Greetings, and welcome to NOG's second quarter 2026 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. The question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. To ask a question at this time you will need to press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It's now my pleasure to introduce your host, Evelyn Inferna, Vice President, Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin. Good morning. Welcome to NOG's second quarter 2026 earnings conference call. Yesterday after the close, we released our financial results. You can access our earnings release and presentation in the investor relations section of our website at NOGinc.com. We will be filing our June 30th, 2026 10Q with the SEC within the next few days. I'm joined this morning by our Chief Executive Officer, Nick O'Grady, our President, Adam Durlam, and our Chief Financial Officer, Chad Allen, as well as our Chief Technical Officer, Jim Evans. Our agenda for today's call will be as follows. Chad will provide an overview of our financial performance, followed by Adam, who will share an overview OFNOG's operations and business development activities. Nick will close with a remark about NOG's positioning and value proposition. After our prepared remarks, the team will be available to answer any questions. Before we begin, let me remind you of our safe harbor language. Please be advised that our remarks today, including the answers to your questions, may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to be materially different from the expectations contemplated by our forward-looking statements. Those risks include, among others, matters that we've described in our earnings release as well as in our filings with the SEC, including our annual report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Forms 10-Q. We disclaim any obligation to update those forward- looking statements. During today's call, we may discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures, including adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income, and free cash flow. Reconciliations of these measures to the closest GAAP measures can be found in our earnings relief. With that, I will turn the call over to Chad. Thanks, Evelyn. Q2 was a clear demonstration of our diversified portfolio business model. When one region hits turbulence, other aspects of our platform pick up the slack. In this quarter that showed up directly in the numbers adjusted it was up 17% sequentially and free cash flows up over 400% from the first quarter that's the model working as designed total production was up 9% year-over-year record natural gas volumes up 35% year over year and 5% sequentially as previously disclosed we saw significant curtailments in the second quarter as a the result of challenging waha economics in a volatile environment our operating partners in the Permian made prudent decisions to generate excess cash flows and with improving economic conditions we've seen volumes come back online including three net turn in lines that will contribute to the third quarter outside of that waha driven curtailment the underlying assets performed well the The Williston and Uinta both topped our internal expectations, and our Appalachian volume set another record with a full quarter of contribution of our Utica joint development, where early well results have been strong. On pricing, our unhedged net realized oil price improved 36% from the first quarter. Gas realizations were 90% of Henry Hub, and with our hedges, while Hub basis included, reached 123%. Strong NGL prices contributed as well. Baja pressures has receded, and we're seeing that trend continue thus far in the Q3. On costs, production expenses per BOE were down 4% year over year. Budgeted capital expenditures were $196 million, comprised of $151 million of organic DNC and $45 million of ground game activity. Normalized well costs were $761 per lateral foot, essentially in line with the first quarter. Spending this quarter skewed more towards oil-weighted, Herming at 37%, Williston at 33%. Appalachian, you went to each at 14%, and our newly-acquired DuVernay position beginning to contribute at 2%. We ended the quarter with over $1 billion of total liquidity. Our balance sheet remains well positioned to fund our development program and continue executing on inorganic opportunities as they arise. Turning to capital allocation and shareholder returns, this is where the free cash flow generation translates directly into returns. We repurchased 2.95 million shares, roughly 3% of shares outstanding, at an average price of $20.37, with about 81% of that activity completed before the dividend record date in late June. That repurchase largely offset the shares issued to the DuVernay seller, so we effectively funded a scaled acquisition while holding share count roughly flat. Subsequent to quarter end, the Board increased our stock repurchase authorization, bringing total capacity to approximately $243 million, a clear signal of how we view the value in our stock at current levels. On the dividend, our Board declared $0.45 per share for the quarter, or approximately $48 million paid on July 31st. it's 159 million of free cash flow this quarter alone the dividend is covered several times over the good the dividends a floor not a ceiling on the capital we return to shareholders but that I'll turn the call over to Adam thank you Chad we remain as confident as ever in the strength of our assets confirmed through recent results in leading indicators looking ahead we are seeing multiple positive