Good morning, and welcome to the Chord Energy 1st quarter 2023 earnings results conference call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by 0. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press Star, then 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press Star, then 2. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Michael Lou, Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead. Thank you, Danielle. Good morning, everyone. Today, we are reporting our first quarter 2023 financial and operational results. We're delighted to have you on our call. I'm joined today by Daniel Brown, Chip Rimer, Richard Robuck, and other members of the team. Please be advised that our remarks, including the answers to your questions, include statements that we believe to be forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to be materially different from those currently disclosed in our earnings releases and conference calls. Those risks include, among others, matters that we have described in our earnings releases, as well as in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our annual report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. We disclaim any obligation to update these forward-looking statements. During this conference call, we will make reference to non-GAAP measures and reconciliations to the applicable GAAP measures can be found in our earnings releases, and on our website. We may also reference our current investor presentation, which you can find on our website. With that, I'll turn the call over to our CEO, Daniel Brown. Thanks, Michael Lou. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining our call. Last evening, Chord reported our first quarter 2023 results and updated full-year outlook. L ast year was a pivotal year for the organization, as we announced a merger of equals transaction between Whiting and Oasis Petroleum, laid the groundwork for the integration, and established how we would operate as a new organization. In 2023, we are focused on operational execution and driving the synergies from the merger. As you read in our press release last night, we had a strong start to the year. In the first quarter, oil volumes were significantly above expectations due to continued strong well performance and a modest acceleration of activity. As we discussed last call, January performance was negatively impacted by severe weather in late December. The team did a fantastic job restoring production and ramping up our drilling and completions activity quickly. We turned in line 15 wells in the quarter, which was at the upper end of our 11-15 range, with about half of those wells being 3-mile laterals. With the additional activity, capital was towards the high end of our range, but overall, free cash generation exceeded expectations. Turning to return of capital, for the quarter, we declared a variable dividend of $1.97 per share, with a base dividend which remains unchanged at $1.25 per share. The aggregate variable payment of approximately $82 million is the difference between 75% of the $199 million of adjusted free cash flow generated in the first quarter, minus the base dividend of about $52 million, minus $15 million of share repurchases. As a reminder, the variable dividend is intended to make up any difference between our targeted free cash flow payout and the amount distributed through base dividends and share repurchases. Our capital return program is peer leading and demonstrates our commitment to capital discipline and shareholder returns. Since we closed the merger last year and underpinned through strong operational performance, Chord has returned a significant amount of capital to shareholders through a mix of dividends and share repurchases. However, as with all aspects of our business, we are constantly seeking to improve. As we reflect on our shareholder return over the past two quarters, we recognize that the amount of share repurchases is lighter than we might desire, particularly considering our view on the intrinsic value of our equity when compared to market value. As we look forward, we will continue to be opportunistic with share repurchases, but intend to be more balanced between dividends and buybacks in the future. Turning to operations. We continue to be pleased with our underlying well performance, and as can be seen on slide 10 of our updated investor presentation, our development program continues to deliver above expectations. This is partially attributed to our practice of wider well spacing, which we believe improves per well recoveries and reduces variability of performance across the asset and to our move to more three-mile laterals. Chord began to bring on its first three-mile laterals toward the end of 2022, and these are expected to comprise about 50% of the 2023 program. 3-mile laterals will be a key part of the go-forward program and are expected to deliver 40%-50% more EUR for about 20% more D&C cost. Just a quick note on the production profile of these wells. Part of the capital savings reflects similarly sized facilities versus a standard 2-mile pad. The result is 3-mile wells typically have similar IPs to 2 miles but stay flat longer with shallower declines. Said another way, as 3-mile laterals become a larger share of wedge wells, very early-time well production per lateral foot becomes less relevant and longer-dated cumulative production versus capital cost is a more appropriate performance metric. After the first quarter, Chord announced the sale of certain non-core properties outside the Williston Basin from the legacy Whiting Trust assets for proceeds of approximately $35 million. The specific divested assets consisted of multiple packages in