like it could be down 40%-45%. So, you know, that's all sort of baked into our numbers. So, you know, what's the next year call? I don't know. You know, I see deflationary things out there. I still see labor inching its way up and those sorts of things. So, you know, I think we're in a pretty good position. Stable, I guess, is the best word I'd leave people with. Gotcha. Okay, no, that's helpful. Maybe just thinking about your asset base. Last year, you fully exited Canada, you know, what was sort of the decision process to focus on the Bakken and, you know, move away from those assets? Yeah, it's a pretty simple call. It was consolidating and building around your core assets. You know, we didn't make a, "We're leaving Canada because of energy policy," which you could have, but that was not... We made the decision, the assets we had in Canada were small, they weren't scalable, and they were better suited to somebody else's hands. And so over time, that build up around your core and consolidate around your base has been the key to the strategy. And that's, yeah, I mean, that's dominated activity for us for 12 years in that business. You know, for those who don't know, at one point we produced, so we're 100,000 BOE a day. We used to be 100,000 BOE a day, and it was all out of Canada, largely gas and conventional assets. You know, over time, we just repositioned that, and, you know, when we found the spot, we thought it was gonna be really competitive, and that's turned out to be the case. And then when you think about your core asset base, how do the DJ and the Marcellus assets fit into that strategy? The DJ, it's small. Good asset, if you know anybody. You know, we're gonna spend a little bit of money there this year, only because we see value. We see We see value in the wells, but it's just not big enough for us, and so, you know, we'll look to monetize that appropriately over time. Marcellus is a bit different, actually. So, you know, we got into Marcellus in 2009, when it was just a concept, and you know, who knew it was gonna dominate the gas market, right? So non-operated asset, but we always thought there would be a moment when we would have to exit that asset to be able to fund our other ideas, notably building around our Bakken position. We didn't have to do that. We were able to tap the balance sheet largely and build out our Bakken position. So as I think about it now, it is. It's just an ATM. It's always been a free cash flow machine. Our partner forever with a private company out of Dallas called Chief. In the last two years, they've... Chesapeake. So Chesapeake operating the asset really well, generating free cash flow. You know, I say we're strategically open-minded to selling the asset, but I will frame it for you. You know, if you think about that asset, maybe a year, year and a half ago, I don't know, $500 million-$600 million, I don't know, something like that. Not sure. There wasn't that many trades out there. We free cash flowed $250 million on that asset last year. So, open-minded to it. You know, I'm not sure selling assets in this market is the best way to make a lot of money. And if we don't, we've got decade plus of inventory there. You know, I view it as a bit of an annuity. Got you. Okay. And then maybe staying on the M&A theme, what are you seeing in the Bakken today in North Dakota? Yeah, the Bakken, if you haven't really followed it, 80% of the production is controlled by seven or eight companies. All of the people who own assets are quite attracted to them. It's black oil. Hard to get black oil in the lower 48. I don't know if you can find a dozen wells that haven't got your money back. It's technically relatively simple. It's in a supportive state. We deal with attractive pricing down there. But when you look at the nature of the portfolios and all those companies, like, something's gonna happen. You know, you've got some companies that don't have as much as they really need to be to be efficient. So I think M&A is gonna happen over time. You know, from our perspective, we're strategically interested in it. We can see the value in scale. Like, we-- I think we punch above our weight when, when we look at operating performance. But if we were larger, we might be a little bit better. You can certainly see the value of scale in the capital markets, relative cost of capital, cost of debt, you know, relevance, all those sorts of things. So we're, we're strategically interested in it, but everything, you know... Okay, great, we've got a strategic lens, and now let's think about value and accretion. Are we making money for our shareholders? And, you know, I said this in my opening comments, we don't have any holes in our portfolio. Like, we really have a lot to worry. And so if you can bring something into the fold, you'd beyond just making money, you'd love it to enhance the sustainability of your business. So bringing in a high PDP, high decline asset, yeah, maybe. You gotta get it at a good price. Normally, it doesn't happen at that price. So, you know, I'm not saying we're interested. We're almost there for you. We could do lots and lots of stuff. We could fit it in. I'm not sure we'll necessarily be the most aggressive in the next little while. We'll see. You