Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) 2026 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to Diamondback Energy's third-quarter 2026 earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Adam Lawlis VP of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

各位早安，感謝您撥冗等候。歡迎參加 Diamondback Energy 2026 年第三季財報電話會議。(接線員指示) 請注意，今日會議將全程錄音。現在我想把會議交給今天的第一位講者，投資人關係副總裁 Adam Lawlis。請開始。

Thank you, Stephen. Good morning, and welcome to Diamondback Energy's Third Quarter 2026 Conference Call. During our call today, we will reference an updated investor presentation and letter to stockholders, which can be found on Diamondback's website. Representing Diamondback today are Kaes Van't Hof, CEO; Danny Wesson, COO; Jere Thompson, CFO; and Al Barkmann, Chief Engineer.

謝謝你，Stephen。各位早安，歡迎參加 Diamondback Energy 2026 年第三季電話會議。在今天的會議中，我們將引用更新後的投資人簡報以及致股東信，相關資料可於 Diamondback 官網查閱。今天代表 Diamondback 出席的有：執行長 Kaes Van't Hof；營運長 Danny Wesson；財務長 Jere Thompson；以及總工程師 Al Barkmann。

During this conference call, the participants may make certain forward-looking statements relating to the company's financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and businesses. We caution you that actual results could differ materially from those that are indicated in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. Information concerning these factors can be found in the company's filings with the SEC. In addition, we will make reference to certain non-GAAP measures. The reconciliations with the appropriate GAAP measures can be found in our earnings release issued yesterday afternoon.

在本次電話會議中，與會者可能會就公司財務狀況、營運結果、計畫、目標、未來表現及業務等作出若干前瞻性陳述。我們提醒您，由於多項因素，實際結果可能與這些前瞻性陳述所示內容存在重大差異。有關這些因素的資訊可於公司向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交的文件中查閱。此外，我們也將提及若干非 GAAP 指標。與相應 GAAP 指標的調節表可於我們昨天下午發布的財報新聞稿中查閱。

I'll now turn the call over to Kaes.

接下來我把電話交給 Kaes。

Thank you, Adam. I hope everybody read our much longer shareholder letter last night. A couple of key mega themes we've been thinking about a lot in the Permian, but also a regular update on the business. So I think we'll just go straight into Q&A.

謝謝你，Adam。我希望大家昨晚都讀了我們篇幅更長的致股東信。信中談到幾個我們在二疊紀盆地一直深入思考的關鍵「巨型主題」，同時也有對業務的例行更新。所以我想我們就直接進入問答。

And operator, please open the line for questions.

接線員，請開放提問。

(Operator Instructions) Neal Dingmann, William Blair.

(接線員指示) Neal Dingmann，William Blair。

My first question is just on your reinvestment rate, specifically, just wondering, do you all think about sort of maybe capital allocation, perhaps even when you give your growth plans differently given your leading 30% reinvestment rate, I mean given how low that is, I'm just wondering what -- how that changes in your thought process when you all said in the plans?

我的第一個問題是關於你們的再投資率。具體來說，我想了解的是：在你們領先同業、約 30% 的再投資率之下——考量到這個水準非常低——你們在資本配置的思考上是否會有所不同？也就是說，當你們提出成長計畫時，這會如何改變你們的思考方式？

Yes, Neal, I mean, I think there's 2 big pieces of capital allocation within Diamondback. First is, let's drill our best stuff first, right? We've been very good at that for a long time now. And we spend a lot of time finding the best projects in our portfolio and that is the baseline for the capital plan and the output that is the free cash and the reinvestment rate. I would say on the reinvestment rate side, it's interesting, Diamondback 32%, I think at strip yesterday, it was a 30% reinvestment rate for the year.

是的，Neal，我認為 Diamondback 的資本配置主要有兩大部分。第一是：先鑽我們最好的資產，對吧？我們長期以來在這方面做得非常好。我們花很多時間在投資組合中找出最佳專案，這是資本計畫的基礎，而其產出就是自由現金流與再投資率。就再投資率而言，很有意思的是，Diamondback 是 32%，我想以昨天的期貨曲線（strip）來看，今年的再投資率大約是 30%。

That's below super majors and super majors have refining crack spreads that are at all-time high. So I think the E&P investor from 2018 or 2019 would fall out of their chair seeing an oil and gas company. E&P, shale company, reinvested at 32%. So we're very, very proud of that. That's a combination of, one, that capital allocation in the field; two, the lowest cost structure in the basin that we're continuing to drive down; but then three, we know that the market is volatile.

這甚至低於超級大型石油公司（super majors），而且超級大型石油公司還有煉油裂解價差（refining crack spreads）處於歷史高點的加持。所以我認為，如果是 2018 或 2019 年的 E&P 投資人，看到一家油氣公司——一家 E&P、頁岩公司——再投資率只有 32%，可能會驚掉下巴。因此我們對此非常、非常自豪。這是三項因素的組合：第一，現場的資本配置；第二，我們在盆地中最低的成本結構，而且仍在持續下降；第三，我們知道市場具有波動性。

We know that front month commodity prices have been all over the place throughout this year. I think we saw a $60 a barrel swing in Q3 alone. And so our best protection is to keep that reinvestment rate low, generate a ton of free cash and then allocate that free cash appropriately to what the market is giving us. And I would expect that reinvestment rate to stay low, capital discipline to remain and us to allocate that free cash to the right side of the balance sheet.

我們知道，今年以來近月商品價格（front month commodity prices）一直大幅波動。我想光是第三季就看到每桶約 60 美元的波動幅度。因此，我們最好的保護方式就是維持低再投資率、創造大量自由現金流，然後依據市場給我們的條件，適當配置這些自由現金流。我預期再投資率會維持在低檔、資本紀律會持續，我們也會把自由現金流配置到資產負債表的正確一側。

No. That makes a lot of sense. And then just my second question, maybe a little more qualitative just get asked a lot on the Steven -- maybe Steven's family, specifically with the Steven's family. Can you talk about your or even Diamondback's relationship with the family?

了解，這很合理。那我的第二個問題可能比較偏質性、也常被問到，關於 Steven——也許是 Steven 家族，特別是 Steven 家族。你能談談你或 Diamondback 與該家族之間的關係嗎？

Yes. I think we have a great relationship with the family across the board as well as myself and the team personally. I think anytime you have a shareholder that owns that many shares. They deserve all the attention that they need. We go see them every quarter and talk to them.

可以。我認為我們與該家族整體的關係非常好，我本人以及團隊在私下也維持良好互動。我想任何時候，只要有一位股東持有那麼多股份，他們就值得獲得所需的關注。我們每一季都會去拜訪他們並與他們溝通。

Obviously, they have sold down a good amount of shares this year. And we recognize that, that sometimes weighs on the shares, and we've tried to support buying back shares in the aftermarket. But at the end of the day, the family is a long-term believer in the story, that's why they did the deal with us. I think if you look at the success of the Endeavor transaction, none of us would take that back. But I do think one thing we talked a little bit about governance in the shareholder letter and just like within Diamondback, we're kind of beyond talking about legacy Endeavor and legacy Diamondback we're kind of one -- we're one team rolling forward here in Midland, Texas.

很明顯地，他們今年已經賣出相當數量的股份。我們也理解這有時會對股價造成壓力，因此我們嘗試透過在次級市場回購股票來提供支撐。但歸根結底，該家族是這個故事的長期信仰者，這也是他們當初願意與我們完成交易的原因。我認為如果你看 Endeavor 交易的成功，沒有人會想把它推翻重來。不過我確實認為，我們在致股東信中稍微談到公司治理；而且就像在 Diamondback 內部一樣，我們已經不再區分「傳統 Endeavor」與「傳統 Diamondback」，我們現在是在德州米德蘭（Midland, Texas）一起向前的一個團隊。

The same goes for our Board. And we have now have an 11-person board, 2 members are technically designated by the family not. But at the end of the day, that's just one more now moving forward. So we're happy with the size of the Board. We're happy with the family, and I think the feeling is mutual.

我們的董事會也是同樣的情況。我們現在有一個 11 人的董事會，其中有 2 位成員在技術上是由該家族指定——但也不是。但歸根結底，往前看那也只是其中的一部分而已。所以我們對董事會的規模感到滿意。我們對該家族也很滿意，我想這種感受是相互的。

Neil Mehta, Goldman Sachs.

Neil Mehta，高盛。

Yes. And thanks for these 3 mega themes. I think it gives us stuff to key off of this morning. I just wanted to spend some time on improving recovery. So you indicated you're at about 10% of the oil in place is being extracted today.

是的，謝謝你們提出這三個巨型主題。我想這讓我們今天早上有一些可以聚焦的方向。我想花點時間談談提高採收率（improving recovery）。你們提到目前大約只有地層原油（oil in place）的 10% 被開採出來。

Kaes, how do you see that evolving over time? And can you talk about some of the components you talked about in the letter around development completion in EOR? And then as you kind of tie that into the Permian, the Permian is producing, call it, 6.7 million barrels a day, so about half of America's oil production year-to-date. How do you think about the growth of the basin broadly in that context?

Kaes，你怎麼看這個比例隨時間的演變？也能否談談你們在信中提到的幾個構成要素，包含開發與完井（development completion）以及提高採收率（EOR）？另外，把這點放到二疊紀盆地的脈絡來看，二疊紀盆地目前日產約 670 萬桶，約占美國今年迄今原油產量的一半。在這樣的背景下，你如何看待整個盆地的廣義成長？

Yes, Neil, that's a great question. And I think the key is some of these things that were probably more theory in the last couple of years are becoming reality. And we're big believers in stacking up the little wins here at Diamondback. If you think about what we've done mechanically above ground drilling wells starting at 30 or 40 days. Now we're at 4 or 5 days.

是的，Neil，這是個很好的問題。我認為關鍵在於，過去幾年可能還偏理論的一些事情，正在變成現實。而我們非常相信在 Diamondback 把一個個小勝利累積起來。如果你想想我們在地面以上、在機械層面所做的事：鑽一口井原本要 30 或 40 天。現在我們做到 4 或 5 天。

That didn't happen overnight. And I think the theme on improving recoveries isn't going to happen overnight. But if we're thinking about the 2030s and beyond, there are some things that are being tested in the field that are starting to look like successes. And I think the completion technology continues to improve. I think we're able to sense more and see more downhole than we used to.

那不是一夜之間發生的。而且我認為，提升採收率這個主題也不會一夜之間就實現。但如果我們把眼光放在 2030 年代及以後，有一些正在現場測試的做法開始看起來像是成功案例。而且我認為完井技術仍在持續進步。我認為我們現在能在井下感測到、看到的東西，比過去多得多。

But then you also have some things like surfactants or chemical EOR that are starting to have some positive use cases, whether it's on the front end and the completion or in the remedial jobs that we've been trying over the last 1.5 years, 2 years. and we're starting to learn a lot more about it and improve our process and move from a theoretical process to something we can model. And I think that should -- if you go to your macro comment, that should either allow the basin to grow more or be able to do this longer. And one of the key points of the mega themes that we put out there is that we're not just thinking about Diamondback for the fourth quarter or for 2027. We're thinking about Diamondback for the 2030s in this basin for the 2030s.