various parts of the US, with total volumes of approximately 1,100 barrels of oil equivalent per day and oil volumes of roughly 900 barrels per day. We expect all divestitures to close during the second quarter, and our guidance has been updated to reflect the sales. The divestitures decrease oil volumes by about 600 barrels of oil per day for the full year. Chord expects to replace all 600 barrels of oil per day, given strong well performance and a modest acceleration of activity in the first quarter. Said another way, Chord is keeping its February full year oil guidance unchanged at 96.5 thousand barrels of oil per day despite selling these non-core volumes. Gas and NGL volumes and realizations were also adjusted to reflect higher levels of ethane rejection and recent benchmark pricing. Finally, an update on ESG. Chord Energy is still on track to resume publishing a full sustainability report in 2023, which will include robust disclosure on performance through 2022. Chord Energy continues to work towards improving disclosure and performance for its ESG initiatives. To sum things up, we're off to a very strong start and most material integration projects are complete. We've created a better company with a strong financial outlook, capable of supporting high levels of sustainable free cash flow at prices much lower than current market benchmarks. With that, I'll turn it over to Michael Lou for some additional updates. Thanks, Daniel Brown. I'll highlight a handful of key operating and financial items for the first quarter and discuss our updated 2023 guidance. As Daniel Brown mentioned, oil volumes were strong in the first quarter, about 2.3% over midpoint guidance. Total volumes also exceeded expectations, with natural gas volumes above guidance and NGLs below. During the first quarter, Chord Energy experienced higher levels of ethane rejection, which lowered NGL volumes but increased natural gas volumes and realizations. Natural gas realizations also benefited by colder weather in January and February. Importantly, the net impact to revenue was favorable. Combined natural gas and NGL revenue totaled $115.2 million, which exceeded revenue implied by midpoint volume and differential guidance using actual first quarter 23 benchmark pricing. Our 2023 guidance has been updated to assume ethane rejection continues through the remainder of the year. Additionally, we lowered our Henry Hub assumption from $3.50 to $2.75 per MMBTU. Bakken crude pricing closely tracked WTI over the quarter, we expect to realize slight premiums to WTI through the remainder of the year. Our 2023 activity schedule remains essentially unchanged from February. Completion activity remains concentrated in May and June and throughout third quarter of 2023. Oil production, after adjusting for divestitures, is expected to increase sequentially each quarter, with the fourth quarter of 2023 volumes the highest of the year. Fourth quarter volumes stand to benefit from third quarter tills, as fourth quarter tills will drop off considerably. As Daniel Brown mentioned earlier, our full-year oil production guidance has increased when adjusted for asset sales due to the strong performance of the asset base and the strong performance of our team. Turning to cash costs, LOE and GPT on a per-unit basis were slightly above midpoint guidance, driven by lower NGL volumes as certain midstream processors began rejecting ethane and left it in the residue stream. The total dollar spent was in line with expectations. We made some adjustments to the outlook to reflect the volume impact of the ethane rejection and of the divestitures. On an aggregate dollar basis, guidance is essentially unchanged for the Williston business. Production taxes were approximately 7.9% of oil and gas revenue in line with guidance. We now expect this to increase slightly over the course of 2023, which reflects lower natural gas prices. Said another way, oil is becoming a larger percentage of the revenue mix and is taxed at a higher rate than gas. Chord cash G&A expense was $18.2 million in the first quarter, which was in line with guidance and excludes $2.8 million of merger-related costs. Our 2023 cash G&A guidance remains unchanged at $63 million-$73 million. Chord paid no cash taxes during the first quarter and does not expect to make a payment in the second quarter either. In the second half of the year, Chord expects cash taxes to approximate 2%-10% of second half EBITDA at oil prices between $70 and $90 per barrel. Our full year capital budget guidance remains unchanged at $825 million-$865 million. As a reminder, we set our 2023 budget assuming year-end 2022 pricing levels holding flat through 2023. While equipment utilizations remain high, pricing has generally plateaued and remains around year-end 2022 levels. All this has led to a great quarter and significant free cash flow of $199 million. This, paired with our return of capital framework, results in another quarter of significant return to shareholders. Turning to liquidity, Chord Energy recently redetermined its borrowing base, which was reduced from $2.75 billion to $2.5 billion due to lower bank commodity pricing assumptions. Elected commitments remain at $1 billion with nothing drawn as of March thirty-first. Cash was approximately $592 million as of March thirty-first as well. In closing, the Chord Energy team continues to execute well and drive strong returns, which supports our sustainable free cash flow profile as well as our peer-leading return of capital program. We are incredibly proud to be a safe and responsible low-cost provider of energy, which fuels a better world. We're also proud of the entire Chord team, which continues to show care for each other and for our communities, and the courage to always do what is right. With that, I'll hand the call over to Danielle for questions. