ProPetro Holding Corp (PUMP) 2020 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good morning and welcome ProPetro Holding Corporation Second Quarter 2020 Conference Call. (Operator Instructions) Please note that this event is being recorded.

Now I'd like to turn the conference over to Mr. Sam Sledge, Chief Strategy and Administrative Officer. Please go ahead, sir.

Thanks, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate your participation in today's call. With me today is Chief Executive Officer, Phillip Gobe; Chief Financial Officer, Darin Holderness; and Senior Vice President of Operations; Adam Muñoz.

Yesterday afternoon, we released our earnings announcement for the second quarter of 2020. Please note that any comments we make on today's call regarding projections or our expectations, future events are forward-looking statements covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Forward-looking statements are subject to several risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from our current expectations. We advise listeners to review our earnings release and the risk factors discussed in our filings with the SEC.

Also, during today's call, we will reference certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in our earnings release. Finally, after our prepared remarks, we will hold a question-and-answer session.

With that, I'd like to turn the call over to Phillip.

Thank you, Sam, and good morning, everyone. We were pleased with our overall results for the second quarter, given the unprecedented demand and supply disruptions the oil and gas industry face, primarily as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. On behalf of the entire ProPetro team, I want to thank all the first responders and medical professionals for their selfless and tireless efforts ensuring the well-being for all of those who live and/or work in the Permian Basin. I continue to be amazed that our employees' collective resiliency given the current environment, and I want to express my deep gratitude once again for their hard work and dedication. As always, the health and safety of our employees, customers, supply chain partners and other stakeholders remain the top priority of the company, and we will continue to implement best practices according to CDC guidelines and other governmental agencies to ensure safe and efficient operations for the duration of the pandemic.

During the second quarter, we saw activity levels decrease rapidly in April and May as customers responded to a continued deterioration in market conditions that began in mid-March. As such, we took swift and decisive measures to help us proactively shrink the core of our operations, save costs through collaboration, and focus on innovation we considered critical to enable a recovery.

In addition to safeguarding the long-term health of our balance sheet, another key tenet in our decision-making process was ensuring we protected the core competencies of our business. These capabilities support ProPetro's clear reputation as an industry leader that provides its customers unmatched execution in an environment where its employees can flourish. As such, we took the necessary steps to streamline our operations without sacrificing our ability to respond quickly as market conditions improve, which we began to see in June. More specifically, our cost-saving initiatives have included: rightsizing our workforce while maintaining our core talent; significantly reducing maintenance capital expenditures and field level consumables; negotiating lower pricing for expendable items, materials used in day-to-day operations and large component replacement parts; internalizing certain support functions that were previously outsourced; and reducing compensation of all officers, executives and directors.

Complementing these efforts during the second quarter was continued operational and safety excellence in support of our customers' drive to stay as active and as profitable as possible. We are working closely with our customers to ensure our collective success remains at the core of our DNA. I want to thank the entire ProPetro team for weathering the storm to the most turbulent environment in our company's 15-year history.

Finally, a significant highlight of the second quarter was completion of our previously announced Audit Committee internal review process and the filing of our 10-Qs for the second and third quarter of 2019 and our 10-K for 2019. With the filing of our 10-Q for the first quarter 2020 on July 2, we became current with our filing obligations with the SEC. I want to thank all involved for their assistance over the last year. The successful completion of these activities allow us to fully focus our efforts on the future of our business in an environment of stronger processes and controls that enhance our competitiveness.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Sam to discuss our financial performance. Sam?

Thanks, Phillip. We were pleased with our overall performance for the second quarter given the unprecedented volatile environment. This includes generating free cash flow and positive adjusted EBITDA during the period despite a 73% decrease in revenue from the first quarter. That said, I would like to point you to our press release and Form 10-Q, which will be filed in the coming days, for more detailed financial commentary concerning our quarterly and sequential results.

As Phillip discussed, driving our success for the second quarter was our ability to balance the need for substantial cost reductions to immediately address the financial implications of the crisis without going so far as to negatively impact our competitive advantages in the marketplace. As important was our focus on protecting the health of our balance sheet and capital structure which, along with performance at the well site, will be a key differentiator as customers determine who they will partner with as market conditions and activity levels continue to improve.