不過你也有一些像界面活性劑或化學提高採收率（chemical EOR）之類的技術，開始出現一些正面的應用案例，不論是在前端的完井階段，或是在我們過去 1.5 年、2 年嘗試的修復性作業中。而我們也開始學到更多、改善流程，並把它從理論流程推進到可以建模的程度。我認為這一點——呼應你提到的宏觀觀點——應該會讓盆地能夠成長得更多，或是能夠把這件事做得更久。而我們提出的那些「巨型主題」其中一個關鍵點是：我們不只是思考 Diamondback 的第四季或 2027 年。我們是在思考 Diamondback 在這個盆地的 2030 年代，以及這個盆地在 2030 年代的樣貌。

And I think spending capital and time and intellectual capital today is going to be rewarding for our shareholders for the long term.

而我認為，今天投入資本、時間與智力資本，長期來看會為我們的股東帶來回報。

No. It was interesting that the letter kind of really focused in on the Permian and your confidence into the next decade because one of the questions we often get from your investors is should Diamondback diversified beyond the Permian. But I'd love your perspective on this because you kind of are at a fork in the road as it relates to that. Is this kind of indicating that you want to stay a Permian pure play?

不。很有意思的是，那封信其實相當聚焦在二疊紀（Permian）以及你對下一個十年的信心，因為投資人常常問你們的一個問題是：Diamondback 是否應該在二疊紀之外做多元化。但我很想聽聽你的看法，因為在這件事上你們有點像站在分岔路口。這是否意味著你們想要維持「純二疊紀」的策略？

Yes. I mean, listen, we want to know what around the world could outcompete us in terms of productivity and returns. And we have looked and seen plays that get attention, whether it be in Canada, shale plays in Argentina, some of the international stuff starting to get attention. And I kind of go back to my golden rule, which is no, you don't know. And I do know that Diamondback is a basin expert.

是的。我的意思是，聽著，我們想知道全球有哪些地方在生產力與報酬率上能夠勝過我們。我們也看過一些受到關注的區塊，不管是加拿大、阿根廷的頁岩區塊，或是一些開始受到注意的國際項目。而我會回到我的黃金法則：不，你其實不知道。但我確實知道 Diamondback 是盆地專家。

We spend every day, 1,700 people spend every day trying to get better at what we do in the Permian Basin, and we don't spend a lot of time thinking about other places outside the basin. Now with the mega themes, I think that means there are other avenues to grow the business throughout the basin, like our Mineral business, some of the stuff we're doing on the midstream side. Obviously, the infrastructure data center way, we think we can kind of be at the center of that and add value to that process. But at the end of the day, I think our investors would rather us spend the extra $100 million on surfactant tests to improve our overall recoveries and duration than go explore outside the basin that we don't know as well. And I think that core competency should result in continued long-term outperformance.

我們每天都在投入——1,700 名員工每天都在努力把我們在二疊紀盆地做的事情做得更好，而我們不會花很多時間去想盆地以外的其他地方。現在，談到這些巨型主題，我認為這代表在盆地內還有其他成長業務的途徑，例如我們的礦權（Mineral）業務，以及我們在中游（midstream）端所做的一些事情。很明顯地，從基礎設施／資料中心的角度來看，我們認為我們可以處在那個生態的中心，並在這個過程中創造價值。但歸根結底，我認為投資人寧可我們把多出來的 1 億美元用在界面活性劑測試上，以提升整體採收率與可持續開發年限，也不要我們去探索盆地外、我們不那麼熟悉的地方。而我認為，這項核心能力應該會帶來持續的長期超額表現。

David Deckelbaum, Stifel.

David Deckelbaum，Stifel。

I was hoping just to for this year, you guys kind of guided towards the higher end of capital guidance. It looked like there's some cycle time improvements and perhaps a little bit of added activity. Your comments were that well cost inflation is roughly being offset heading into next year that you're at least asking your team with trying to offset well cost inflation with efficiencies. I guess as we think about that $1 billion and change level for 4Q. Is that a reasonable starting point as we think about '27 and still obtaining that kind of single-digit growth number?

我想問的是，就今年而言，你們的指引看起來是偏向資本支出指引區間的高端。看起來有一些週期時間（cycle time）的改善，可能也有一點額外的活動量。你們的評論是，進入明年井成本通膨大致會被抵消，至少你們要求團隊用效率來抵消井成本通膨。我想，當我們思考第四季約 10 億美元出頭的水準時，若我們展望 2027 年並仍要達到那種個位數成長，這是否是一個合理的起點？

Yes, David, I'll give you some high level, and then Daniel will give you what he's seeing in the field. I think we've kind of implied last quarter that we're starting to see some inflation on the consumable side of the business. We're basically guiding the same CapEx in Q4 as essentially we ended up in we think that we can probably hold oil production flat at the higher end of that range going forward and fight off some inflation with efficiencies. But I think if we want to grow next year, which is still very much TBD based on the macro, we have to spend a little more -- a little more than the range that we put out for Q4 and I don't know, Dan, you want to talk about what you're seeing?

是的，David，我先給你一些高層次的看法，然後 Daniel 會分享他在現場看到的情況。我想我們在上一季已經有點暗示，我們開始在業務的耗材端看到一些通膨。我們基本上指引第四季的資本支出與我們最終的水準大致相同；我們認為往後大概可以在該區間的高端把原油產量維持持平，並透過效率來抵禦部分通膨。但我認為，如果我們明年想要成長——這仍然非常取決於宏觀環境——我們就必須多花一點錢——比我們對第四季提出的區間再多一點；我不知道，Dan，你要不要談談你看到的狀況？

Yes. I mean I think we're price takers, right? And we've said that before, but our focus has always been on controlling what we can control and fighting the variable cost day in and day out and trying to do that better than everybody else. And we always look for value, whether that's execution value or value in our procurement strategy. And what our service partners can bring us differential to anybody else.

是的。我的意思是，我們是價格接受者（price takers），對吧？我們以前也說過，但我們的重點一直是控制我們能控制的事情，日復一日地對抗變動成本，並努力把這件事做得比其他人更好。我們總是在找價值，不管是執行面的價值，或是我們採購策略中的價值。以及我們的服務合作夥伴能帶給我們、相較於其他任何人的差異化。

And we're going to continue to do that through '27 if there's an inflation cycle, which at $100 oil, you can expect that there's going to be probably an inflation cycle that comes through on the service side. We're going to do what Diamondback has always done and fight the variable cost side of that and look for ways to offset some of that through execution or business relationships. But it's to be determined yet on what 2027 is going to look like with regards to the service sector and the inflation that's coming through. I think there's a lot of volatility in the marketplace today kind of see what happens post what's going on today in the U.S. and throughout the end of the fourth quarter and look forward to updating you guys early next year.

如果出現通膨循環，我們會一路這麼做直到 2027 年；在每桶 100 美元的油價下，你可以預期服務端很可能會出現一波通膨循環。我們會做 Diamondback 一直以來做的事：在變動成本端與之對抗，並尋找透過執行或商業關係來抵消部分影響的方法。但就服務業在 2027 年會是什麼樣子、以及通膨會如何傳導，目前仍有待觀察。我認為今天市場波動很大；我們會看看在美國目前發生的事情之後會如何發展，一直到第四季末，並期待在明年初向各位更新。

Appreciate that, Danny. Perhaps if we can talk about the Barnett a little bit. You guys showcased some pretty impressive results, particularly in and around its Spanish Trail area. I am curious as we think about '27 and beyond, when does the Barnett become more of a development-oriented program versus HBP? Or should we think about '27 as more of satisfying HBP commitments on the Barnett side before really endeavoring to high grade where activity goes?

謝謝你，Danny。或許我們可以稍微談談 Barnett。你們展示了一些相當令人印象深刻的成果，特別是在 Spanish Trail 區域及其周邊。我很好奇，當我們思考 2027 年及以後時，Barnett 何時會從以 HBP（hold-by-production，保留租約所需的生產）為主，轉變成更偏向開發導向的計畫？或者我們是否應該把 2027 年視為在 Barnett 端先滿足 HBP 承諾，之後才真正著手做活動的高階篩選與配置？

Yes. So on me that we haven't updated the market on some of our best results to date in the Barnett. We're still trying to lease around those areas. And obviously, us releasing these wells now today is going to bring a lot of attention to those areas. Fortunately, we've gotten as much acreage, almost as much acreage as we can, although the play continues to grow.

是的。就我這邊來說，我們還沒有把 Barnett 迄今一些最好的成果更新給市場。我們仍在努力在那些區域周邊進行租賃。而且很明顯地，我們今天公布這些井的結果，會讓那些區域受到很多關注。幸運的是，我們已經取得了盡可能多的土地面積，幾乎是我們能拿到的最大面積，儘管這個區塊仍在持續擴大。

And I would just say what was once a geologic success is now turning into meaningful value for the company, and we're moving into kind of full field development. And Al, I don't know if you want to give some color on what we're up to in Q4 and next year.

而我只想說，曾經只是地質上的成功，現在正轉化為對公司有意義的價值，而我們也正在邁向某種全區域開發（full field development）。Al，我不知道你是否想補充一些我們在第四季以及明年要做什麼的細節。

Yes, David, that's -- when you look at Slide 11 there in the deck, we provided a locator map on the bottom right to kind of go along with the well results that we released. And what I would say is we do have some obligation drilling coming up in '27. Most of that obligation drilling is focused in and around where we released these well results of the stars that you're seeing kind of on the western side of the basin. And so what we're doing is we're leaning into sort of the co-development in those areas just because the returns and the well performance are robust enough to compete, especially in areas like Spanish Trail, which is up by our Lela start there in (inaudible) with the Viper ownership, that's very competitive with core development. So we call those efficiency wells, so just leaning into sort of areas where we've got to go satisfy obligations, but we want to co-develop, so we don't leave children wells behind.

是的，David，沒錯——當你看簡報中的第 11 頁投影片時，我們在右下角提供了一張定位地圖，用來搭配我們發布的井結果。我想說的是，我們在 2027 年確實有一些義務性鑽井要進行。這些義務性鑽井大多集中在、以及圍繞我們發布這些井結果的區域，也就是你在盆地西側看到那些星號標示的位置。因此我們正在更傾向於在那些區域進行某種共同開發（co-development），因為回報與井的表現足夠強勁、具備競爭力，尤其是在像 Spanish Trail 這樣的區域——它位於我們在（聽不清）那個 Lela 起始點附近，且有 Viper 的持有權——其競爭力與核心區開發相當。所以我們把那些稱為效率井（efficiency wells）：也就是在必須滿足義務的區域加大投入，但我們希望以共同開發的方式進行，避免留下子井（children wells）。

Jeoffrey Lambujon, TPH Research.