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then 1 on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then 2. The first question comes from Phillips Johnston of Capital One. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks. Maybe just, first, just a generic question on what you're seeing in the M&A arena these days and what kind of appetite the company has for acquisitions in the near to intermediate term. Yeah. Thanks, Phillips Johnston. This is Daniel Brown. I think the M&A market, it's interesting. Clearly, there's been some volatility in the commodity, and my general thought is volatility in the commodity typically makes M&A a little bit more difficult, because it can create some bid-ask dynamics between buyers and sellers. M ore broadly for ourselves and how we think about M&A, we've mentioned many times that, consolidation thematically is something that we're very, very supportive of. We, we produce a commodity, and generally speaking larger organizations are going to be better positioned to be low-cost producers of a commodity. Consolidation is something that we believe in and we're committed to. That will entail some M&A for us. We've said many times that we are going to be looking to be part of a larger equity story, and that can involve us consolidate, and it could also involve us being consolidated, but being part of a larger equity story is something that's important to us. We are constantly on the lookout for assets that fit us well. We'll be disciplined as we go through that. We think bigger only makes sense if it also makes you better. We'll be very disciplined in how we look at it. Being part of a larger organization is something that makes a lot of sense to us. Okay, great. Thanks for that, Daniel Brown. Just a question maybe for Michael Lou. Gas realizations as a percentage of NYMEX obviously are running stronger than expected. It seems like that's mostly a function of the increased ethane rejection. I think you mentioned the effects of cold weather for Q1. As far as your improved guidance for the rest of the year, just wondering if ethane rejection is the sole factor, or are you seeing better realizations on an apples-to-apples basis than you originally anticipated? Yeah. We're seeing generally, things in line with what we anticipated. The ethane rejection, obviously, because that stays in the stream, improves those realizations overall. That's where the change has been. We think it's going to be left in the stream. It may not be, but, that's how we're guiding going forward. It's in line with what we saw in the first quarter. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Phillips Johnston. Thanks, Phillips Johnston. The next question comes from Derrick Whitfield of Stifel. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning, all. Congrats on a strong start to the year. Thanks, Derrick Whitfield. Perhaps for Daniel Brown or Michael Lou, dividends have accounted for heavier allocation of your return of capital program to date, as you noted in your prepared remarks. As you think about prosecuting a program with a heavier buyback focus, could you comment on your framework for share repurchases and your sense on investor preferences between buybacks and dividends? Sure. Thanks, Derrick Whitfield. I'll start off and then maybe ask Michael Lou to weigh in. W e've come out, one, I'd say we are committed to having a strong return of capital program as an organization. We think that's important to instill capital discipline within the organization and also to provide shareholder returns. It's a pretty key tenet of our strategy. Along with that, we as we've gone through this program, the overall return of capital has been very, very robust, and we've continued to engage with investors all along the way about the form of capital return. That's a subject that we've talked a lot about internally, and we've certainly sought out and gotten input from investors as well. I think generally speaking, the preference is to have a bit more of a balanced program than what we've demonstrated certainly over the last two quarters. As we think about the framework moving forward we've mentioned previously that the framework is something that looks at intrinsic value and relative trading performance. As we've looked at relative trading performance, I think our view on that has been pretty has been pretty narrow, and widening up our view on relative performance will put us in a position to execute some more buybacks as we move forward. The discount to intrinsic value has remained with the equity, and so we think it's a great, it's a great opportunity for return of capital, just with the discount from intrinsic value versus how our equity trades in the market. It's a compelling opportunity for us, and I think you'll see us do a little more as we move forward. Anything to add, Michael Lou? Yeah. The only thing I would add to that, Derrick, is I think that as we've engaged shareholders, I think that, one, they're almost all very appreciative of our return of capital framework and kind of leading on that side and what we're doing on the 75% return at current kind of leverage levels. Then two, as we talk about kind of that mix, I think every investor has a slightly different view, and we have a pretty good balance of those that prefer variables, prefer buybacks, and so we're going to match that with being just a little bit more balanced in the program. Terrific. For my follow-up, I wanted to focus on the output from your case study on page 7. I was certainly positively surprised by the $40 million