As discussed in our press release, our second quarter revenues included $32.6 million of compensatory idle fees. These stemmed from a purchase of assets, which included contractual provisions with one of our largest customers and were intended to supplement our financial health during times of depressed activity. We did exactly that during the second quarter by using a portion of these fees to ensure we could retain the necessary talent and core competencies to support our operations until conditions began to improve in June.

During the second quarter, we also paid off $110 million of debt and ended the period debt-free. As a result, as of June 30, we had a net cash balance of $37.3 million as compared to the $33.7 million at the end of the first quarter. Fast forward to July 31, and total cash was $22.6 million with no outstanding debt. Total liquidity as of July 31 was $43.1 million, including cash, and $20.5 million of available capacity under our revolving credit facility. We would also note that the July 31 cash balance is not inclusive of approximately $32 million in idle fees that we expect to collect sometime in the third quarter.

Based on accounts receivable less customary reserves, our borrowing base is impacted by our customers' activity levels as well as certain customer concentrations. With the increase in activity levels we have seen since June and expect to see through the remainder of the year, we expect to see growth in our borrowing capacity. Having said that, we view having no debt outstanding while the market recovers as a significant competitive advantage, and we remain committed to executing projects with positive returns that allow us to protect that capital structure.

To support the expected continued increase in customer activity levels, we now have a view of total CapEx spending for the full year 2020 of less than $100 million, of which $54.7 million was spent during the first 6 months. The vast majority of capital spending for the full year will be for maintenance CapEx. We'd also note that we expect virtually no spending on growth capital in the second half of this year. Finally, the steady improvement in customer activity we have seen since June supports our current view of effective utilization between 7 and 8 fleets during the third quarter of 2020.

With that, I'll turn it back to Phillip.

All right. Sam, thanks. While the backdrop for the oil and gas industry, both globally and in the U.S., has improved from the lows seen only a few months ago, activity levels remain historically low. In this environment, we will continue to leverage a blueprint for success that has guided us through the many cycles of our past 15 years as a company. Our mantra has always been and still remains to take the long view. No matter where you are in the cycle, the key is to remain in close contact and squarely focused on the needs of your customers. This includes helping your customers solve their technical problems at the well site, providing them with unmatched execution, remaining disciplined with pricing and continually assessing your internal cost structure and capabilities.

While it currently appears the worst is behind us, we are not relying on the substantial recovery in oil demand to chart the future of our success. As in the past, we view our performance at the well site to be paramount. This will help drive improved fleet-level returns without the necessity of the increased pricing. Having said that, as Sam discussed, we will only execute projects with a positive returns that allow us to protect our capital structure regardless of where we are in a particular cycle.

Another contributor to our future success is a commitment to the continued evolution of pressure pumping technology that minimizes the environmental impact of operations through reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other considerations, while at the same time, promoting overall safety and well site throughput. In sum, we continue to hold a strong belief that pressure pumping equipment must significantly evolve for our industry to remain competitive on a global scale.

A clear example of our commitment is our substantial investment in the electric fleet technology of DuraStim. We are continuing to test and develop the technology by working alongside conventional equipment in the field to allow the company ample time to collect data in various operating condition. Although the development time line has been longer than we initially expected, we, along with our customers, expect to redeploy the DuraStim equipment on a larger scale when testing is complete.

In conclusion, we anticipate a meaningful improvement in fleet utilizations for the third quarter as compared to the second quarter. Having said that, we remain very selective in redeploying assets and crews and will only proceed if projects meet our economic targets, most of which are likely to be with existing customers. Clearly, the macroeconomic environment remains uncertain, and substantially dependent on the potential spread of COVID-19 and related impact on the global economy and discipline within OPEC Plus. This backdrop does not change a focus that has served us well over many years, and we'll continue to guide our success well into the future. This includes leveraging our Permian Basin focus and relationships with customers through best-in-class collaboration; ensuring we provide customers with innovative solutions that solve their problems with unrivaled execution at the well side; and proactively seeking additional ways to redeploy technology to reduce duplication and streamline processes to foster innovation. Bottom line, we clearly understand the value of unmatched execution in the marketplace. Our customer focus remains clear regardless of market condition, focus on fostering the long-term relationship, solve their problems and leverage an economic structure that benefits both parties.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to the operator for questions. Nick?