Jeoffrey Lambujon，TPH Research。

Maybe just a follow-up on the Barnett commentary. As you make that move from delineation to full field development that you talked about, can you talk about what's going to change from an on-the-ground operational perspective as it relates to well cost? Over time, are you focused on, whether it's pad size, lateral length, shared facilities, what have you? And would those do you see moving the needle most towards that well cost target for the program?

我想就 Barnett 的評論再追問一下。當你們從你提到的界定（delineation）轉向全面油田開發（full field development）時，能否談談在現場營運層面、就井成本而言會有哪些改變？隨著時間推進，你們著重的會是哪些面向——例如井場（pad）規模、水平段長度（lateral length）、共用設施（shared facilities）等等？而你們認為哪些措施最能推動你們的計畫達成那個井成本目標？

Yes, Jeff, good question. I think it's all of the above. Obviously, that lateral length is -- the biggest not we can turn on the dollar per foot basis just moving the denominator longer, and we intend to utilize the lessons we've learned in the channel development and exploit those things into the deep development to drill longer laterals, shared infrastructure across the surface acreage will benefit on the infrastructure capital that you need to deploy to develop those deep zones and then -- just generally, when I look at what is going on, and we're really early still in the development phase of the Deep zones. But when I look at what's going on from the drilling group, you can see marked improvements in every hole section here whether it's getting our intermediate strings to bottom faster or drilling the curve faster are in the lateral. It's -- everything is getting a little bit faster.

是的，Jeff，問得很好。我認為以上皆是。很明顯，水平段長度是——以每英尺成本來看，我們能調整的最大槓桿就是把分母拉長；我們也打算把在通道（channel）開發中學到的經驗運用到深層開發中，鑽更長的水平段；在地表礦權範圍內共用基礎設施，將有助於降低你為開發那些深層層位所需投入的基礎設施資本；另外——整體而言，當我看目前的進展，我們其實仍處於深層層位開發的非常早期階段。但從鑽井團隊的表現來看，你可以看到在每一段井段都有顯著改善——不論是更快把中間套管（intermediate strings）下到井底、或是更快鑽完造斜段（curve）與水平段。也就是說——所有環節都變得更快了一些。

So I continue to expect that on a like-for-like well that we'll see efficiencies continue to accrue to us in those deep horizons. It's just hard to talk about it today because we just don't have a whole lot of data set -- a whole big data set to look at. But I can tell you that it is looking better quarter-over-quarter.

因此我仍然預期，在同類型（like-for-like）的井之間比較時，我們在那些深層層位的效率會持續累積。只是今天很難具體談，因為我們目前還沒有非常大量的資料集——沒有一個很大的資料集可供分析。但我可以告訴你，從季度到季度來看，情況確實在改善。

Perfect. That makes sense. And then for my follow-up, I just wanted to focus on some of those avenues to grow the business while focusing in the Permian that you mentioned First, on some of the gas and LNG commentary. As you think about the path forward for Diamondback and controlling more molecules downstream on this front as you think about doing business with those potential counterparties, what's a good deal look like for you guys in your view, whether you can speak term price linkages or volume commitments? And then kind of similar line of questioning on the tower side.

很好。這很合理。那我接著的追問，想聚焦在你提到的、在專注二疊紀（Permian）的同時推動業務成長的一些途徑。首先是關於天然氣與 LNG 的部分。當你思考 Diamondback 未來的路徑、以及在這方面如何在下游掌控更多分子（molecules）時——在與那些潛在交易對手往來時，從你們的角度看，一筆「好交易」長什麼樣子？你是否能談談合約期限、價格連結方式（price linkages）或量的承諾（volume commitments）？然後在電力（tower）那一端，也想用類似的問題來問。

On the first project, how are you feeling about the gating items to FID? Is there anything you can share just on latest discussions around that?

就第一個專案而言，你們對於達成最終投資決策（FID）的關鍵門檻項目（gating items）目前感覺如何？關於相關的最新討論，你們是否能分享一些內容？

Yes. So I think they kind of tie together, we're going to try to find the best deals across the board for Diamondback shareholders. I think on the LNG side, shareholders have not owned Diamondback to date to be the tip of the spear and taking on 15-plus year commitments to get LNG facilities built. But I think as we've studied the market, you have a lot of LNG demand and maybe some question marks on where the supply is going to come from and you have a lot of counterparties that have taken out a lot of space that are long offtake capacity and short molecules, and we're obviously very long molecules and I think likely to be longer gas molecules over the next 5, 10 years. And so we've taken out a lot of space on pipelines to get to these closer to the end markets and start to have real conversations with the large players in the LNG space.

是的。所以我認為這些其實是相互連結的；我們會努力為 Diamondback 股東在各方面找到最好的交易。我認為在 LNG 這一端，股東過去持有 Diamondback，並不是為了讓我們站在最前線、承擔 15 年以上的承諾來促成 LNG 設施的興建。但當我們研究市場後，你會看到 LNG 需求很大，而供給從哪裡來可能存在一些問號；同時有很多交易對手已經鎖定了大量的產能空間——他們在承購（offtake）產能上是偏多（long），但在分子供應上是偏空（short）；而我們顯然是分子偏多（very long molecules），而且在未來 5 到 10 年，我們很可能會有更多的天然氣分子。因此我們已在管線上預留了大量運輸空間，以便更接近終端市場，並開始與 LNG 領域的大型玩家進行實質對話。

And I think there's win-wins. I think we have to explore what those could be. We tend to be able to get deals done. But I do think it's interesting, there's a lot of LNG players that have taken out even space on some of the pipelines that we're on that don't have the gas supply. So I think generally, we said in the letter, the basin moving from supply push to demand pull whether it be power or LNG should be a good thing for the owner of the molecule long term.

而且我認為這裡存在雙贏。我們必須去探索那些可能的合作模式。我們通常能把交易談成。但我確實覺得很有意思的是，有不少 LNG 業者甚至也在我們所使用的一些管線上預留了空間，但他們並沒有相應的天然氣供應。所以整體而言，我們在信中提到：盆地正從「供給推動（supply push）」轉向「需求拉動（demand pull）」——不論是電力或 LNG——從長期來看，對於分子持有者應該是好事。

And when it comes to our power project, I'll let Jere give an update and then I can say some high-level things.

至於我們的電力專案，我會先讓 Jere 更新一下，然後我再補充一些高層次的看法。

Yes. I mean I think the biggest thing like to mention last quarter is we're close. We've got a unique project on Brian Ranch that is shovel-ready. We've remediated the land. We secured the equipment, and we've got water and gas teed up and ready to go.

是的。我想最重要、也像上季提到的，是我們已經很接近了。我們在 Brian Ranch 有一個獨特的專案，已經具備動工條件（shovel-ready）。我們已完成土地整治（remediated）。我們已確保設備，而且水與天然氣都已接好、隨時可用。

So we're really just dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on final agreements, but very excited to we are in this position and feel like we should be able to talk more about it soon.

所以我們現在真的就是在把最終協議的細節確認到位（dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s），但我們對能處於這個位置感到非常振奮，也覺得我們應該很快就能分享更多內容。

And I think I'll just add to what I've learned from a macro perspective, and this is why we put it in the letter, assuming a friendly Texas regulatory environment, Texas has a chance to continue to grow its economy significantly through the development of this infrastructure and a company like Diamondback out in West Texas can aid in that process, whether it's we own surface, we control gas. We can work with midstream partners to get to sites. We have a good idea on site selection. And I think we can figure out ways to get deals done and make things move faster than they have to date. And if you talk to the tech world, they move pretty fast.

我想我再從總體角度補充一下我學到的內容——這也是我們把它寫進信裡的原因：在德州監管環境友善的前提下，德州有機會透過這些基礎設施的建設，持續大幅成長其經濟；而像 Diamondback 這樣位於西德州的公司可以協助推動這個過程——不論是我們擁有地表權、我們掌控天然氣。我們可以與中游合作夥伴合作，把資源送到場址。我們對場址選擇也有很好的判斷。我認為我們能找到方法把交易做成，並讓事情推進得比過去更快。而如果你和科技圈的人聊，他們推進速度非常快。

But Diamondback has moved pretty fast over the last 15 years, too. So I think there's a natural intersection there. I think we have a role to play. I think for our investors, they need to know that we're still going to stay in our lane on what we're good at, but be able to get things across the finish line. And I think just from a Midland and from a West Texas and an employment perspective, a lot of fears about AI and automation in the oilfield and what that's going to do for employment.

但 Diamondback 在過去 15 年也推進得很快。所以我認為這之間存在一個自然的交集。我認為我們有角色可以扮演。我認為對我們的投資人而言，他們需要知道我們仍會專注在我們擅長的領域（stay in our lane），但同時也能把事情推到終點、完成落地。而且我想，從 Midland、從西德州以及就業的角度來看，大家對 AI 與油田自動化有很多擔憂，擔心這會對就業造成什麼影響。

And part of the message in the mega theme is this could be the next wave of continued GDP growth in this region as well as a higher paying employee base that gets retrained to work on some of these projects. And for instance, Diamondback put $1 million into Midland College to form a new program for the electrical side of the business. And I think that's important. And I think the community should realize that we've got a lot left to do, and there's going to be decades of growth ahead of us and it just might look a little different than the last 10 years of shale development.

而且在這個「巨型主題」訊息中的一部分是：這可能會成為本區域下一波持續的 GDP 成長，同時也會帶來一個薪資更高的員工基礎，並透過再培訓投入其中一些專案的工作。例如，Diamondback 向 Midland College 投入了 100 萬美元，成立一個針對業務電氣端的新課程。我認為這很重要。我也認為社區應該意識到，我們還有很多工作要做，未來還會有數十年的成長，只是它看起來可能會和過去 10 年的頁岩開發有些不同。

Perfect. It sounds like a lot of all around good there. I really appreciate the detail, and we're looking forward to hearing more on all those fronts.

完美。聽起來整體而言有很多正面的進展。非常感謝你提供這些細節，我們也期待在所有這些面向聽到更多更新。

Brackett, Bernstein Research.

Brackett，Bernstein Research。

Following up on the gas commentary. I guess these are mega themes. These are not spot market updates. Can you talk about the time horizon over which you see this potential demand pull or the market being short of physical molecules? Are we thinking 2030, mid-2030s, not next month?

延續你們對天然氣的評論。我想這些是巨型主題。這不是即期市場的更新。你能談談你們看到這種潛在需求拉動、或市場在實體分子供應上出現短缺的時間跨度嗎？我們是在想 2030 年、2030 年代中期，而不是下個月吧？

I don't think it's next month, Bob. You're very astute in that observation, but I think we've become a much larger company that has had to start thinking about downstream markets and end markets versus where the next well is going to get drilled. And I think part of the reason we discussed this is obviously, we committed to a good amount of production to solitude that project got off the ground and fund it within a couple of months. So it kind of just shows that the supply is going to be there, but also the people that are taking out space on the other side of these pipes are also looking for supply, too. So we've looked at kind of all the U.S.