increase in your NPV per DSU and your ability to achieve a similar recovery with 50% less wells. In the former approach, so 2015 and before, do you have a sense on when the wells began to communicate with one another? Separately, were the D&C designs similar from a proppant intensity perspective? Yeah. This is Chip Rimer, good morning. Thanks for the question. Yeah, when they started communicating, probably a good question. I think what we've done, identified as we're going through the process of understanding returns and, getting the best rate of return, we understand we weren't getting what we thought out of the DSU. Actually, it was costing us more to get what we thought we could get out of it. As we went in, we started looking at it up-spacing. We identified that we could literally impact these wells, with similar fracs. We fine-tuned the fracs. Now we're down into the 1,000 to 1,100 pounds per foot and 20 to 25 barrels per foot. I think we fine-tuned the fracs. We're able to now communicate across staying in that above 1,000 foot between the wells and be able to stimulate all that rock and get way better production. Over this period of time, I think it's a fine-tuning of completions, after you realize maybe we overspent money on some of those DSUs. At this point, the way we're running our business is very efficient. If you look at capital efficiency and the value, you saw the $40 million in value that we're bringing out of DSU. You just minimize the cost that's going in there, but you are getting the same recoveries or very close to the same recoveries. Chip Rimer, maybe just to clarify, it seems that the biggest change was really with the Three Forks and the intensity that you guys were approaching with that. The perspective was that you would be fracking up and recovering more within that unit. Seemingly, that's where you were seeing the communication between the Middle Bakken and the Three Forks is when you guys are fracking up. Yeah. Yeah. We're in the process of majority of our wells in the future here are all Bakken, to your point. That's very helpful. Thanks for your time. The next question comes from Scott Hanold of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks. You, you all have obviously have a nice cash balance and it does provide you some optionality if something on the M&A side comes in front of you. Can, can you give us a sense of the strategy with that going forward? If how long are you going to wait if something doesn't come up on the M&A side to hold that cash? W hat optimally then would be the best strategy to kind of return that to shareholders? Would it be kind of a balance, of the type of shareholder returns? Would it be like a, just a big special? Like, what are your thoughts on that? Sure. I'll start off, Scott Hanold. This is Daniel Brown. I think we don't have a specific timeframe with which we're looking at potential M&A activity or potential acquisitions. As to your point, one, we do have a nice cash balance, and one of the reasons we have that is because we do want to be front-footed and opportunistic if we see meaningful and additive and accretive M&A in front of us. I think we'll see that. We don't have a specific timeline, but clearly a negative net debt capital structure over the long term probably isn't a really sensible capital structure for the organization. we wouldn't look to have that over the long term, but I don't know that there's a specific target on a specific date. My anticipation is that we will be because we are looking to be opportunistic and front-footed on an M&A front, that we will be successful in finding some opportunities to make some sensible acquisitions. I think that'll probably be the first utilization of that capital. If, to your point, if it doesn't materialize over time, it's not a really sensible capital structure for us long term. Oh, okay. I appreciate that. Just to clarify too, when you talk about M&A, you all plan still are planning to stay focused in the Williston or have you started to kinda think, other opportunities outside the basin yet? I think the Williston, clearly there's a lower bar for us within the Williston relative to other basins. Never say never in other areas, but we bring a lot of synergies, a lot of knowledge to bear within the Williston Basin. I think moving outside the basin for the right opportunity is something that we would look at. The clearly it, the sort of industrial logic and synergies we can bring for in-basin acquisitions makes a ton of sense. Got it. Thank you. Appreciate that. The next question comes from Bertrand Donnes of Truist. Please go ahead. Hey. Morning, guys. On the, on the well results your Indian Hills results are looking pretty encouraging. It seems even getting a little bit better over time. Was that what you were expecting internally? Kinda secondly you note 55%-60% of your inventory, it can be minimal to that 3-mile lateral program. Could you maybe break out what you're seeing this year and next year and maybe if that has any impact on cost savings? Yeah. Appreciate the question, Bertrand Donnes. Yeah. Was it what we were expecting? O ur teams really fine-tune this and try to understand, what the spacing was, going back to the prior question. Seeing these uplifts are exciting to us. I would say it's probably what in the range of what we thought, the avenue we thought it was going to be. It continues to improve. We're seeing additional improvement on the base and the wedge. I'm really excited about where we're going. On the 3 miles, we're going to scatter across the basin here. We've expanded, we've historically been in Sanish, although we've done a little FBIR. We are looking into Indian Hills, as you're aware, and some