Umang Choudhary: I see. That’s really helpful color. I guess moving to your 3-year outlook, and we will wait for a fulsome update next year. But I wanted to get your high-level thoughts, I mean, this year, you have shown strong performance. Oil growth is 9% year-over-year close to 9% year-over-year. And then on Slide #14, you highlighted continued expectations for strong productivity in the Delaware going forward. How should we think about the evolution for the company over the next 3, 4 years? Any high-level thoughts you can provide there?
Tom Jorden: Well, I think you should think of it in terms of our history of behavior. We don’t manage the company by production goals. I think I was clear in my opening remarks on that. We really seek to fund very robust projects that not only deliver outstanding returns, but have remarkable windage if the commodity price will fall, so that we know that we’re getting a good return on our capital through the cycles as we can best predict them. So we said, so we decide how much capital we want to invest, what projects we want to fund, we do our very best job to come up with an estimate of what the production will be. And then we challenge our organization to overshoot that. And when they do, we don’t view that as a negative.
And so that’s the way we’re going to view our 3-year plan, and we really hope to be providing better and better guidance. We always like to get what we aim for, high or low. We want to hit what we aim for. And although we’re proud of outperformance, it means we need to go back to drawing board and do better estimation.
Umang Choudhary: That’s great answer. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Arun Jayaram with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Arun Jayaram: Yes. Good morning. I was wondering if you could – really appreciate the Slide 17, on the Windham Row, but I was wondering if you could give a sense of what you’re doing to de-risk some of the project timing and development of that large row development. In particular, I wanted to see if you could give us some insights on some of the learning from the Mint Julep project that you did this year, which maybe helps to de-risk this larger project?
Blake Sirgo: Yes, Arun, this is Blake. I’m happy to take that one. We’ve learned as we’ve expanded these rows bigger and bigger. And while it’s a big pretty slide and a long row, you need to remember this is kind of what we do day in, day out. We drilled DSUs all over the Permian, and we have to stay ahead of them no matter where they are. This is just putting them all in one big row so we can prosecute them as one project. There are lots of things we’ve learned along the way. SIMOPs is probably the biggest one by far. We built in a lot of timing estimates based on when we drill and then we frac and then we drill out our plugs, there’s a lot of timing scenarios we use, including what happens if something gets stuck, what happens if something goes wrong.
We call them bailout wells. We have another well ready to go that we can shift the operation to while we work on that well. And that’s really how we approach it. We built a lot of flexibility into the row development.
Arun Jayaram: And Blake, just as a quick follow-up, how many wells would you expect if timing goes as planned to come online next year because I think you just started drilling the row in the third quarter?
Blake Sirgo: All of them. It will be – the full row will come online next year, which is 51 wells. Yes, sorry. And there won’t be one big slug. It will, as we get further down the road this first well will be coming online.
Arun Jayaram: Okay. And then my second question, Tom, where do you stand in terms of the $200 million of capital that could be reallocated from the Marcellus to your other two assets? And maybe just a quick update on how Demic Township, how that could impact or influence that decision?
Tom Jorden: Well, I’ll take that in reverse order. We don’t see Demic being a material influencer, one way or another. We’re pleased to be returning there, but it’s not really a critical factor in any of our remarks. And then as far as the $200 million, Arun, we’re still where we’ve been, we have flexibility there. We’re analyzing our options. We’ve got every option in front of us and look really forward to discussing ‘24, when we’re ready to discuss it. I mean we’re working on our plans.
Arun Jayaram: Great. Thanks a lot, Tom.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Doug Leggate with Bank of America. Doug, your line is open.
Doug Leggate: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for hop me on. Guys, I wonder if I could ask about the Anadarko, where it sits in your thoughts on relative capital allocation for 2024. And I guess my question is around – the guidance suggested no tills in 3Q, and yet, we obviously saw the activity there. So I’m just curious if your thoughts on the competitiveness of the Anadarko has stepped up a bit going into next year?
Tom Jorden: Well, thank you for that question, Doug. As you know, we love the Anadarko. It competes heads up. It offers market flexibility. It also is really coming back to force with some new targets, some new completion styles. The fact that we turned some wells online in the third quarter is just an outperformance of our execution. But I think you could expect a healthy Anadarko program next year. And it’s not out of love or affection. It’s out of competing for capital, and those projects are really competing for capital. And then the one other thing they’ve done is they’ve established repeatability. Now we’ve got a few behind us that have been repeatable, executed well, gone like clockwork, and that’s what we’re looking for.
Doug Leggate: I guess as my follow-on is kind of related, Tom. Thanks for the answer. So if I think about the indications on where costs are headed, capital costs are headed and all the moving parts in there, not just from yourselves but from your peers. And then I also stick with the mantra that your capital program is really driven by efficiency and not by growth. I look to 2024, and I have to consider whether your CapEx guidance either is low end of your current range or maybe have some downside risk, and I’m trying to understand, would you rather take those efficiencies and redeploy the capital and keep the capital the same? Or are you trending lower in your spending going into ‘24? Any early guidance will be appreciated.
Tom Jorden: Yes. I’m going to give you a very vague guidance here. We will take efficiencies every day we can find them. And to the extent that efficiencies mean we can do the same thing next year cheaper than we did this year, all else being equal. That’s a wonderful outcome, and we seek to find those outcomes everywhere we look, but that – you can infer what you will, with that $200 million, what that means. But it means we have more opportunities than we thought we would ever have because of efficiencies. We’re not prepared to say whether we’ll be flat, up, down, sideways. But I will say this, I think you can look for us to have a very strong 2024, based on the operational momentum, capital efficiency, asset productivity and operational execution that we have going on. It’s going to flow right into ‘24, and we will be able to do more with less.