我不認為是下個月，Bob。你這個觀察很敏銳，但我認為我們已經成為一家規模更大的公司，必須開始思考下游市場與終端市場，而不只是下一口井要在哪裡鑽。而且我們之所以討論這件事，部分原因當然是我們承諾了相當一部分產量給 Solitude，讓那個專案在幾個月內就能啟動並獲得資金支持。所以這某種程度上顯示供應會在，但同時，在這些管線另一端承租容量的人也同樣在尋找供應。因此我們大致看了整個美國的各個

basins, and it's interesting to see what Toby and Jeremy and EQT, you're talking about in the Northeast and demand increasing up there. I think we see the same in Texas and obviously, the LNG is all announced. So the gas has come from somewhere. And if you can't build from the Northeast down south and the Haynesville can't meet this 10, 20, 25 Bs of demand, it's got to come from the Permian. And I think that we kind of see that coming, obviously, not next month, but during periods of time over the next decade for Permian gas is going to increase in value.

盆地；看到 Toby、Jeremy 和 EQT 在談東北部需求增加，這很有意思。我認為我們在德州也看到同樣的情況，而且很明顯，LNG 的項目都已經宣布了。所以天然氣必須從某個地方來。如果你無法從東北部往南建管線，而 Haynesville 又無法滿足這 10、20、25 Bcf 的需求，那就必須從二疊紀盆地來。我認為我們確實看到這個趨勢正在到來——當然不是下個月——但在未來十年中的某些時段，二疊紀盆地天然氣的價值將會提高。

Very clear. Quick follow-up. On the Barnett wells you disclosed on the recent results, they look like they're all sitting in the deepest part of the basin or the greatest depth down to the top of the Barnett. Is that for a reason? Do you think that, that horizon works as you move toward the shelf edge?

非常清楚。快速追問一下。關於你們在近期業績中揭露的 Barnett 井，看起來都位在盆地最深的區域，或是到 Barnett 頂界深度最大的地方。這是有原因的嗎？你認為當你往陸棚邊緣移動時，那個層位仍然適用嗎？

Yes, that's a good point there, Bob. I think this is one of the deeper parts of the basin, there are some maybe slightly deeper parts as you kind of move to the north. But overall, yes. I think it's the combination of the resource quality that we've got in this area and the deeper higher bottomhole pressure that's helping us with higher rates. And I think part of the reasoning behind where we put our acreage position together over the past 4 or 5 years is we knew where the resource was the thickest and going to be the best and that's why we put together the leasing program in areas that we did, and we're maybe a little coy with the well performance up until today.

是的，Bob，你提得很好。我認為這裡是盆地較深的區域之一，往北移動可能還有一些略深的地方。但整體而言，是的。我認為這是我們在該區域擁有的資源品質，以及更深、較高的井底壓力的組合，這有助於我們取得更高的產量速率。而且我認為，我們過去 4 到 5 年之所以在某些地方建立我們的土地部位，部分原因是我們知道哪裡的資源最厚、品質最好；這也是為什麼我們在那些區域推動租賃計畫，而且直到今天之前，我們對井的表現可能還稍微保留了一點。

Josh Silverstein, UBS.

Josh Silverstein，UBS。

A lot of focus on debt reduction over the past year. On a consolidated basis, you're down about $4 billion. Is the idea to keep using the stronger oil price environment, to your advantage on the balance sheet to try to save the capacity for the buybacks when and if oil prices do decline?

過去一年大家很關注你們的降債。以合併口徑來看，你們大約減少了 40 億美元。你們的想法是否是持續利用較強的油價環境，讓資產負債表更有利，從而在油價下跌時（如果真的下跌）保留回購的能力？

Yes. I mean I think in the simplest way, that's what we're trying to do. Obviously, opportunities come up, investments come up having the balance sheet to be able to do that without impacting long-term shareholder returns is a good place to be. I would say -- but with the free cash that we're generating kind of quarter in, quarter out, we're really just trying to take what the market gives us. And obviously, we talked about Q3 a $60 swing in oil price, well, in July, when we had oil price weakness, we bought back shares in August, we paid our dividend.

是的。我想用最簡單的方式說，這就是我們在做的事。很明顯，機會會出現、投資會出現；擁有足夠強健的資產負債表，能在不影響長期股東報酬的情況下去把握這些機會，是一個很好的狀態。我會說——但以我們每一季、季復一季所產生的自由現金流來看，我們其實就是盡量把市場給我們的條件用到最好。而且我們也談到第三季油價有 60 美元的波動；7 月油價走弱時，我們在 8 月回購了股票，也支付了股利。

And in September, we saw weakness at the end of the quarter again and bought back shares. And then here we are, early October, we had kind of rates flow out, okay, markets given us long-dated bonds well below par, so we lean in and buy back bonds. So really just trying to make the right capital allocation decision every day with the #1 decision we made, continuing to increase the base dividend still well protected below $40 a barrel oil price I think there's still room for that to grow. And as the balance sheet strengthens, it should naturally grow. But also having the balance sheet capacity to do what is, in my mind, the holy grail of an E&P, which is lean on your balance sheet to buy back shares at the right point in the cycle.

9 月底季度末又看到走弱，我們也回購了股票。接著到 10 月初，利率有些回落，好吧，市場給了我們低於面值很遠的長天期債券，所以我們就加碼進場回購債券。所以我們真的就是每天都在做正確的資本配置決策；而我們做出的第一順位決策，是持續提高基礎股利——我認為在每桶 40 美元以下的油價水準仍然有很好的保護，因此仍有成長空間。而且隨著資產負債表轉強，它應該會自然成長。同時也要保有資產負債表的能力，去做到我心目中 E&P 的「聖杯」：在景氣循環的正確時點，運用資產負債表去回購股票。

And we're clearly not at that point today. I hope we never get there. But I think we're prepared for anything with this free cash wave coming to Diamondback shareholders.

而我們顯然今天還沒到那個點。我希望我們永遠不會到那個點。但我認為，隨著這波自由現金流浪潮回饋給 Diamondback 股東，我們已經為任何情況做好準備。

Got it. And then one for me on just on the data center milestones. I was curious when and if you're taking power generation capacity. And that was also kind of curious how you might be able to use fiber as part of this as well. given maybe a different cost of capital there or a drop-down opportunity.

了解。另外我想問一下資料中心的里程碑。我很好奇你們何時、以及是否會取得發電容量。也想知道你們可能如何把光纖納入其中，考量到那邊可能有不同的資本成本，或是有下放（drop-down）的機會。

It seems like that would be certainly an interesting opportunity for you guys.

看起來這對你們來說確實會是一個很有意思的機會。

Yes, I think, the projects and the projects in this basin have kind of moved to the mobile power side of things, just to get power as quickly as possible. So I think you can expect that from us and what we're trying to do out here. Obviously, I don't know if that's the long-term solution, but I do think there's going to be ways to grow these projects over time with more long-term power solutions given the amount of gas that we have out here. And then on the Viper question, I think that's interesting. I think we could debate if Viper has a lower cost of capital right now than Diamondback.

是的，我認為，這些專案、以及這個盆地裡的專案，某種程度上已經轉向「行動式電力」這一端，目的就是盡可能快地取得電力。所以我想你可以期待我們在這裡推動的方向也是如此。當然，我不確定這是否是長期解方，但我確實認為，考量到我們在這裡擁有的天然氣量，未來會有方法用更長期的供電方案，讓這些專案隨時間擴大。至於你提到的 Viper 問題，我覺得很有意思。我們可以討論一下，Viper 目前的資本成本是否比 Diamondback 更低。

I think the market hasn't rewarded Viper as much as it should have this year. But I think, first and foremost, we've got to get this project signed up and then how we monetize that is tomorrow's discussion.

我認為市場今年對 Viper 的回報沒有達到它應有的程度。但我認為，首要之務是先把這個專案簽下來，至於我們如何將其變現，那是明天要討論的事。

John Freeman, Raymond James.

John Freeman，Raymond James。

I believe in the Barnett, you'll recently started flowing back your initial kind of full-section development there. Should we sort of think of it as like maybe when you get more fulsome results on that, maybe sometime first half '27. Is that sort of the main sort of determinant at this point on whether that kind of 5 rig kind of activity kind of run rate potentially would accelerate? I mean, obviously, the costs are already doing a really good job of kind of on a leading edge or to kind of getting around that 800-foot target. So is it more just trying to get an understanding of what it looks like on a full-section development basis.

我相信在 Barnett，你們最近已經開始讓最初那種完整區段（full-section）的開發回流（flow back）。我們是否可以這樣理解：等你們拿到更完整的結果，可能是在 2027 年上半年某個時點。就目前而言，這是否是決定那種 5 部鑽機活動、也就是可能的運行速率（run rate）是否會加速的主要因素？我的意思是，顯然在成本方面你們已經做得很好，算是走在前面，或是朝著那個 800 英尺目標在推進。所以是否更多只是想了解在完整區段開發基礎下的表現會是什麼樣子。

Yes, John, I mean, it's flowing back right now, and it looks good early time. So nothing that scares me or scares the team from continuing to push on I think we have 4 or 5 full-section developments coming on over the next 3 or 4 months. So we're happy to update the market on that and the performance. I think as you see in Slide 11, the individual wells are obviously well above the average, and we're not going to model a type curve that's the best parent well in the basin. So I think there's room for improvement on full-section development overall relative to that type curve as well as the cost side.

是的，John，我的意思是，它現在正在回流，而且早期看起來不錯。所以沒有任何事情讓我或團隊感到擔心、以致於不敢繼續推進；我想未來 3 到 4 個月內會有 4 或 5 個完整區段開發陸續上線。所以我們也很樂意就此向市場更新相關情況與表現。我想如同你在第 11 張投影片看到的，單井表現顯然遠高於平均值，而我們不會用盆地裡表現最好的母井（parent well）去建模一條型態曲線（type curve）。所以我認為，整體完整區段開發相對於那條型態曲線，以及在成本端，都還有改善空間。

And I think the key message here is, again, the geologic success is actually turning into a lot of value for our shareholders here.

而我認為這裡的關鍵訊息是：同樣地，地質上的成功正在為我們的股東轉化為大量價值。

That's great. And then just one more follow-up also on the Barnett. I believe one of the other things you've looked at is potentially being able to lower the cost per foot fairly meaningfully is maybe looking at reducing the completion intensity, maybe something similar closer to the kind of core Wolfberry design. Is that anything that you all have done any pilots on yet? Or just that's in the future?

太好了。另外再追問一個關於 Barnett 的問題。我相信你們評估的另一件事，是可能透過降低完井強度，來相當有意義地降低每英尺成本，也許更接近核心 Wolfberry 的設計。你們目前是否已經做過任何試點（pilot）？還是說那是未來的事？

Yes. Let me give you the simple answer is, early on in these developments, we kind of gold-plate everything and then start to work our way down. And Danny, you can kind of give you some color on some things we're thinking about.