other basins. On that one page there, I think where we're showing across the board, we're going to be doing this and expanding this to the west. Really excited about where that's going on the 3 miles and the value it's going to create. When you look at your taking the well cost from $860-$70 a foot down to $670-$660 a foot, you're making a huge impact, as Daniel had indicated, on some of the values that we're going forward. Excited about where that's going to go to improve some of our well results. If I could try to marry two of the comments you made so far. One was kind of that, hey, you are in the market, you're happy to look at consolidation, that's part of your, day-to-day. Also that it seems like investors are very receptive of a more balanced buyback program that shareholder returns are still on the forefront. How do you look at your your formula that could maybe dip down into a lower free cash flow payout if you buy some assets? Does that stop you from looking at certain packages that would require you to dip bove the 0.5 leverage or do you think maybe with the right deal, the market would accept it? Well, I think with the obviously, the impact to our return of capital program is a consideration we would take in as we were looking at any potential acquisition. It's something that would be sort of worked into the worked into the calculus of as we evaluated a deal. I would say that if we found an asset that we thought was compelling and made us a better organization, it's one of the reasons we laid the framework out there to be transparent to investors, that if we did something and our leverage went above 0.5, then we might ratchet back the return of capital because maintaining a strong balance sheet is very important to us. We would do that if we thought that the deal was compelling, very accretive, and we would obviously have a pathway to get back down to lower absolute debt and relative debt levels over time with the free cash generation of the asset. It's something we would take into account. Would we move above 0.5? I would say we would move above 0.5 if it was the right deal, but we would think that deal was ultimately delivering the most value to shareholders. It's one of the reasons why we put the framework out there in the first place, to be very transparent about how we're thinking about it. That's good. Just, just for housekeeping it's not a big deal that you sold, but are there any other non-Williston assets that you have or just maybe non-core? H ow much is left in the, in the coffers? That's all I got, thanks. Yeah. Yeah. We've got a small, a small amount and we'll see that are non-core and probably make more sense, and they're nice assets, but probably make more sense in someone else's hands than in our own. We'll look at that as we move forward and communicate it if we're successful on anything there. Small in nature, small in volume. That's perfect. Thanks. Thank you. The next question comes from Oliver Huang of Tudor, Pickering Holt. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for taking my questions. Just a couple on the op side of things. Certainly appreciate the longer-dated results that y'all shown in your presentation and can certainly understand we're still in the early days. Just kinda given the 2023 program is a bit more spread out across the Williston from an aerial perspective, was hoping to see if there was any color that y'all are able to provide for initial observations for conservatively spaced wells outside of the Indian Hills area. Really just trying to get a sense for confidence or anything y'all have seen to date to support a similar percentage uplift for less heavily developed areas like Red Bank, Foreman Butte, and Painted Woods. Oliver Huang, thanks for the question. This is Chip Rimer. It's early stages, if you think about it, for Chord. I think we're 19, 20 wells right now at 3 milers since our conception in July. As we expand that and see more, I'm very hopeful and positive that we're going to see similar results. You have to give us a little time down the road to be able to see those results as we go into some of these other areas that we're planning to go into for this year. Okay, fair enough. Specific to Sanish, just kind of given the area is a bit more developed and understand infills do sometimes make their way into the program. Wondering if there is any way to speak to how spacing for the 2023 program in Sanish compares to 2022, and if there is any expectation for a year-over-year uplift in well productivity out of that region as a result. Sanish is the field that keeps on giving when it's all said and done. W e're focused on some three milers in that area. We've seen some impact on three milers. It depends where. W e're looking for the right spacing and those kind of things. Last year, we were very heavy in that area. I think over 50% of our wells were in that area. We're not nearly that percentage this year, but we're going to pick and choose where we want to go and look for the best productivity areas with that we think there's still value to be had out of Sanish. It is one field that keeps giving. Awesome. Thanks for the time. Thanks, Oliver Huang. As a reminder, if you have a question, please press star one. The next question comes from John Abbott of Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, and thank you for taking our questions. Really, first question, these are more sort of guidance-related items. We said we've seen one operator this morning modestly reduce their full year CapEx budget, as they have potential line of sight on lower steel costs in the second half of the year. Could you just give us an update on how you're thinking about your CapEx guidance range this