Arun Jayaram: Okay. Fair enough. My follow-up is just on the Trimulfrac completion scheme. Greg, I think you mentioned you participated now in 70 completions, but one of the questions we’ve got from investors is if you could give us a sense of the well productivity on the Trimulfrac completions versus the wells you’re doing, either Simulfrac or zipper. And is there any trade-off before some of the — that you’re experiencing from some of the efficiency gains versus just overall performance or well productivity?
Greg Givens: Thanks for the question. And we’ve been very pleased that all along over the past two years, as we’ve instituted these Trimulfrac’s, we’re seeing no degradation of well performance really at all. What we’re seeing is lower treating pressures and the ability to pump these jobs faster, which should generates cost savings, which will flow straight to the bottom line. It also allows us to execute these jobs faster, which allows us to be more capital efficient. But the performance from these wells are very much in line with the other wells in the field. If you recall, we were doing this for a bit of time prior to even divulging that we were doing Trimulfrac and the results weren’t showing up any differently during that time, and that continues to be the case today.
So we’re very pleased with Trimulfrac. We pump a third of our jobs last year using that technique, this year will be a little over half. And I see no reason why we couldn’t continue to push that up even higher in the future as we continue to use the technology.
Brendan McCracken: Yes. I’d just add Arun. I’d just add Arun, in the rock doesn’t know it’s being Trimulfraced. So the way we design these completions, the rate of slurry sand and water that’s going through each cluster is exactly the same in either a zipper, a Simul or a Trimulfrac. And so really, this is all about an aboveground efficiency gain and the reservoir feels the exact same frac it would otherwise. So that’s why the result that Greg is describing on the well performance makes total sense that the wells would produce exactly the same because the completion downhole is exactly the same.
Arun Jayaram: Great, thanks Brendan.
Brendan McCracken: Yes, thanks Arun.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from Neal Dingmann at Truist Securities. Please go ahead.
Neal Dingmann: Good morning guys. Thanks for the time. My first question is on the D&C plan. Specifically, looking at your — I guess, the second quarter guide, you all talked about adding that sixth Permian rig is — I know you’d — I already said suggested and started up the Anadarko program. I’m just wondering assuming you’re maybe — I don’t know, Brendan question for you or Greg, if the operational efficiencies continue at this current pace, would you all continue with the same rigs, the six same rigs or which I think is about 60% the overall program? Or would you let maybe a Permian rig, or another rig go earlier than expected in the program this year?
Brendan McCracken: Yes, Neal, I think the way to think about that is based on what we’re seeing today in terms of supply and demand fundamentals and the service price environment that we’re working in, we’re biased towards keeping that low-level program going with that sixth rig through the end of the year. And so that’s what’s reflected in the guidance that we issued today and additional asset level guidance in the material also shows that — with that 60% of the TILs in the Permian coming in the second half.
Neal Dingmann: Got it. Got it. Okay. And then just a quick — do you have some, Greg.
Greg Givens: No, go ahead, Neal.
Neal Dingmann: Okay. Then just a quick second one, just on capital allocation. Is it fair to say — I don’t know, Brendan, for your record, just when you look at the free cash flow, and we have that continuing to ramp up pretty nicely this year. Will that likely continue to consist of just — continue to lean — leaning into buybacks of the stocks or — I’m just wondering, I guess, that versus variables or something else or if I could ask maybe one other second part of there. I mean do you all think of the stock value is based on a mid-cycle level, or what would cause you to continue leaning into this as you have?
Brendan McCracken: Yes. Great question, Neal. The approach we’ve taken, I think, will continue to be consistent with. And our view there has been to stay in this 50:50 allocation of free cash, where we’re putting half of it to the debt reduction and then half of it to the incremental shareholder returns. And then on your question around how to do that incremental shareholder return, we continue to see buybacks as the right value choice and the way we get to it is exactly how you implied. So we look at what we think the intrinsic value of the business is, and we look at that through a mid-cycle lens. And for us, that’s been $55 on TI and $2.75 on NYMEX. And so we look at the business through that price lens, which sitting here today feels reasonably conservative on the oil side and probably balanced on the gas side.
And so we like that as a discipline tactic to really manage that decision between staying in buybacks or shifting into something like a variable dividend. And so when we do that math and analysis, today, we’re still very comfortable that the buybacks are the right return mechanism to choose for that incremental return to our shareholders.
Neal Dingmann: Absolutely agreed. Thanks, Brendan.
Brendan McCracken: Thanks, Neal.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from Gabe Daoud at TD Cowen. Please go ahead.
Gabriel Daoud: Hey, thank you. It’s Gabe here from Cowen. Hey guys. Brendan, I was hoping maybe you could just provide a little bit more on the trajectory from here? You assume you get 8 KBD back in the Uinta and Permian tills, kind of accelerating from here with 60% in the back half. You’re starting a rig in the Anadarko. Is Montney, I guess, declining still on the condensate basis? How do we think about that, I guess? And just some of the puts and takes at the asset level versus the corporate level guide that kind of assumes or implies maybe flattish to down in the second half on oil and condensate.
Brendan McCracken: Yes. Maybe I can talk a little bit about the shape within the assets there, Gabe. So remember, the kind of the biggest factor for production shape for us this year has been really finishing off the integration of that acquisition in the Permian last year. And just as a reminder, I think everybody knows this, but just as a reminder, there was quite a number of wells in progress that we inherited there as we shifted from that asset being run for growth under the prior management to being run for free cash flow under our strategy. And so really, the shape that you’re seeing through ’24 is just finishing off that stabilization and integration. And so what you should expect is the Permian will stabilize in the back half of the year at a little under where it was in 1Q.