是的。我給你一個簡單的答案：在這些開發的早期，我們通常會把所有東西都做得很「豪華」（gold-plate），然後再逐步往下調整。Danny，你可以補充一些我們正在思考的方向。

Yes. I mean, I think that's a great question. It's something we certainly are looking at. I think like Kaes said, we don't want to undercapitalize these first delineation of full-section development. So we're trying to make sure we have a sufficient completion that we're not questioning whether something was completion driven in the results.

是的。我認為這是個很好的問題。這確實是我們正在看的事情。我想如 Kaes 所說，我們不希望在第一次劃定（delineation）的完整區段開發上資本投入不足。所以我們要確保完井規格足夠，避免在結果出來後還要懷疑是不是完井因素所致。

I think as we get further into development mode, we'll start looking at what's the right sized jobs for the spacing that we are developing a section at, and these are going to be wider spaced wells than what you'd see in our core development. So I wouldn't expect to see the job sizes in line with what we pump in like a Spraberry well. But you might see a tailor back to or look, it could even possibly go up higher. It's just all dependent on what's right for the development in the spacing and maximizing NPV at a certain rate of return.

我想當我們更深入進入開發模式後，我們會開始評估：以我們在一個區段（section）內的井距（spacing）來看，什麼樣的作業規模（job size）才是合適的；而這些井的井距會比你在我們核心開發區看到的更寬。所以我不預期作業規模會跟我們在 Spraberry 井裡泵注的規模一致。但你可能會看到我們做一些回調或調整；或者你看，也有可能反而更高。這完全取決於在該井距下什麼最適合開發，以及在特定報酬率下如何最大化淨現值（NPV）。

Scott Hanold, RBC Capital Markets.

Scott Hanold，RBC Capital Markets。

I was wondering, Kaes, you appear to be a bit cautious on 2027. Just give us a sense of like is there something you worry about on the oil price? And you've got the inventory. You clearly have the execution and capabilities to grow in this high-priced market. And we do have like a 24-month curve that's above your mid-cycle price.

我想問一下，Kaes，你看起來對 2027 年有點保守。能否讓我們了解一下：你是擔心油價有什麼問題嗎？你們有庫存（inventory）。你們顯然也有在這種高油價市場中成長的執行力與能力。而且我們看到像 24 個月的期貨曲線也高於你們的中周期價格（mid-cycle price）。

So can you just give us the way you think about like the future in the next couple of years for Diamondback and why you think like a starting point is kind of flattish growth with potentially some minimal growth upside?

所以你能否談談你如何看待 Diamondback 未來一兩年的前景，以及為什麼你認為以「大致持平的成長」作為起點，並可能帶有一些有限的成長上行空間？

Yes. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily cautious personally, but I think it's always good to prepare the company for a swing to the downside. It's never it's not a good way to run an E&P just to be a perma-bull. So I would say, given what we've seen in terms of global inventories, in terms of shipping rates in terms of what we've seen on the shuttle trade and how much we're spending to get ships through the Strait and the overall geopolitical instability, I'm probably more in the higher for longer camp personally, but we prepare the business to keep our cost structure low and execution in perfect shape because the inevitable can happen. And I think 2026 is a great example of that.

是的。我不會說我個人一定是保守，但我認為讓公司為下行波動做好準備總是好的。經營一家 E&P（勘探與生產）公司，永遠當多頭（perma-bull）不是好方法。所以我會說，考量我們看到的全球庫存、航運費率、我們在穿梭貿易（shuttle trade）上看到的情況、以及為了讓船隻通過海峽所付出的成本，還有整體地緣政治不穩定，我個人可能更偏向「高位維持更久」（higher for longer）的陣營；但我們仍會把成本結構維持在低位、把執行做到最好，因為不可避免的事情可能發生。我認為 2026 年就是一個很好的例子。

Every analyst calling for [\$55] or lower oil and we've averaged [\$95]. So I think we're just -- we've always prepared our business for a lower price environment. We've always kind of shined in a lower price environment. But I think there's just still some uncertainty over the next couple of months, and there's just not a need for us to put out a formal 2027 plan because we always end up doing that in February. And that's where my head's at the Board has that.

每位分析師都在喊 [\$55] 或更低的油價，但我們平均卻是 [\$95]。所以我想我們只是——我們一直都讓業務為低油價環境做準備。而且我們也一直在低油價環境中表現出色。但我認為未來幾個月仍有一些不確定性，而且我們也沒有必要現在就發布正式的 2027 年計畫，因為我們通常都會在 2 月做這件事。這就是我目前的想法，董事會也是這樣看。

Okay. Understood. And just a follow-up question is -- my follow-up question is on the Solitude pipeline. As we start thinking about like capital spend over the next year or 2 for Diamondback, you projects like this, where does that capital ultimately falls that could be part of the budget? Or does that sort of fall into some sort of an equity affiliates?

好的。理解。再追問一個問題——我想追問的是 Solitude 管線。當我們開始思考 Diamondback 未來 1 到 2 年的資本支出時，像這樣的專案，最終資本會歸到哪裡？會成為預算的一部分嗎？還是會歸在某種股權法聯營公司（equity affiliates）之下？

Yes. So I'll give my high-level thoughts. I think it's going to roll through the equity affiliates and you think about Diamondback this year, and I've given this stat out at the office last quarter, Diamondback corporate is going to pay $2 billion or nearly $2 billion of cash taxes this year in a U.S. market that's only going to pay $400 billion of cash taxes to the government. So we're 0.5% of the cash tax spend in the country this year, which is a wild statement.

是的。我先講一下我高層次的看法。我認為它會透過股權法聯營公司（equity affiliates）來反映；你想想 Diamondback 今年——我上季在辦公室也分享過這個數字——Diamondback 母公司今年將支付 20 億美元或接近 20 億美元的現金稅（cash taxes），而整個美國市場今年支付給政府的現金稅總額只有 4,000 億美元。所以我們今年占全國現金稅支出的 0.5%，這是一個很誇張的說法。

And that's why we're kind of implying an investment in something like Solitude investment in Power Gen in the basin. These can be really good investments for Diamondback shareholders and outside the traditional CapEx budget, but that also defer some taxes over here because we are paying a lot of taxes at Diamondback.

這也是為什麼我們在暗示：像 Solitude 這樣的投資、或是在盆地（basin）內投資發電（Power Gen）。這些對 Diamondback 股東而言可能是非常好的投資，而且不在傳統的資本支出（CapEx）預算之內；同時也能在這邊遞延一些稅負，因為 Diamondback 正在繳很多稅。

Phillip Jungwirth, BMO.

Phillip Jungwirth，BMO。

Slide 10 is always great, and you added an NPV per section graph here. I was hoping you could just explain the developers undeveloped part where Diamondback is 89% just because it's maybe not intuitive why saying is so much higher than peers in the low 60s when wells per section average zones aren't terribly different and you have another peer that's bit more comparable to you with fewer zones targeted. So -- and also just why don't you think peers can kind of replicate what you're doing here on the development side design? Or maybe it's just acreage quality or just how properties were developed historically?

第10頁一向很棒，而且你們在這裡新增了一張按每個區段（section）計算的NPV圖表。我想請你們解釋一下開發商的「未開發」部分，為什麼Diamondback是89%，因為直覺上可能不太容易理解：當每個區段的井數、平均層段（zones）其實差異不大時，為什麼你們會比同業低60%多的水準高出這麼多，而且你們還有另一家同業在可比性上更接近你們、但目標層段更少。所以——另外，你們為什麼不認為同業能在開發端的設計上複製你們正在做的事情？或者這只是因為礦權品質，或是資產在歷史上開發方式不同？

Yes. That's a great question, and it's a very, very important slide. In my mind, it's the most important slide of the deck and probably the most misunderstood slide on the investor side. So I'm glad you're bringing it up. I think high level, all of our equities have the implied value of our production and the implied value of the upside and the undeveloped inventory that we have to prosecute of which Diamondback has a significant amount.

是的。這是個很好的問題，而且這是一張非常、非常重要的投影片。在我看來，這是整份簡報中最重要的一張，也可能是投資人端最容易被誤解的一張。所以我很高興你提出來。我想從高層次來看，我們所有的股票估值都包含了對我們既有產量的隱含價值，以及對上行空間與我們可推進（prosecute）的未開發庫存的隱含價值，而Diamondback在這方面有相當可觀的量。

I think what that slide is proving is we're proving that, that upside -- that upside is translated to cash flow that goes into your pocket whereas some peers have implied upside that remains at risk to be developed. And that's the parent-child issues throughout the basin. And then the last point I'll say, and Al can give you the details, is it proves that an acre in our hands is worth more than an acre than someone else's. And that's been the key to Diamondback's success to date, lowest cost structure, most number of wells per section at good productivity should generate more NPV per section and per acre that goes in your pocket. And I might have stolen your answer, but anything you want to add to that?

我認為那張投影片所要證明的是：我們正在證明，那個上行空間——那個上行空間會轉化為現金流，最後進到你的口袋；而一些同業的隱含上行空間仍然處於「尚待開發」的風險之中。這就是盆地內普遍存在的母井—子井（parent-child）問題。最後我想說的一點（Al也可以補充細節）是：它證明了同樣一英畝（acre）的土地，在我們手上比在別人手上更值錢。而這一直是Diamondback迄今成功的關鍵：最低的成本結構、在良好生產力下每個區段最多的井數，應該能產生更高的每區段與每英畝NPV，最後進到你的口袋。我可能把你的答案先講了，但你還想補充什麼嗎？

.

。

No. Great question, Philip. The only thing I would add there is I think at a high level, the way to think about that chart is on the right-hand side, the full bar is effectively the idealized value of the DSUs that were analyzed for this chart. And the dark red that fills up that full bar, that's the PV that was captured during the development of those DSUs. And so like Kaes is saying they're effectively through the way that we develop the way that we target these wells and via our cost structure we're able to capture 90% of the idealized value of the DSUs, whereas a similar peer, peer 3 that's right below us has similar acreage quality but are only capturing 61% of the total value of the DSUs.

沒有。很好的問題，Philip。我唯一想補充的是，我認為從高層次來理解那張圖表的方式是：在右側，整根柱狀條基本上代表為這張圖所分析之DSU（開發單元）的理想化價值。而填滿整根柱狀條的深紅色部分，就是在開發這些DSU的過程中所「捕捉」到的PV（現值）。所以就像Kaes說的，透過我們的開發方式、我們的井位目標策略，以及我們的成本結構，我們能捕捉到DSU理想化價值的90%；而一個相近的同業——就在我們下方的同業3——雖然礦權品質相似，但他們只捕捉到DSU總價值的61%。

39% is remaining value. But like we mentioned, that value is exposed to degradation risk when you return to the DSUs and deal with parent-child overfill, underfill type development.

剩下的39%是尚未實現的價值。但如同我們提到的，當你回到這些DSU並面對母井—子井的過度填井（overfill）、不足填井（underfill）這類開發情況時，那部分價值會暴露在產能劣化風險之下。

Yes. That's great detail. And yes, we have noticed your well productivity is higher this year, which is not a broad-based trend we see across the basin. But the second question is, I thought it was interesting that 79% of Viper's capital had been deployed to proprietary or market deals and the McElroy Ranch purchase was pretty significant. I was just hoping you could expand on the go-forward opportunity set for Minerals just because it seems like a real advantage for Diamondback.