(Operator Instructions) First question comes from Scott Gruber of Citigroup.

So it sounds like a nice step-up here in fleets utilized in 3Q. What did you enter the quarter at? Where do you think you'll exit and in terms of fleets deployed? I'm really asking because I'm trying to assess whether you think there's sufficient momentum here such that 4Q is up again on 3Q, even with the typical seasonality we see towards the end of the year.

Yes. Scott, this is Sam. I'm not sure we'll give much more detail other than in second quarter. We, obviously, as we quoted in the release, averaged 4 quarters 4 fleets, 4.0 fleets in the second quarter. The trough was below that, the exit was above that. That might be an obvious statement, but the same seems to be true about third quarter as well that our guide to the 7 to 8 fleets was that we came in the quarter below that, and we do expect to exit the quarter above the top end of that range.

Got you. And then how should we think about -- just sticking to 3Q, the mix of high-calorie work within that 7 to 8 fleets versus low-calorie work? How should we think about the revenue per fleet trend ex any fees in 3Q? And how should that translate to EBITDA per fleet in 3Q?

I think the biggest hit to revenue from Q1 to Q2 to Q3 is probably more of a pricing thing than any other factor. We view the work that we're getting back to right now, as you said, high-calorie work. This is all still multi-well pad, 24/7 work. So it's just kind of right back to the usual pace is what it seems.

Got you. So a good place. How should we think about the fourth quarter impact of pricing on the revenue per fleet and EBITDA, if you would?

I don't know if I heard the first part of your question, Scott.

Well, how should we think about the full quarter impact of pricing, and the pricing is fully reset now into 3Q? So how should we think about the revenue trends and the EBITDA trends on that 7 to 8 fleets working in 3Q?

I don't know. It differs from customer to customer. I'm not sure we're going to quote the kind of full net effect to pricing at this point.

Can you frame in terms of getting ex fees? Are we kind of 10% lower than the 1Q average? Is that a starting point?

More than that. More than that.

More than that? Okay. Very good. We can continue offline. I'll turn it back.

Next question comes from George O'Leary, TPH & Company.

Is there any way you could frame underlying fleet profitability for the second quarter ex the shortfall payments, just to think about that as a starting point for the next quarter? And/or how much we can expect in shortfall payments as we look to the third quarter? You guys framed kind of a back half range on your previous call, but just curious what the outlook is there for the third quarter on the shortfall side. On the idle fees, sorry.

Yes. I think we've put out a range of $12 million to $16 million for the second half of 2020. And I would say we're currently looking at probably the lower of that range in the second half.

And George, on the kind of the profitability point in second quarter, not to state the obvious, but if 100% of the idle fees were to fall into the bottom line, then you'd have seen our EBITDA of $32 million or more. That obviously didn't happen during the quarter. A mix of a few things, but the main contributor, probably us bridging a activity gap that not -- that had we not known that activity was going to recover fairly quickly from May to June, we might have we might have acted a little bit differently, and you might have seen a little bit more of those idle fees fall to the bottom line.

I don't know if I'll comment directly towards what fleet-level profitability was in the second quarter, but I can say that we are turning down work that doesn't meet our economic goals, and those goals are obviously to produce enough EBITDA to cover maintenance CapEx in the near-term and therefore, have positive cash flow at the crew level.

Great. That's very helpful, Phillip and Sam. If you think about the competitive landscape in the Permian, I guess, how would you describe that today? And all these assets are on wheels, it seems like the Permian is ready. Activity is coming back. Is equipment rushing into the basin, keeping that bidding behavior very fierce, even as activity increases? Are you seeing guys have to exit and attrition occur? Just curious for that view on the competitive landscape from boots on the ground perspective.

