But I think the answer to your question is that as it pertains to this year from a path, right Jim? Yes. I think the answer to this year is that, yes, effectively, through the path, our overall capital can step down throughout the year and production would peak and then slightly decline in the fourth quarter, but not meaningfully, even though the capital falls off materially.
Scott Hanold: Yes, no, no, I appreciate it. There’s a lot of, you know, gives and takes for the cruels and stuff like that. And that all makes sense.
Nick O’Grady: And remember, but it’s not a meaningful amount, it’s not.
Scott Hanold: Got it. Okay. And then, you know, I’m sorry, go ahead.
Nick O’Grady: It’s just not a meaningful amount.
Scott Hanold: Okay. You all had discussed in some of your prepared comments that some of the stronger production results was due to some pull-in of activity, but also some well outperformance. Could you be a little more specific on that? I mean you obviously have a couple of large joint ventures with Mascot and Novo. Can you kind of qualify or quantify what you’re seeing with some of those wells? And is that what’s really driven the performance? Or is it more broad-based than that?
Jim Evans: I think it’s a combination of the two. As far as the projects go, they’re all at or above expectations in terms of new development activity that we’ve been seeing of Novo with the New Mexico assets, our Utica assets are outperforming. We’ve seen some meaningful performance in Williston as well with the likes Continental and Conoco and exposure to Slawson Marathon, they’re all kind of sticking into the core where we’ve got some outsized working interest. So it seems to be a combination of all the above.
Scott Hanold: Got it. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Charles Meade of Johnson Rice. Please go ahead.
Charles Meade: Good morning, Nick, Adam, and Chad. I want to pick up perhaps right where we just left off on the source of the production bit. But I wondered if you could look at it or try to answer it in this framework. In late February, you guys thought that there’s going to be a slight decline until you came in with, call it, a 4% growth on the quarter. So was there a specific — I think this is — I guess he already asked about the geographies. I guess what changed in March that led to that led to that result that was different from what you guys saw at the end of February?
Nick O’Grady: Well, I think if you’re talking about what changed in what we were seeing. I think it’s going to be a combination of what wells came online in March as well as these wells are cleaning up in January and February, you’ve got very limited data in terms of what you’re seeing. And so you’ve got to let it play out over an extended period of time. And then, Jim, I don’t know if you want to comment on anything else in particular.
Jim Evans: Yes, Charles and obviously, we saw a full forward of activity as well, right? So we had three extra net wells that we weren’t really accounting for. So that added some production there, too. Like Adam mentioned the used assets, they continue to clean up, performed better than we had expected at that time. As well as we have some new wells come online kind of mid-February on the Novo asset that has significantly outperformed our expectations. So that’s another driver as well. And then as we showed in the Williston on new Continental wells that looked really good compared to our expectations. So just kind of a combination of all those things really cannot drove Q1 performance versus what we were modeling kind of that mid late February time frame.
Nick O’Grady: Yes, on just a lag of information, right? I mean we might be getting this information on a daily basis, but you need to be able to bring it in, how [Indiscernible] it against the model and then put all the pieces together. Because you’re going to have pushes in bold everywhere. And then it’s just going to depend on what your working interests are and the timing of that development and information.
Jim Evans: And there are certain things too, Charles, like from an assumption perspective, like using the freeze-off event in Williston. We were very concerned not necessarily about the freeze-off of that in and of itself, we had a pretty good handle of that, but we were pretty concerned that it was going to push particularly a lot of the completions out. So we have scheduled the assumption that a lot of the completions will be pushed out multiple weeks. And then later on in February and March we came to find out that a lot of that stuff had actually come right on schedule, right? So then you’re going back and rejiggering that as you actually get the well status and reports in. So a lot of the stuff we had anticipated kind of getting delayed, wound up not being delayed.
So then ultimately, it’s not just the TILs themselves having more TIL themselves. But even within the quarter, things being more on time and being accelerated in than you thought. So you’re getting the benefit of time within a quarter, not just the actual additional activity on top of that.
Charles Meade: Got it. That’s all helpful incremental detail.
Jim Evans: And just I will tell you like I mentioned this in my prepared comments, we are just seeing to better well performance. I mean you saw that in our times. And you may not see it because obviously, our Permian mix this year is more Midland-based so it is obviously maybe a bit lower than our average last year here today, but certainly better than what our internal forecast has been. And so in general, we’ve been doing a bit better than we anticipated coming out of the gate.