是的。這些細節很棒。而且是的，我們注意到你們今年的單井生產力更高，這並不是我們在整個盆地普遍看到的趨勢。但第二個問題是，我覺得很有意思的是，Viper的資本有79%投入在專有（proprietary）或市場交易上，而McElroy Ranch的收購相當顯著。我想請你們多談談未來Minerals（礦權/礦產權益）業務的機會集合，因為這看起來對Diamondback是一個真正的優勢。

I assume we don't see this in the traditional E&P space? And just while we're on the topic, can you just touch on how you see M&A for Diamondback now, recognizing you're good at it with a long track record, but we're also above mid-cycle as far as commodity prices.

我想我們在傳統的E&P（勘探與生產）領域不太會看到這種情況？另外既然談到這個主題，你能否也談談你們現在如何看待Diamondback的併購（M&A）？我們知道你們很擅長、也有很長的成功紀錄，但就商品價格而言，我們也處在高於中周期（mid-cycle）的水準。

Yes. We some -- I'll go through Diamondback first. We gave some commentary about Diamondback's ground game. And I would say Diamondback's ground game is still is still impressive, and we're still getting deals done. It's just probably not as large relative to the size of the enterprise.

是的。我們——我先談Diamondback。我們先前對Diamondback的「地面作戰」（ground game）做過一些評論。我會說Diamondback的地面作戰仍然——仍然令人印象深刻，我們也仍在把交易做成。只是相對於企業規模來看，交易的量級可能沒那麼大。

But -- and so we're going to continue that going forward. I do agree with you, M&A is tough in this type of volatility, especially the front month volatility. So I'm probably particularly public to public or large-scale M&A seems harder to get done in this environment than easier. On the Viper side, the alternative is Viper has a balance sheet that was able to do a deal like the McElroy Ranch with cash. And that's where I think we differentiate ourselves on the Viper side.

但是——所以我們未來仍會持續這麼做。我同意你的看法，在這種波動環境下做併購很困難，尤其是近月（front month）的波動。因此我認為，特別是上市公司對上市公司（public-to-public）或大型併購，在這樣的環境下比起容易，反而更難完成。至於Viper這邊，另一個差異點是Viper的資產負債表讓我們能用現金完成像McElroy Ranch這樣的交易。我認為這就是我們在Viper端的差異化所在。

And I think if you look at like how we've been looking at those deals, front month may be high back into the curves below $70, you can kind of run a scenario at $70, $75 crude and generate a reasonable NAV rate of return. So that's kind of how we're thinking about it. at both companies. Obviously, I think the opportunity set has been brighter at Viper, and we've kind of used the Viper balance sheet to get some significant deals done over the course of this year.

而且我認為，如果你看我們評估這些交易的方式：近月價格可能偏高，但遠期曲線（back end of the curve）在70美元以下，你可以用70或75美元的原油價格去跑情境，並產生合理的NAV報酬率。所以我們大致是這樣思考的。在兩家公司都是如此。顯然，我認為Viper的機會集合更亮眼，而我們也在今年利用Viper的資產負債表完成了一些重要交易。

Our next question comes from the line of Derrick Whitfield of Texas Capital.

我們的下一個問題來自Texas Capital的Derrick Whitfield。

I wanted to start with AI for my first question. As you think about what you've accomplished with autonomous Lift and preventive maintenance initiatives, how would you characterize where the organization is along the AI and machine learning adoption curve generally? And how would you quantify the upside you see associated with adoption in both development and production?

我第一個問題想從AI談起。當你們回顧在自主舉升（autonomous lift）與預防性維護（preventive maintenance）計畫上所達成的成果時，你會如何描述整個組織在AI與機器學習採用曲線上的位置？以及你會如何量化你所看到、在開發與生產兩端因採用AI而帶來的上行空間？

Yes. So I'll start with kind of the company AI strategy and then give it to Chad to talk about some of the successes in the field. I kind of put the AI thesis or strategy at Diamondback in 3 buckets. The first is kind of the table stakes bucket of higher productivity per employee, menial tasks getting automated and taking making employees have more free time to do their work versus accomplish tasks. And that's happening across the board.

是的。我會先談公司的AI策略，然後交給Chad談一些現場端的成功案例。我把Diamondback的AI論點或策略分成三個桶（buckets）。第一個是「基本盤」（table stakes）那一桶：提升每位員工的生產力，把瑣碎工作自動化，讓員工有更多時間去做本職工作，而不是忙著完成任務。這正在全面發生。

I think the field is kind of the second -- the production side of the business is where we're starting to see real benefits of AI and automation today. Chad, you can talk about that. And then I think the Holy Grail, which we have some very smart people working on is how can AI impact the subsurface and productivity. And whether that's completion design, completion technology, subsurface evaluation, all of that could be the $1 billion or multibillion-dollar wins on the AI side. But Chad as seen some wins in the field.

我認為第二個——也就是業務的生產端——是我們今天開始看到AI與自動化帶來實質效益的地方。Chad，你可以談談這部分。然後我認為「聖杯」（Holy Grail）是：AI如何影響地下（subsurface）與生產力；我們有一些非常聰明的人正在做這件事。不論是完井設計、完井技術、地下評估，這些都可能是AI端的10億美元或數十億美元級別的勝利。不過Chad在現場已經看到一些成果。

He's going to talk about a couple of them.

他會談其中幾個。

Yes. Really, we're taking a multifaceted approach to the deployment of AI. And when you think about our production operations organization, we've been focusing on the self optimizing of our artificial lift solutions and starting there. We put an example in the notes about plunger lift, really the success we're seeing there because the deployment there is working really, really well. Those are totally autonomous, self-optimizing solutions and yielding both the savings in terms of manpower and the amount of compression that we're using to a solution.

是的。基本上，我們在AI部署上採取多面向的方法。當你想到我們的生產營運組織時，我們一直把重點放在人工舉升（artificial lift）方案的自我優化，並從那裡開始。我們在附註裡放了一個關於柱塞舉升（plunger lift）的例子，說明我們在那裡看到的成功，因為那套部署運作得非常、非常好。那些是完全自主、可自我優化的解決方案，同時帶來人力節省，以及在壓縮（compression）用量方面的節省。

So we're just carrying that forward across every form of artificial lift that we have out there. and seeing a lot of success from various trials and demonstrations that we're doing. And then you leverage that into how we use our people. And we also put an example in there, we're moving into some drone technology that we can ultimately move our folks from having to go hunt for issues in the field. So we identify those upfront, and we deploy them to go fix and address issues.

所以我們只是把這套做法延伸到我們現有的各種人工舉升形式上。並且從我們正在進行的各項試驗與示範中看到很多成功案例。接著你再把這些成果運用到我們如何使用人力上。我們也在裡面舉了一個例子：我們正導入一些無人機技術，最終可以讓我們的人員不必再到現場四處尋找問題。我們會先行把問題辨識出來，然後派人去修復並處理。

And so it's a much better usage of our personnel allows us to scale the business much more effectively. And so we're doing that in the production side and then that same type of efforts carrying through every discipline in the company across our operations on its drilling, completions, you name it. So it's still our early innings, and we've got a lot of runway to go, but we're excited with where we're standing today.

因此，這能更有效地運用我們的人員，讓我們能更有效率地擴大業務規模。我們在生產端這麼做，而同樣類型的努力也貫穿公司各個專業領域、各項營運——不論是鑽井、完井等等，你說得出的都有。所以我們仍在早期階段，還有很長的路要走，但我們對目前所處的位置感到振奮。

Great. So exciting guys. Kaes, I wanted to come back to EOR with my follow-up. If your base recovery is 10%, how much incremental recovery could surfactants add? Is it another 1% to 2%?

很好。各位真令人振奮。Kaes，我想在追問時回到提高採收率（EOR）。如果你們的基礎採收率是10%，界面活性劑能增加多少額外採收？是再增加1%到2%嗎？

And another question just to make sure I understand the distinction or difference perhaps. Is there a difference between the factors that you guys are talking about and what you're hearing from Chevron with advanced chemicals?

另外一個問題只是想確認我理解的差異。你們談到的這些因素，和你們從雪佛龍（Chevron）那邊聽到的先進化學品之間，有沒有差別？

Yes, Derrick, great, great question, man. I think it's TBD on how much incremental recovery can you get you -- we test a lot of chemicals in the lab with core and fluids that are from the reservoirs. And some of the results that you get in the lab work are pretty impressive, right? But I think the thing that we're excited about is even a 1% to 2% uplift in recovery factor would represent a 50,000 to 100,000 barrel per well uplift, which is -- would obviously be very meaningful to Diamondback. So yes, I think that's sort of TBD on that.

是的，Derrick，這是個很好的問題。我認為額外採收率能提高多少仍有待確認（TBD）——我們在實驗室用來自油藏的岩心與流體測試了很多化學品。而你在實驗室得到的一些結果相當令人印象深刻，對吧？但我想我們感到興奮的是，即便採收率只提升1%到2%，也代表每口井可增加5萬到10萬桶的增量——這對Diamondback顯然會非常有意義。所以是的，我認為這部分仍有待確認。

And in terms of the chemicals that we're testing, we've tried in the lab, trialed a lot of different chemicals, chemicals that are very similar to what other operators are doing some things that we're doing recently that are sort of more in-house developed, and we're really excited about those as well. So we're kind of across the board. I think like we mentioned in the note, there's a lot of variability in the results. And so we're trying to hone in on the specific chemical compositions that were the different techniques, how we deploy them in the field. And so there's a lot of variables remaining to -- for us to optimize.

至於我們正在測試的化學品，我們在實驗室嘗試並試驗了許多不同的化學品，有些與其他營運商正在做的非常類似，也有一些是我們最近較偏向內部自行開發的，我們對那些也非常興奮。所以我們算是全面鋪開。我想就像我們在備註裡提到的，結果存在很大的變異性。因此我們正努力聚焦在特定的化學配方、不同技術，以及我們如何在現場部署它們。所以仍有很多變數需要我們去最佳化。

But overall, I think just being early innings we're very excited about the results that we're seeing.

但整體而言，我認為在仍屬早期階段的情況下，我們對目前看到的結果非常振奮。

Yes. I think one thing from a strategy perspective, we've highlighted this group. We've created a new group within Diamondback. They get a lot of airtime with us, they're getting a lot of capital to try things because I think, again, it's going to be important, and it's going to improve not only productivity but also longevity.

是的。我想從策略角度來看，我們已經強調過這個團隊。我們在Diamondback內部成立了一個新團隊。他們在我們這裡獲得很多曝光，也獲得不少資本去嘗試各種做法，因為我認為，再次強調，這會很重要，而且不僅能提升生產力，也能提升資產的壽命。

Our next question comes from the line of Doug Leggate of Wolfe Research.