Yes, this is Adam. I think we remain confident with our crews and our ability of our people to perform day in, day out in a safe and efficient manner on location. And I believe our customers see that as well, and we're -- we've been fortunate enough to be able to continue to work with those blue-chip customers as we bring on these fleets on for the remainder of the year. And those guys continue to value execution, safe working performance and the dedication of our people out there in the field as well.

George, I don't know that our intelligence shows any people, any competitors redeploying equipment to the Permian at this point. Although I will say, as you guys have probably heard, there's -- everyone recognizes this is a basin that's going to respond the fastest. And at least on a couple of calls, I think I picked up that people have said that they may reallocate equipment to the basin, but we're not seeing it. And unless they have a track record, I don't see them breaking in with the top-tier customers that we operate for.

I think -- this is Sam again to pile on a little bit more. We've been through this in prior cycles and being totally focused in the Permian. In times like these, I guess one could paint it as a disadvantage if equipment starts to flood into the Permian. But having the customer and supply chain relationships that we have here give us quite a few competitive advantages that others don't have, not being as focused as we are.

But I don't want you to think, George, because no one's redeployed down here, there hadn't been a knife fight on pricing. We've got plenty of competitors in the basin that keeps pricing under pressure.

Next question comes from Ian MacPherson of Simmons.

I also wanted to just re-hit the line of inquiry on third quarter trajectory with just simplistically with activity up nearly double. Is that enough to overcome pricing headwinds and make a stake for decent positive revenue growth, excluding special payments in Q2 and Q3?

We think the trends throughout third quarter, we will pass that point at which the scale and amount of activity allows you to do just that. Yes.

Got it. Okay. And then there was -- if I read correctly, I think there was an uptick to your CapEx described in the press release with -- I think it's attributed to more utilization recovery than maybe have been contemplated when you budgeted CapEx last quarter. Anything particular to comment there with the CapEx from 85 up to 100 or below 85 to below 100 as it relates to ongoing maintenance CapEx per fleet?

Mainly due to the pace of the activity adds throughout the third quarter. Originally, we were under the impression that the activity would be added at slightly more measured rate. And with the step-up in third quarter, it just kind of adds to that ongoing maintenance CapEx to support our operation.

Got it. And then last one for me. Fair to assume with the conclusion of the filings and the audit that the special G&A falls off starting in Q3?

Yes, you should see -- it should be a significant drop-off. We still have -- as you know, the shareholder litigation out there that may have some numbers reflected. The issue should be substantially reduced.

Next question is from Cameron Lochridge of Stephens, Inc.

I was hoping we could start maybe with a high-level one on just the general market dynamics you guys are seeing. Maybe if you could peer into your crystal ball a few quarters down the road, how you see the horsepower supply adjusting as we go forward? And do we -- does that factor in any attrition as we move through this downturn?

Well, good question. And hopefully, attrition and equipment leaving work out that way. We've seen a number of bankruptcies, obviously. Depending on people's margins right now, maybe we'll see more of that attrition. But I'm not sure I would expect to see a lot of consolidation or attrition happen prior to the end of the year. I don't know if Sam might have a different view of that.

I believe, fundamentally, that the best equipment is the first to go back to work. So until we reach a level of utilization across the sector that's meaningfully higher than we're seeing today, I think that will remain a bit unknown. I also believe that all of our peers would echo that the threshold to reinvest in older equipment continues to go up as we continue to be demanded of us to have more efficient equipment, cleaner-burning fuels, lower emissions. There's obviously interest in the electric offering that reinvesting in existing older conventional equipment, the bar continues to migrate higher. So naturally, yes, we should see attrition due to that and the other factors that Phillip outlined. A little hard to say how much at this point, but we think, given the disruption the whole energy industry has seen, that it will produce quite a bit of attrition, say, over the next year to 2 years.

Got it. That's helpful. And then just to talk -- go back to talking about the idle fees that you guys had in the second quarter. I was wondering if we could talk about the third quarter fees. It sounds like maybe there was some elevated costs in the second quarter that prohibited 100% of those fees to fall to the bottom line. Do we expect those costs to continue into the third quarter? Or can we expect to see those idle fees falling to the bottom line at 100% margin?