know, if you have money and you're looking to buy oil, where are you gonna go? So we'll, we'll be around that stuff. I think it's, you know... My guess is, to conclude on the point, my guess is people who own these assets are gonna get to them, and so they want a good price right up, and well, they want an alternative. And so I would think you're going to see Bakken M&A over the next 6-18 months, but it might be a little spot. Gotcha. Okay. You look out a few years, you know, you haven't seen any deals, you start to see, you know, asset duration go down towards seven, eight years. What do you think about from an M&A perspective? You know, do you ever look at Canada again, or how do you sort of think about it? Wade, do you wanna... No, I'll take this. It's not a trick question, but I think you have to be really careful on this. So, forget Canada as a good question. What, what I'm hearing, would we take a second basin? Yeah. You know, a company our size doesn't need a second basin. It's better if we don't have a second basin. But is it possible at some point we would consider a second basin? Of course. I don't think we're—we're not doing our jobs, right? You know, often when companies do that, they don't sequence it quite right. They wait too long, they don't have the right cost of capital, they have to stretch on all those sort of things. So, you know, anything we would potentially do, we would wanna do from a position of strength. And we're acutely aware that we want this to be a positive experience for our shareholders. And so sequencing all of that together is hard to do, but it happens on occasion, right? You know, I don't think we're doing our job if we're not thinking about these things, but by far and away, the thing that's the most interesting today is either status quo or more buying. Gotcha. Maybe just on the capital side, can you just remind us how you're thinking about capital allocation? You know, how much goes towards the growth, how much is sustaining, and then how do you think about shareholder returns in this environment? Sure. Do you want to take capital and I'll do returns? Sure. Yeah, I mean, for us, within, you know, a very broad range of WTI prices, we are fairly committed to that capital program that we have. So enough capital to drive that 3%-5% liquids growth, which, as Ian noted, in like an $83 world, is, you know, gonna be in that $500-$550 range. And given the mix of assets in the portfolio today, that's also very straightforward. It's virtually all pointed to North Dakota and the Bakken. Now, you know, we saw our capital in the Marcellus range from, you know, $40 million as a typical number, to where this year it's down below $15 million. So, you know, it'll be in that bandwidth. We think it'll probably tick up a bit next year. So the rest of the capital is gonna be dedicated to Bakken. So shareholder returns, we're growing. I think you're probably referencing return on capital, but I think that growth matters, right? On the return side, we've really only done two things in the last several years. We've had a base dividend. I think our yield probably calcs to 1.5% or something like that, and we just increased it. So I think that's good, growing base dividend. But for us, what is really important is it's sustainable throughout multiple cycles. And so when we look at the remainder of the potential return, and just to frame it, we've told people, think at least 60% of our free cash flow coming back, I think it's gonna average closer to 70% this year. We looked into the market, and we haven't seen any signals that capitalize any particular framework differently than others. And we don't see specials being capitalized particularly well or variables particularly well. And so we have a view on the intrinsic value of our company, and we think we're creating at a discount to that, and so for us, it's been share buyback. You know, and as I said in our opening comments, last two years, we've shrunk the share count from a pretty modest 250 million shares. We've shrunk it by 18%. And so under these conditions, I look forward, I don't see anything getting in the way of that. So we're buying shares right now. Gotcha. You sort of alluded to it there, but how do you think about, you know, the trade-off between the buyback and then any sort of M&A activity? I think you have to think about all of those things. I think you have to also bring debt into it. So, you know, we're at a place where our debt is de minimis. I'm not averse to taking it to zero. I guess in a perfect world, we'd find something better to do, but I think that's a de-risking event for people. So, you know, M&A versus buyback, I guess I'd like to sort of do both.... I'd like to buy things with the balance sheet and shrink my share count. That'd be awesome, right? You know, where it gets trickier, I suppose, is if you gotta fund the acquisition with equity, which you don't wanna do very often. You know, if it makes sense to our shareholders, so you know, accretion is the key to it. We've got a really good perspective on the value of our company. We think we can acquire value assets pretty well. Obviously, bring synergy into the mix, so I think it's a pretty standard formula people talk about. And you know, people execute