下一個問題來自Wolfe Research的Doug Leggate。

Kaes, I wonder if I could come back to the Barnett. The productivity, obviously, the early productivity looks pretty impressive. The capital and moving in the right direction. I'm trying to understand at what point do you get to full field development to the point where you're sustaining capital directionally moves either up or down as that mix changes. In other words, better productivity, but more expensive wells.

Kaes，我想回到Barnett。生產力方面，顯然早期的生產力看起來相當亮眼。資本投入也朝正確方向發展。我想了解的是，你們在什麼時點會進入全區開發（full field development），以至於隨著組合變化，你們的維持性資本（sustaining capital）在方向上會上升或下降。換句話說，生產力更好，但井更昂貴。

What does that mean for your sustaining capital when the Barnett is a permanent part of the mix?

當Barnett成為組合中永久的一部分時，這對你們的維持性資本意味著什麼？

Well, I think as the costs come down, Doug, and the NPV per well is higher than the base plan as that works through the system, if we keep improving results, which I expect, and I think we -- you would expect that should improve sustaining capital more on a push basis, it should extend our ability to maintain sustaining capital around where it is today. So that's kind of how I would frame it. Al, anything to add there?

嗯，我認為隨著成本下降，Doug，而且每口井的淨現值（NPV）高於基礎計畫，當這些在系統中逐步反映出來時，如果我們持續改善結果——我預期會如此——而且我想你也會預期，那應該會在推動（push）的基礎上改善維持性資本，並延伸我們把維持性資本維持在接近今天水準的能力。所以我會這樣來框架這件事。Al，你要補充嗎？

Yes, Doug, I think when you look at Slide 11, here, we show some equivalent fees on rate of return in PV and just kind of gross capital efficiency I think the balance and one thing to keep in mind here is these are idealized analyses, right? And so we're using sort of base assumptions of 100% working interest and one quarter royalty to do this analysis. We've got areas across the basin, right, where we own minerals that are going to make those developments look more advantaged with the areas that are going to be high graded that we know we see a little better well performance, right? So I think sort of the target that I would look at specifically to your question, once we get to the $900 -- kind of $850 to $900 range on a dollar per foot basis. That's really where you see those kind of metrics the 12- to 18-month gross capital efficiency rate of return and then PV is already well in excess of the core program.

是的，Doug，我想當你看第11頁投影片時，我們在這裡展示了一些以報酬率衡量的等效費用（equivalent fees），包括PV（現值）以及整體資本效率。我認為其中的平衡點，以及需要記住的一點是，這些都是理想化的分析，對吧？因此我們用的是一些基礎假設：100%工作權益（working interest）以及四分之一的權利金（royalty）來做這個分析。我們在盆地各處都有區域，對吧，我們擁有礦權（minerals）的地方會讓那些開發看起來更有優勢；而我們也會在我們知道井表現更好的一些區域做高分級（high grade）。所以我想，針對你的問題，我會特別看的目標是：一旦我們在每英尺成本（dollar per foot）上達到大約850到900美元的區間。

So we know the resources there in the co-developed sort of initial phases. We see costs kind of in the $900 a foot range, and that's without any of the efficiencies that Danny mentioned previously. So we're very excited about the program, and they are going to be areas that compete for capital today.

所以我們知道資源就在那裡，在共同開發的初期階段。我們看到成本大概在每英尺900美元左右，而且這還沒有包含Danny先前提到的任何效率提升。所以我們對這個計畫非常興奮，而且會有一些區域在今天就能與其他項目競爭資本。

That's helpful. It sounds like less wells for the same result basically. So good for capital efficiency as a punch line, it sounds like. I guess my follow-up is a quick accounting question. Obviously, pretty elevated oil prices, a little deferred tax.

這很有幫助。聽起來基本上是用更少的井達到相同的結果。所以結論聽起來對資本效率是有利的。我接著追問一個簡單的會計問題。顯然油價相當高，遞延所得稅也有一些。

Are you now in a full cash tax position? Should we think of that as being the case on a go-forward basis?

你們現在是否已經處於完全的現金稅（cash tax）狀態？我們是否應該認為未來也會是這樣？

Yes. I mean, we've been there for years now. And I think when you compare where we are versus peers, we've been paying a much higher overall tax rate for a while. I think they're all going to have to catch up and have to live with our world with higher cash taxes. But yes, we're paying our fair share, Doug.

是的。我的意思是，我們已經這樣好幾年了。而且我認為當你把我們和同業相比，我們一段時間以來一直在支付更高的整體稅率。我想他們都得追上來，並且必須適應我們這個現金稅較高的世界。但沒錯，我們有在繳我們應繳的那一份，Doug。

Kevin MacCurdy Pickering.

Kevin MacCurdy Pickering。

Maybe coming back to the mega theme on gas, you obviously are going to get a cash flow benefit from higher Waha prices. But are there any operational inventory uplifts from the higher gas prices like maybe are there parts of your acreage program that you haven't drilled due to the prices, which may be in the drilling queue and coming years?

也許回到天然氣這個重大主題，你們顯然會因Waha價格走高而獲得現金流上的好處。但更高的天然氣價格是否也會帶來任何營運上的庫存提升（inventory uplifts）？例如，你們的區塊開發計畫中是否有一些因價格因素而尚未鑽探的區域，可能會進入鑽井排程，並在未來幾年開鑽？

Yes, we certainly have that in the inventory. It just hasn't been something we've had to or try to drill to date. So I think that you're going to see across the basin, a lot higher gas cuts in certain zones in certain areas, and we have some of it. We just haven't had to drill it yet.

是的，我們的庫存裡確實有這些。只是到目前為止，這還不是我們必須去鑽、或嘗試去鑽的東西。所以我認為你會看到在整個盆地，在某些區帶、某些區域的氣油比（gas cut）會高得多，而我們也有一部分這樣的資源。只是我們還不需要去鑽它。

Okay. That's fair. And then it looks like to us that OpEx was the driver of the EBITDA beat for the quarter. You talked a little bit about the LOE earlier, but maybe on the GP&T side, what was driving the lower guidance there?

好的。這很合理。然後從我們看起來，營運費用（OpEx）是本季 EBITDA 優於預期的主要驅動因素。你先前稍微談到一些 LOE，但也許在 GP&T 這一塊，是什麼因素帶動你們給出的指引更低？

GPT is really kind of a mix between your gas realization and cost, depending on how much gas we take in kind. So I would say the beat that we're most focused on is the stuff we can control control, which is LOE, but on the GPT side, it's really just a mix between realizations and how much GPT you pay.

GP&T 基本上是你的天然氣實現價格（realization）與成本之間的混合，取決於我們有多少天然氣是以實物（in kind）的方式取得。所以我會說，我們最關注的超預期部分，是我們能控制的、也就是 LOE；但在 GP&T 這邊，主要就是實現價格與你支付多少 GP&T 的組合效果。

Jeff Jay, Daniel Energy Partners.

Jeff Jay，Daniel Energy Partners。

I had a quick follow-up on the AI optimization of artificial lift. I mean you referenced savings in manpower and compression, but what about productivity uplift from that?

我想就人工舉升（artificial lift）的 AI 最佳化做個簡短追問。你提到在人力與壓縮（compression）方面的節省，但那對產能提升（productivity uplift）呢？

Yes. That's a great point. We are definitely seeing the productivity uplift in the downtime minimization as you have storms and so forth to come through. And so when you think about the effects on -- our teams are just doing a fantastic job controlling costs and somewhat of an inflationary environment. But the other side of that equation on the volume side, the technology is helping, but the responsiveness of our teams to managing the downtime and coupling that with the benefit you get from AI, autonomous controls has been a huge win for us.

是的。這點說得很好。我們確實看到，在遇到暴風雨等狀況時，透過把停機時間降到最低，帶來了產能提升。所以當你想到這些影響——我們的團隊在某種通膨環境下，確實在控成本方面做得非常出色。但在產量那一端，技術也在幫忙；而我們團隊對停機管理的反應速度，再加上 AI、自主控制帶來的效益，對我們而言是非常大的勝利。

And roughly how long do you think to get the remaining 1,000 plunger lift wells online with this? Is it a matter of weeks, months, quarters?

那你大概認為，讓剩下的 1,000 口柱塞舉升（plunger lift）井用上這套系統、上線需要多久？是幾週、幾個月，還是幾季？

It's just a matter of months to get those up and running.

大概就是幾個月就能把它們都跑起來。

Betty Jiang, Barclays.

Betty Jiang，Barclays。

Appreciate all the comments earlier about the chemicals EOR. Just a follow-up on that, like where do you think you are -- what inning you are in terms of understanding that technology and feeling comfortable about a broader deployment? And maybe just how much capital do you think will be appropriate to be putting into that technology right now?

感謝你先前對化學驅提高採收率（chemicals EOR）的所有評論。我想就此追問一下：就你們對這項技術的理解、以及對更大範圍部署的信心而言，你覺得你們目前大概在第幾局（inning）？另外，你覺得目前投入這項技術的資本規模大概多少才合適？

Yes. I mean I think we just throw the first pitch, Betty. This is like a Wolfcamp B frac in Upton County in 2012, right, compared to where we are today. So we're -- I think our investors would like us to continue to spend capital here. It's not a huge dollar amount, $50 million to $100 million total across over $4 billion budget.

是的。我是說，我覺得我們才剛投出第一球而已，Betty。這就像 2012 年在 Upton County 做 Wolfcamp B 壓裂一樣，跟我們今天所處的位置相比。所以我們——我想投資人會希望我們繼續在這裡投入資本。金額不算大，在超過 40 億美元的預算中，總共大概 5,000 萬到 1 億美元。

But I think that capital will be well spent. And as we learn more, just like anything at Diamondback, if it works and gets better, it will attract more capital.

但我認為這筆資本會花得很值得。而且隨著我們學到更多，就像 Diamondback 的任何事情一樣，如果它有效、而且越做越好，就會吸引更多資本投入。

Makes sense. And then for my follow-up, I want to ask about just the activity cadence and how to think about the normalized development program going forward. There's a lot of further that came online in the last couple of quarters. And then 4Q, at least based on the guidance implied a lower completion quarter on a footage basis. And through all that oil is roughly flat.

了解。那我第二個追問想問的是作業節奏（activity cadence），以及未來如何看待常態化的開發計畫。過去幾季有很多井在後段（turn-in-line）上線。而第 4 季，至少從指引來看，在完井延伸長度（footage）基礎上似乎是較低的完井季度。但在這些變化之下，原油產量大致持平。

I know there's a lot of nuances that goes behind the lumpiness? Maybe just how to think about how these periods fit together, maybe any lag between the TI and the production contribution. And then how do you think about like will it be a normalized completion cadence on a maintenance level basis?