On a percentage basis, we believe you should see more of each dollar of idle fees fall to the bottom line. There was quite a bit of noise and moving parts from an activity standpoint as activity slid sharply at the beginning of second quarter and then rose in the back half of the quarter. And a lot of those costs were absorbed indirectly by the idle fees, operating in more of a steady state in almost a growth mode that we're very accustomed to. You should see more of the per dollar effect fall to the bottom line. That said, I'll just reiterate what Darin said earlier. We should be at the lower end of the range that we disclosed last quarter, probably looking at $12 million to $13 million in idle fees in the second half of this year and pretty evenly dispersed between third quarter and fourth quarter.

Our next question comes from Jacob Lundberg of Crédit Suisse.

I was just curious, maybe a little early, but could we start getting an initial view on how you think activity could trend in the fourth quarter? I'm not sure if you're having conversations with customers around whether we'll see the recently typical seasonal decline in the fourth quarter or independent of any customer conversations. Do you have any view on that?

Well, my view is the conventional wisdom on fourth quarter on budget exhaustion may not happen mainly because I think most of the operators have just recently retooled their capital budgets for the second half of the year. And so I don't think you'll be facing that same dilemma that we've seen. Having said that, we still have Thanksgiving, we still have Christmas, so there is some seasonality involved. But I think my view, at least to the people I'm talking with, is I think the activity stays strong. I don't know if that's because operators have hedged their production out when they took the opportunity so they know they can at least continue to operate in a profitable scenario for them. So at least who I'm talking to, I feel pretty confident unless we have a big hit on COVID spread, it affects demand, or OPEC coming off their reduction and starts putting more oil into the market creates a crash, I see activity staying pretty steady, and it may even stay pretty steady with those 2 criteria that I just laid out just because the production is hedged out. But that's at least a view that I take.

Okay. And then just pivoting here, wondering if we could get some comments on how efficiencies trended in the second quarter for the fleet that were active out in the field? What did efficiencies look like relative to 1Q? You've obviously been operating at very high levels of efficiency recently. And what's your outlook for the second half?

Yes, this is Adam. Our efficiencies remain relatively the same with high-performing efficiencies, and we continue to see that as we bring on these -- the new fleets and reactivate deployments with pretty much the same customer base. We're partnered up with a great customer core that allows us and helps us provide those efficiency at the wellhead. But yes, we have nothing to show that efficiency should drop off.

[I guess what I'd say is that] the crews has been all ProPetro employees, so they hit the ground knowing exactly what they need to do and how they do it. So there's not really dealing with a different workforce today than we were prior to the downturn.

That's correct.

Next question is from Kurt Hallead of RBC.

I just wanted to make sure I understand a couple of dynamics correctly. When you look at the second quarter, right, if you back out the $32.6 million that you generated from that shortfall, it looks like your baseline revenue per crew would be about around $18 million per crew. So I just want to make sure I understand that correctly. And then if we do the same thing for EBITDA, put your EBITDA a little bit of $1 million on that adjusted basis. So again, just really wanted to get kind of a starting point, and make sure I get that starting point right as we go into third quarter and kind of build on your commentary for improvement from there. Am I understanding that dynamic correctly?

Yes, Kurt, this is Sam. I think you're definitely -- you're in the right direction. The only thing I would add to that, I would just reiterate our early comment that there were decisions made during the quarter knowing that we had a line of sight to a balance in activity. So there were probably a few more costs that we bore that had we not had a line of sight to that activity balance, we would have probably stripped out of the system.

Got it. Okay. And now obviously, with the pricing dynamics, where they are in the business, right, even though you give us some general sense of what that pricing dynamic could be. You're going to get better EBITDA per crew in the third quarter than you had in the second quarter, but it's still going to be pretty substantially below the first quarter. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Correct.

Okay. And then lastly, on the second half of the year, when we think about free cash flow, it looks like you've put yourself in a very good position to continue to build your cash base through the second half of the year. Is that how you guys are seeing the world, too?

Yes.

Next question is from Sean Meakim, JPMorgan.

Sean, do we have you?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes.