it differently. Yeah. And then kinda just think about the five-year plan. How does the return on capital framework evolve when you think about that five-year plan moving forward? Well, the commodity complex will impact it. I think high on the list... So as I said earlier, you know, we see pretty stable capital efficiencies with that entire year period, and it doesn't come off a cliff at 6 either. And so tell me the share price, tell me the value of the share price, you know, and, like, we can always rationalize we're cheap. Share price is cheap, I think Chief Executive Officers live that way. But there's cheap, and then there's cheap. You know, when we started buying shares back, all we needed to believe was $48 oil and a PDP price and want a 10% return. So we-- Right? You know, now you need to believe a bit more. You don't need to believe 100, you don't need to stretch the term profile, but you have to believe a little bit more. So, you know, if, if the stocks keep moving, well, maybe it does evolve. You know, maybe we weave a special into the mix or a variable or try to be thoughtful about it. You know, maybe, I think it's... Maybe, maybe we get to bank some cash. Like, the market's gonna tell you, right? Our, our, our view is, over time, everyone goes to cash. We just don't see the North American producer having enough, enough opportunity. You know, M&A will only do so much. I think this discipline is... I think it's real, I think it's sustained, I think there's a new Chief Executive Officers, there's new group of shareholders. So I think sustainability will be the key, and in our view, that lends itself to building cash balances, and so maybe people will be able to do that. Maybe it'll be differential. It'll be the companies you trust to allocate versus the ones you don't. I'm not sure. You know, we'll, we'll take our signals from the market on that. Got it. That's helpful. And then when you think about that 60% of free cash flow going back to shareholders as a framework, you know, is there an inflection point that you see when you think about the trade-off towards, you know, moving towards zero debt? Yeah, a little, a little bit. So, sixty, I mean, that wasn't magically created. That's sort of what we did over the last five years through multiple cycles. You know, as now we're dealing with maybe slightly stronger prices, it's also allowed us to pay down debt. Like, that was cool. You know, let's pay down debt. We paid down the debt from the acquisitions. At the beginning of the year, we said, "Think at least 60%." You know, the way the year has worked for us, we are actually now tracking 70%. I would say don't anticipate 100 from us. Or if we say 100, then I'd like us to say out loud, "Because we're liquidating. Okay. Right? You know, and maybe some businesses will actually end up doing that, and that'll be thoughtful for shareholders. You know, for us, we wanna make sure we have a sustainable business, and so, you know, 70-80, you start going past there, like, you're not, you're not sort of banking for the future a little bit, right? We tick through 50-60 wells here in North Dakota, so, you know, notionally, let's find 50 opportunities a year, you know, and if you're having to pay for someone's completely de-risked opportunity, you're paying $4 million-$5 million a well, that's a lot of money. You know, if you can be a little more thoughtful to that and get something else, and it's cheaper... You know, when we did the deals in 2021, the first deal came with locations that we didn't have to buy at all, didn't have to pay for. It was just PDP Bakken. You know, the next one was more undeveloped, you know, and maybe $500,000, $2 million on location, assuming the production was valued at $50. So we... In retrospect, we got that for free, you know, and so now we're gonna be generating returns on our capital that are gonna be off the charts for years. But notionally, you gotta be thinking about that future and having something earmarked for it. Okay, gotcha. We're almost out of time here, so maybe just last question. You know, is there anything else, what else seems to be that's exciting to you today? Outside of politics? I like what's happening on emissions management, actually. Yeah, you know, like, this. So our head office is in Canada. We've been operating in North Dakota since 2005, but. Or in the Bakken since 2005. But, you know, environmental performance, emissions management in North Dakota wasn't something to be proud of, as the basin was exploding in the last 10 years. And in the last two or three years, it's gone to a completely different level. If you'd asked me three years ago, "Do we treat emissions seriously?" I'd say, "Yes, we did." And, but now I look at what we're doing, you know, under Wade's leadership, and Nate Fisher and their team, we're effectively operating in almost a non-routine flaring mode, and our emissions performance is improving dramatically. It's been cool. You know, it's been a bit of operating practice, it's been technology, it's been focus, and we've been able to make it all happen so far without actually spending any money, just being by better operators. So it's... That's been cool. Awesome. Well, that's all our time. Thank you very much. Thank you.