我知道這背後有很多造成不均勻（lumpiness）的細節。也許你能談談這些期間如何串在一起，例如 TIL 與產量貢獻之間是否有任何時滯。以及你們如何看待：是否會在維持產量（maintenance）水準上形成一個常態化的完井節奏？

Yes. I mean I think the base case is around 19 to 20 rigs and around five frac crews consistently. I think that's where our heads are at right now and whether that spits out 120 TILs in the quarter or 140 is just going to be dependent upon when those wells are popped. But in general, we're running a very level loaded program that should spit out some organic growth.

是的。我是說，我認為基本情境大概是 19 到 20 部鑽機，以及大約 5 支壓裂隊（frac crews）持續運作。我想我們目前的想法就是這樣；至於單季是產出 120 口 TIL 還是 140 口，主要取決於那些井什麼時候被「打開」（popped）上線。但整體而言，我們是在跑一個非常平穩、均衡配置的計畫，應該能帶來一些有機成長。

Gabe Daoud, Truist.

Gabe Daoud，Truist。

I was hoping I can maybe follow up on Betty's question just on '27 and Kaes, an earlier comment you made in the call around CapEx. So if you were to run the 5 crews through '27, is that the high end of 4Q CapEx number, the [10 50], is that what we should expect for quarterly CapEx in '27? Or is it a bit higher to get that low single-digit growth?

我想我可以接著 Betty 的問題追問一下，關於你先前在電話會議中提到的 2027 年與 Kaes，以及資本支出（CapEx）的評論。所以如果你們一路用 5 支壓裂隊跑到 2027 年，那第 4 季 CapEx 數字區間的高端，也就是那個 [10 50]，是否就是我們對 2027 年單季 CapEx 的預期？還是為了達到低個位數成長，會需要更高一些？

Yes. I don't know, Gabe, today, there's still a lot of variables out there. I'd probably say at $100 oil, it probably is a little higher, but we'll see what happens over the next few months.

是的。我不知道，Gabe，就今天來看，外面還有很多變數。我大概會說，在 100 美元油價下，可能會稍微高一些，但我們看看接下來幾個月會怎麼發展。

Arun Jayaram, JPMorgan.

Arun Jayaram，JPMorgan。

I was wondering if we could go back to Slide 11 and talk a little bit about Diamondback's results relative to the industry for the Barnett because the gap relative to peers looks to be greater than for the kind of core Midland Basin program. I'm wondering if you could just maybe comment on what you think the drivers of that? Is that better rock or what you're doing from a completion standpoint? And then maybe just talk a little bit about the plant shipped in the full development mode. As you mentioned, I think the Barnett is about 20% of drilling activities as we stand here today.

我想問我們能不能回到第 11 張投影片，談談 Diamondback 在 Barnett 的表現相對於同業的結果，因為相對同業的差距看起來比你們在 Midland Basin 核心開發計畫的差距還要大。我想請你評論一下，你認為造成這個差距的驅動因素是什麼？是岩性更好，還是你們在完井方面做了什麼？另外也請談一下在全面開發模式（full development mode）下的工廠/處理設施（plant）外運（shipped）情況。如你所提，我想 Barnett 目前大約占鑽井活動的 20%。

Yes, Arun, I think just generally, the team had a very specific strategy on where they wanted to target as I've said many times in this call, we're basing experts. We know we just think about this basin day in, day out, and we had a thesis that seems to be proving out in the geology, and I think that separation will continue.

是的，Arun。我想整體而言，團隊對他們想要鎖定的目標區域有非常明確的策略；正如我在這通電話裡多次說過的，我們是盆地專家（basin experts）。我們每天都在思考這個盆地、日復一日；而我們有一個論點（thesis），看起來正在地質上被驗證，我認為這種差異化會持續下去。

Understood. Understood. And then as a follow-up, Kaes, if you ran kind of 5 frac crews 19 rigs or so in 2027, ballpark, how much footage would that kind of generate relative to the 6.44 million foot of completed lateral this year? .

了解。了解。那再追問一下，Kaes，如果你們在 2027 年大致維持 5 支壓裂隊、約 19 部鑽機，粗略估算，這樣大概能產生多少完井延伸長度（footage），相對於今年完成的 644 萬英尺水平段（completed lateral）？。

Yes, relatively flat to this year, Arun.

是的，大致上會跟今年差不多，Arun。

Relatively flat. Okay.

大致持平。好的。

Charles Meade, Johnson Rice.

Charles Meade，Johnson Rice。

As to you and your team, and I want to say I always enjoy your unvarnished comments in this format. One quick follow-up on the Barnett. I think you mostly addressed this, but just one other dimension perhaps. It sounds like the big determinants of this productivity you're seeing or reservoir energy in the thickness. So you're choosing the best places.

對你和你的團隊而言，我想說我一直很喜歡你在這種形式下直言不諱的評論。關於 Barnett 我有一個簡短追問。我想你大多已經回答了，但也許還有另一個面向。聽起來你們看到的生產力主要決定因素，是層段厚度中的地層能量（reservoir energy）。所以你們是在挑選最好的位置。

But is there anything else that has surprised you guys? Or do those 2 factors explain most of this uplift that we're seeing?

但還有沒有其他讓你們感到意外的地方？還是說這兩個因素已經解釋了我們看到的大部分提升？

I mean, I think geology drives the day, right, Charles. And we picked some really good spots to get going here. I think we're learning the aerial extent of that was funded via Diamondback's cash flow and done at very low acreage prices and on a full cycle basis, this is probably one of the best investments we've ever made.

我的意思是，我認為地質才是決定一切的關鍵，對吧，Charles。而且我們在這裡挑了幾個非常好的點來啟動。我想我們正在了解其空間延伸範圍；這是透過 Diamondback 的現金流來資助的，並且以非常低的每英畝價格完成。以全週期角度來看，這可能是我們做過最好的投資之一。

That's a good characterization. And then Kaes, this -- I'm going to actually go out on a limb a little bit here, and so feel free to punt if you'd like. But your comments on the gas macro and saying that this is becoming more of a demand pull. The way I interpret that is it's kind of put in the phrases like, look, we're doing [1.5 billion] a day without even trying. And so assuming you had the price signal and you wanted to try -- what could -- what do you think you could grow your gas volumes by year-over-year?

這個描述很貼切。然後 Kaes，關於這個——我這裡其實要稍微大膽一點，所以如果你想避開也沒關係。但你對天然氣宏觀的評論，說這正變得更像是需求拉動。我的解讀是，你有點在用這樣的說法：你看，我們不費什麼力氣每天就能做到[15億]。所以假設你看到了價格訊號，而且你想要去做——你覺得你們的天然氣產量年增可以提高多少？

My first guess would be somewhere around 10% or 15%, which would be a doubling in like 5 or 6 years. But what would your guess be?

我第一個猜測大概是 10% 到 15% 左右，這樣在大約 5 到 6 年就會翻倍。但你的猜測會是什麼？

Yes. I don't think that's a bad number. I think what we would need to see, though, and need to control is more of the value chain, right? So it's not just what you're receiving at the wellhead, it's what's the processing costs, what's your cost to move it down the pipe and then what's a buyer buying it at. So I think we're probably still a long way from drilling for gas specifically.

是的。我不覺得那是個不好的數字。不過我認為我們需要看到、也需要掌控的是更多的價值鏈，對吧？所以不只是你在井口收到多少，還包括處理成本是多少、把它沿管線運輸下去的成本是多少，然後買方是以什麼價格在買。所以我認為我們距離「專門為天然氣而鑽」可能還很遠。

I think it's naturally just going to happen. But if you were to drill for gas specifically out of this basin, you got to think more like a gas company that has more of the value chain under their control.

我覺得這自然就會發生。但如果你要在這個盆地專門為天然氣而鑽，你就得更像一家天然氣公司那樣思考——也就是對價值鏈有更多掌控。

Leo Mariani, ROTH.

Leo Mariani，ROTH。

Wanted to follow up on the comments just around improved recoveries. Obviously, you're talking about roughly 10% currently. Do you think you can actually move the needle on that number or it actually goes, like, say, closer to 11%. Is that a this decade event? Or do you think of that as more of something that could happen in, say, the first part of the 2030?

我想追問一下關於採收率改善的評論。顯然你們目前談的是大約 10%。你覺得你們真的能把這個數字往上推，或是例如更接近 11% 嗎？這會是本十年內會發生的事嗎？還是你認為這更可能發生在 2030 年代的前期？

I mean I think 11% is achievable in the next couple of years. The question is how do you get from 10% to 20% and obviously, a much larger oil companies talked about that in this basin. And I think there's probably some use cases that are working in a lab or early tests in the field that give me some hope that, that's probably possible in the next decade. But I think strategy-wise, Leo, we have the longest duration inventory in the basin at the lowest cost structure. So we're going to be the last company that has to try this stuff.

我的意思是，我認為在接下來幾年達到 11% 是可行的。問題是要如何從 10% 走到 20%；而且顯然，有規模更大的石油公司在這個盆地也談過這件事。我認為可能有一些使用案例正在實驗室中運作，或是在現場做早期測試，讓我對於在下一個十年內達成這件事抱有一些希望。但從策略角度來看，Leo，我們在這個盆地擁有期限最長的庫存、以及最低的成本結構。所以我們會是最後一家必須去嘗試這些做法的公司。

And if this these methodologies become better rate of return than what we have left to drill, then we'll pivot to allocating more capital to them. But I think what we've built inside the business is the most flexibility to try these things or have to do these things last versus try them and learn from them today.

如果這些方法的報酬率變得比我們剩下可鑽的標的更好，那我們就會轉向，把更多資本配置到它們上。但我認為我們在業務內部建立的是最大的彈性：要嘛去嘗試這些事情，要嘛在必須做的時候再做——相較於今天就去嘗試並從中學習。

Okay. It certainly makes sense. And then just to kind of be clear on your comments just around thoughts going forward. I mean, presumably, you're still in fully in green light mode here today. At this point in time, I know '27 is TBD.

好的。這確實很合理。然後為了更清楚你對未來看法的評論。我的意思是，推測你們今天仍然完全處於「綠燈」模式。就目前而言，我知道 2027 年仍待定。

But at least for now, it doesn't seem like anything that's moving you guys off green light in the near term.

但至少就現在看起來，短期內似乎沒有任何事情會讓你們從綠燈狀態轉離。

Yes, that's right. I mean it's been a couple of months or a couple of quarters since the stop light went into retirement, but we're still in the green light.

是的，沒錯。我的意思是，紅綠燈系統退役已經有幾個月或幾個季度了，但我們仍然是綠燈。

This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn it back to Kaes Van't Hof, CEO, for closing remarks.

問答環節到此結束。我現在想把時間交回給執行長 Kaes Van't Hof 作結語。

Well, thanks, everybody, for the time, a new record, 65 minutes, and I appreciate everyone making the effort. So thank you for your interest, and we're available to answer any questions if you have any.

好，謝謝各位撥冗參與；我們創下新紀錄，65 分鐘，我很感謝大家的努力。所以謝謝你們的關注；如果你們有任何問題，我們也隨時可以回答。

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may now disconnect.

感謝各位參與今天的電話會議。本次議程到此結束，您現在可以掛線。