So just to clarify a point you made earlier on efficiencies, 7 to 8 fleets in the third quarter are active versus 4 in the second, which I'm just curious if you characterize those as fully utilized. In other words, do we have just 7 to 8 fully physically crewed fleets? Or how many physical crewed fleets do you have in the field to generate that number of active crews?

Sean -- and I'll clarify. I know a lot of companies in our sector calculate full utilization in different ways. We define fully utilized fleet in 1 month as 25 working days in 1 month or 75 working days in a quarter. So if you just take the 7 to 8 in the third quarter, multiply it by 75, that would be the total number of working days in the quarter. There might be more fleets staffed and active than that at any given time, but the output effectively is the 7 to 8 fleets.

Got it. Okay. And then to follow-on with the maintenance CapEx coming in a bit stronger as you're trying to handle this work in the third quarter, any costs associated with restarting those crews to get to the 7 and 8 that would run through the income statement? And I'm just curious if any of those crews are expected to utilize DuraStim pumps?

Any kind of reactivation costs are very minimal. As Phillip said earlier, all the employees that we're putting on these reactivated fleets are former or current ProPetro employees. It allows us to get through an orientation process quicker. There's no -- there's little to no retraining involved. There's familiarity with the equipment, the leadership kind of up and down the chain there. So the equipment having not been stacked for very long or been rotated in, in some aspects to what the active -- the crews that were active in the second quarter, it's about as seamless as it could be. So the cost would be very minimal.

And then on DuraStim pumps?

Yes. As we mentioned, Phillip mentioned, we did have 2 pumps deployed during the second quarter that worked within a conventional fleet. We continue to see improvements there but just not ready for a larger-scale deployment quite yet.

Next question is from Chris Voie of Wells Fargo.

Just wanted to follow-up on the per fleet economics a little bit. Based on your comment about the potentially $32 million EBITDA, if you had the full drop-through, I guess, my math on the [GEP] per fleet is a little different from what I was thinking. If you were to annualize that, I think the read-through would be that GEP per fleet in the second quarter was probably a bit north of $10 million, just on a run rate basis, if you exclude reactivation and stuff like that. Is that fair?

It's probably pretty close.

Okay. And then so with the pricing headwind in the third quarter and fourth quarter, I think your economics on the GP level would be a little bit lower rather than higher looking on a per fleet basis.

No, I don't think -- and maybe I misspoke earlier. I don't think we're expecting pricing to change meaningfully. The big -- the step down was in second quarter, and we would expect pricing with our current customers and projects to hold through the rest of the year flat.

Okay. That's helpful. And then if you wrap all that together and take in the assumed level of, I guess, idle fees in the third quarter, would you then -- is it likely that EBITDA remains positive in the third quarter?

Yes.

Yes.

The next question is from Marc Bianchi of Cowen.

I wanted to hopefully understand the dynamic of the idle fees a little bit better. So you had the $32 million in the second quarter, and it goes down in the back half here. But my understanding is it's going down because you've got economically favorable work to be doing. And I would think that if you didn't have that, you'd continue to collect more fees. So really, the question is, if activity is looking better, throughput is better, why wouldn't your third quarter EBITDA be better than your second quarter EBITDA?

Well, on the idle fee front, the step down in idle fee is mainly due in part to the fact that the idle fee provision in our agreement is not necessarily a linear one, time or price. We can tell you that we collect more early -- earlier and less later. That's mainly the effect of idle fees. So it kind of blunts the blow and then kind of maintain from there on out. So does it factor into our decision to redeploy any of those assets, I think, is what you're asking. And to some extent, it does, yet, we're in the business of helping our customers solve problems and complete their projects. And that's not always -- as Phillip alluded to in his scripted remarks, we have to take a long-term view on that because we think we're going to be in this business, in this area for a long time. That's when you see us working with kind of the same customer base over and over again. Our goal, obviously, is to produce positive returns at the company level we think we have line of sight to doing so.

And some of those crews we're reflecting the idle fees on, are anticipated to go back to work soon. You have a natural reduction.

Activity was also -- activity associated with the customer where those idle fees are generated is higher quarter-over-quarter as well.