year? How you sort of look at potential cost improvements. Yeah, This is Daniel Brown. I think we've got our CapEx range, we're reaffirming our CapEx range right now relative to our guidance we put out earlier in the year. As we put the program together, I think we've seen we kind of anticipated that cost at the end of 2022 would sort of maintain through the course of 2023. Generally speaking, that's what we've seen. We've seen looks like we could see steel come down in the back half of the year. A little too early to see that fully roll through, but some early evidence that that could happen. We've got some areas that are up modestly, some areas that are down modestly. Generally speaking, the services has remained c osts seem like they've plateaued. I would say that generally speaking, with clearly a lot of volatility in the commodity, and the commodity and service costs normally follow each other, although that's not there is a lag between the two. We'll have to monitor where the commodity goes over time because a lower commodity could lead to some downward pressure on service costs as we move forward, as people think about their overall activity. For right now, I think we feel good about where our capital is and are just reaffirming what we put out earlier in the year. Appreciate that, Daniel Brown. The... John? Yes. This is Chip Rimer. I've got a couple other things. The other thing is we're focused on is our synergies. If you look at the one page where we're showing cost per foot come down, we're doing the three milers versus the two milers, we have focused. You can see the days per drilling. W asn't too long ago, we were in that 17 range with everybody else, and we saved 20%. The synergies we're seeing with the two combined companies are coming to fruition. We're seeing huge value on the drilling side. We're putting facilities together that used to take us maybe 16 weeks. We're down to 10 weeks because they're modular. These different ideas combined, we're able to manage some of that cost because of the synergies. John, as I've sat here, I'll make one other comment. This is Daniel Brown again. The cadence of our capital spend is one thing to note, though. We picked up a second completion crew about midway through the first quarter, we're going to run that up to about the end of the third quarter. As you know, the completions is where so much of the capital spend is associated. Really, quarters two and three will be the big capital spend quarters for the organization. Fourth quarter as we drop that last, that second crew toward the end of the third quarter, the capital spend in Q4 will be pretty significantly below the other quarters just because of the nature of how we've done the program. One of the reasons we've done that is to try and have, it's nice for us to have two crews working during the sort of best weather months within North Dakota. We'll drop that second crew right before we go into the fourth quarter. Our capital spend in the fourth quarter will probably be our lowest of the year. Anyway, just a little on if we're linear extrapolation of capital spend, probably will re-lead you down a bad path, because that's not how the program is actually set up. I appreciate that color. For the second question, I've really enjoyed the discussion on longer laterals and water spacing. Again, this is maybe a bit more in the weeds. You modestly raised your oil guidance for the year at post the asset sale. When you provided that oil guidance, and when you thought about your movement with water spacing and also longer laterals, how have you risked that production guidance? In other words is there a possibility we could see higher output than you're currently guiding to this year because you are conservatively modeling the impact of longer laterals? You? Go ahead. Yeah. One of the things, if you think about it, John, we don't up our facility side, we're limiting that. What you're going to see is maybe longer, flatter for longer is what you're going to see. That may be part of it, what you're seeing. There could be some upside, but I think we're pretty fair where we are right now and how we've got it modeled. W e're not changing the facility side. We're not adding a whole bunch of additional costs, we're keeping it those 3 milers flatter for a period of time. John, one thing, this is Daniel Brown. One thing is as we put our type curves together for the 3-mile laterals, we generally don't take 100% credit for that last mile. So if you look at the EOR we generate out of the wells, we only take a fraction of that last mile, assuming that there'll be some degradation. What we've seen is maybe we're getting a little more contribution there than how we put the type curves together. So it's probably attributing some, a little bit to the oil outperformance we've seen. So I think from our perspective, we'll probably, being slightly conservative is probably not a bad thing on this as we underwrite the programs, and we'll probably continue that stance. If we see a little more come through, so much the better. Very helpful. Thank you for taking our questions. Thank you. This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Daniel Brown, Chief Executive Officer, for closing remarks. All right. Thanks, Danielle. Well, to close out, I just want to thank all of the employees at Chord who, through their commitment and dedication, have put the company in a great position to succeed and to deliver value for our shareholders through disciplined capital allocation, efficient operations, and maintaining a strong balance sheet while remaining committed to responsible operations. Thank you for joining our call. The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.