Yes. So if the crew count didn't change, I guess, from second to third, can you just say what the idle fees would be like what you would be entitled to in the third quarter? Just to maybe help give us an idea of how much of the idle fee reduction is due to just finding economic work versus just that taper of, of how it's allocated throughout the year.

It has much more to do with the taper and the customers' activity that those idle fees are associated with.

Next question is from Stephen Gengaro of Stifel.

Two things, one from sort of a bigger picture perspective. As we look out, and I mean, depending on everybody's models, but let's say 2022 is somewhat of a normalized year and activity's back, let's say, it's 300 frac crews working in the industry. Maybe the market is a little bit smaller than it's been. But can you earn the types of profitability per fleet that you've had in the past, do you think? I mean you think it's a good medium to long-term proxy that you could get back to those high teens, the $20 million-plus EBITDA per fleet numbers in that type of environment?

Stephen, this is Sam. That's a great question. Our -- maybe our opinions might differ around the table here. I don't want to say it's impossible to get back to those numbers. I think right now, it's hard to see the road to get there, especially from a time perspective. As we continue to talk about and mention each quarter, we do believe that the equipment offering of our sector has to continue to evolve for us to continue to move in that direction. That will definitely play a part.

Another huge player in the efficiency game in our business, which then helps us produce profitability, is what our customers do, the planning and the other services that they align around us. All of that has been going in the right direction over the last, say, 2 years. We need to continue to see improvements there. I guess I'd say -- all that to say is that we are not going to depend on pricing to get us there. We think there are other things that need to happen in and around our business to get us -- to help get us back to that level, and that obviously takes time.

Okay. That's fair. Go ahead, sorry.

No, I was just going to say it depends. That's a lifetime away, 2022, and it depends on how many people, how many competitors fall out along the way. And I think you might get a pretty good sense that we're going to have less competitors in the space. We'll probably have less operators in the space. So I'm a little more bullish maybe than Sam and that I think that the high-performing, high-efficiency companies working for the blue chip, top-tier companies are going to see some improvement because, I think, maybe there'll be less capacity in the market and a demand for higher-performing companies. I like our position where we stand today with protection on the downside with idle fees if we slim down and our ability to perform at the highest levels on the upside. So I might be a little more bullish. But if we ask 2 more people, you're probably going to get 2 more opinion.

Yes. No, I appreciate it. The other quick one, and I apologize if I missed this earlier, receivables was a massive positive for work for cash flow in the quarter. If activity is ramping a little bit, do you think working capital is fairly neutral for the balance of the year?

Yes. I don't -- also don't know if I'd say if it was a big positive for the quarter. Pretty -- it's been pretty balanced, and we'll continue to manage it in a balanced way moving forward. We don't expect to see any large swings.

The next question is from Blake Gendron of Wolfe Research.

So I wanted to pick a little here into the back half and the potential spot market. We're seeing oil start to creep up a little bit here. I'm assuming a larger customers are going to lock in more dedicated arrangements for 2020, and we'll see what the pricing shakes out to be. But with the smaller customer base, if we do see -- just start to see some activity in tendering from those folks, what kind of lead times are you seeing? And are you seeing some of your competitors bidding on jobs with unmanned equipment right now?

I think we always see aggressive bids come across, especially on the spot market. As Sam mentioned earlier. We've kind of turned down a lot of those type of jobs, especially if it doesn't make sense of fully activating a fleet and carrying that to now for a short term gain, I guess, if the gain's even there to be made.

Got you. But are those customers requiring that those -- that bid on the work have the actual fleet staffed already? Or is there somewhat of speculative nature to this? Will they have enough time to staff the fleet if they win the work?

Yes. I think they are allowing enough time. I think those operators are including the time frame of their work with the request for quote. So yes. So if need to be, I think people would be able to step up, I mean, if they have the access to the people and the equipment. I couldn't speak for the competitive market out there, what condition their equipment being maintained and then their access to people to perform.

I mean, I think that's one of ProPetro's key differentiators is being the largest in the Permian Basin, having great contacts throughout the community. For us to staff up is a relatively short period. I think what -- or at least I'm hearing several operators are very concerned because they feel like the activity now is picking up, and as they pick up crews, they're going to see lower and lower efficiencies because of just the quality, the assumption is the best people are out on active crews now. But we have a great wealth of personnel to draw from, and I think that sets us apart because we can staff quickly. I had a call from an operator that wanted to staff up in 2 weeks and was concerned we couldn't do it. And we told them, it wouldn't be a problem. And we're operating today, and it's not a problem.

Interesting. Well, it's good news that it is a factor, I guess, in relation to some of your more undisciplined competitors. I wanted to shift gears to sand. How have you seen it trend with respect to sand sourcing? Obviously, it depends on the specific customer. But among the larger ones with more durable programs moving forward, are you seeing a major shift where they're internalizing that procurement? Or is it pretty much the same as you've seen over the last few years?

I would -- this is Adam. I would say it's fairly the same with the large guys, especially the people that have that entered that market or entered that self-sourcing concept early on in the game, they're continuing to do so. We have seen some reallocate that portion back to the service company, just depending on who they had partnered up with out there in the sand mines on their ability to perform or supply the product in a timely manner and high quality, I guess.

Yes. Understood. One more, if I could. On the facility that you have, you paid down a bunch of debt. I'm just thinking in terms of uncertainty from here, obviously, a lot of oil demand side drivers that could throw wrench into things. Any sort of onus on you to renegotiate the facility such that it's not tied to receivables for the borrowing capacity? Just so you can maybe protect yourself to the downside on liquidity here?

This is Darin. The facility we have is somewhat norm in our industry and really haven't seen people get much out of that. Some of your options would be to maybe put a little more permanent piece of -- it could potentially put a more permanent piece of debt into your structure. But right now, I don't think we see any owners need to go out and do anything with our facility at the moment.

I'll go back. Just to follow-up on that. Again, the reason I like our position is if we see that down swoon, we'll have protection to the downside that others do not. And so I think that gives us a better range of freedom not to have to go out and seek out a term loan and some owners' interest rate just provide source of liquidity, so.

Next question is from Waqar Syed of AltaCorp Capital.

In terms of maintenance CapEx per crew, where is that trending today? Could you help us on that?

Yes. Waqar, great question. As we deployed a couple of different equipment strategies to minimize maintenance CapEx in second quarter, we'll be doing some of that in the third quarter as well. I think our goal on an annualized basis would be to get that number below $6 million. And we think we have the ability to do that this year, back half of this year.

And how much of that would be [fluid]?

Inclusive -- about half would be fluid.

Half? Okay. And is your target to be on EBITDA per crew to be above that maintenance CapEx number that's what you had said before?

That's (inaudible) yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Okay. Fair enough. And then we've been hearing about these simultaneous fracs. Were you able to do any of those jobs in the quarter or year-to-date?

We're currently not doing any of that right now but looking into many different applications along those lines right now.

Okay. Would you be able to share any R&M data that you've collected from the DuraStim fleets that you've been running or the DuraStim equipment that you've run?

Yes, Waqar, this is Adam. Just from this last deployment that we had here in the second quarter, we saw many improvements from its previous deployment, enough that we felt comfortable going to start making some modifications to some additional pumps to possibly deploy even at a -- still on a not full fleet basis, but maybe a little larger square -- or larger scale, 3 to 4 pumps and continue to just test it side-by-side with conventional equipment.

Waqar, this is Sam. I'll just add to that. From an equipment component standpoint, especially on the pumping portion of the DuraStim units where we are seeing some good indications in terms of wear and tear on expendable items in certain equipment parts.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. Now I'd like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Phillip Gobe, CEO. Please go ahead, sir.

Okay. Thanks, everyone. Once again, we appreciate everyone joining us this morning on the call. A couple of thoughts before we exit. ProPetro has a well-known reputation in the industry of leveraging a team of skilled and experienced professionals with unsurpassed technical capabilities. We have retained the critical skills to deliver efficient and safe operations, and we are well positioned to respond to improving market conditions. Bottom line, we have the best people in the business, rock-solid balance sheet, a blue-chip top-tier customer base and the best rocks in the business, which gives ProPetro a distinct home-field advantage. Thank you again for joining us, and we look forward to talking with you again on the third quarter call. Have a good day.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.