catalysts as drilling activity materially outperformed internal expectations and the DNC list built to almost 52 net wells as operators modestly pull forward activity in the Permian and Williston additionally we elected to approximately 17 net wells which is up almost 20% relative to the trailing 12-month run rate 90% of those elections were weighted towards our oily basins with normalized AFP costs down 5% from our 2025 average moving to business development our M&A engine has been firing on all cylinders we continue to build on our track record of finding premier assets including our latest with the duvernay joint development deal that we closed in early june the parallax acquisition is a self-funding asset with 20 years worth of inventory at an average break even below 50 and with a price tag of less than 600 000 per location highly competitive with the basins in the the lower 48 with it we have strategically and meaningfully expanded our addressable market into Canada and we will continue to screen for other complementary assets our ground game has maintained strong momentum and the barbell approach of sourcing near-term drilling opportunities as well as long-dated inventory continues to be underappreciated since we have made a concerted effort to build out our inventory in Appalachia we've amassed roughly 80 locations through our leasing efforts excluding the acreage that has already converted to development we believe that energy is one of the few companies if not the only that budgets for the acquisition of new locations on an annual basis which allows us to build duration and optionality for the future with core locations that would compete in any portfolio. This overstates the reinvestment rate that is needed and also means NLG is one of the few who is actively replacing its inventory year after year. That said, we can and will adjust how capital is deployed based on dislocations in the market. Capital can be shifted to buybacks or other near-term drilling opportunities, or both, as you saw us do in Q2. In the second quarter, we pivoted to more drilling opportunities acquiring over six net wells weighted to the Permian and Bakken that are currently in process. To further put this into perspective, to the first half of 26, our ground game has already capitalized on the same number of drilling opportunities than we did in all of 2025. NOG's opportunity set continues to expand and will remain dynamic capital allocators, directing capital to wherever it creates the most value as the market presents it. nick thanks adam thanks for joining us this morning and your continued interest in our company i'll cover three pillars that reinforce the strength of our business and build on chad and adam's comments number one unrecognized value we have created an incredible business and this has fostered a fantastic industry reputation as a partner acquirer and asset manager and owner we've built state-of-the-art custom ai powered management and evaluation tools that are light years ahead of the competition most importantly we have built a high quality platform with tremendous value that is not being recognized by the public market today by our conservative internal estimate the assets we own are worth seven billion dollars plus trapped in a 4.6 billion dollar enterprise value Fortunately, we have multiple avenues for this value to be recognized. In the meantime, we'll continue to generate significant free cash flow, pay our dividend, and allocate capital to strong forward returns. We will make decisions that allocate capital in a way that will maximize value for our investors long-term, whether that's acquiring assets, selling assets, or returning cash to shareholders in the form of dividends or share repurchases, purchases, or a combination of these actions. Number two, cash flow strength. Based on current strip pricing, our assets should generate $1.4 to over $1,500,000,000 of adjusted EBITDA this year. We believe $850 to $900,000.000 of DNC capital will sustain these production volumes, generating approximately $375 to over 500,000 dollars of free cash flow. Across that range, our dividend remains multiple times covered, leaving free cash flow available to reduce debt, acquire inventory and assets, or repurchase shares. A modest spending increase could also grow oil or total volumes, generating more cash flow while ultimately producing a similar free cashflow profile. Number three, acquisition track record. We are a proven, disciplined acquirer. Using our advanced tracking systems, we consistently analyze successful acquisitions, opportunities we passed on, and bids we did not win. Our acquisitions have performed exceptionally well, with our systematic approach generating north of 20% annualized returns on a standard one-time levered basis net of hedging. Monetizing selected assets could accelerate these returns further by bringing value forward. As we remind investors quarter after quarter, our value creation is grounded in long-term strategic thinking. That will never change. But a long- term focus does not prevent us from adapting or capitalizing on short-term opportunities, including the fundamental disconnect in our equity today. Our largest quarterly open market we purchased ever demonstrates that approach. Our dividend is solidly covered, our assets are materially undervalued, and or capital allocators. When the market presents opportunities, we will act. Over the past seven years, we identified irreplaceable assets at compelling values, and the returns have validated that strategy, whether the market recognizes it today or not. Our job is to ensure those successes are recognized, and we will work around the clock and analyze every avenue to do so. That's what a company run by investors for investors does. With that, we can turn it over questions. And if you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. Our first question comes from Neil Dingman from William Blair. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Morning all for the remarks. Nick, my first question is on your capital efficiency. Specifically, it seems like most EMPs, you know, now that we're towards the the the second quarter reporting uh the trend i seem to see out there is most many emps i should say uh talked about higher expected 26 capex yet uh you all were able to reiterate your capital spend and your production you know which you know we view should ramp up nicely going forward so my question is could you discuss a bit your confidence in that to be able to reiterate the the capex and you know remind us what some of the primary drivers are there Yeah, thanks, Neal. I'll talk about a couple things. One, recall that our guidance all along has sort of made the assumption that we would see a steady pickup in activity throughout the year. Obviously, it's probably happening a little bit faster, but the total quantum isn't changing. The second thing I point out is that if you look when we revised guidance when we announced the DuVernay acquisition, we had implicitly cut our capital by about 50 million dollars that's a combination of production efficiency um and just the fact that we talked about this in the past but you know when cost came down last year you noticed that we said look we're an accrual shop which means we accrue for the cost of those wells and it takes 180 to 365 days for those uh reduction in costs to be realized so if a well cost 10 million dollars we accrued the full amount at the afv if the actual comes in at 9 million dollars it can take six to 12 months before that that that money is credited back to us we are seeing the benefits of that really starting this past quarter and even if costs do increase some you'll probably see the tailwinds from that for us for some time great point and nick one more i don't think i've ever asked you this on a call but um i want to ask i'd just love to hear your thoughts um you know on what what i'd call your value disconnect you know i mean it's certainly evident that you know again i think I think we all see northern stock being relatively flat here today versus, you know, some of the others have fallen oil and now are up 40, 50 percent. You know, I'd just love to hear, you or any of the team's thoughts on what do you think is the cost behind this? Yeah, now you're going to get me monologuing. I mean, I think, look, at the end of the day, our cash flows and profits are up several hundred million dollars since the beginning of the year. And, you Know, the stock obviously is not, but I'll be candid about the perception challenge we face. We are a non-op, which means at the end of the day, we buy and invest in oil and gas properties. In the public markets, we are rightfully or wrongfully compared against E&P operators. Their job is to manage production and spending and are judged accordingly. We ultimately should be managed by the investments we make and their value over time. That's tough, admittedly, when we typically buy and hold assets to life, But managing guidance is not the same thing as creating value. And I think there's a fundamental disconnect in the analyst community today. As many of you know, I spent 15 years on the buy side. Most of that time, the idea was to look at a company's asset value as a driver for ultimate equity value. This did get out of control during the pre-2014 kind of oil Armageddon period when companies were valued for acreage without regard to capital required to keep it, Not to mention the fact that much of it wasn't worth what was assumed at the time. And look, I have a ton of respect for the analyst community, and the market is at any moment what it is. But today, people, rightfully or wrongfully, are focused almost solely on quarterly guidance and free cash flow yield as they see them. Eight years ago, on my first call as a CFO, I literally discussed as one of the first people in the space openly to move the company to a self-generating cash position and to pay shareholders a fair and reasonable return. Don't get me wrong, free cash flow is really important, but the definition of it is very tricky and often misrepresented in a depleting business. I'll add that even those that do still attempt at NAB may not understand the differences between how we book reserves and inventory as a non-op compared to an operator, which are inherently different in the sense that we can't simply book inventory, that we don't control the timing of, and we can't count locations before operators ultimately decide where they're spacing it. As Adam mentioned, we're one of the only E&P companies that actually budgets for acquisitions in our regular budget every year. Most public E&Ps are not replacing their inventory. So what you call free cash flow is actually in reality a depleting annuity, And I don't think that's a fair comparison, which is why NAV should be an important part of the equation of what is, in the end, effectively a depleting real estate business. So if you look at our reinvestment rate, of course it's less immediately productive by design, but we continue to stack on assets. That's not capital efficiency as the market views it, for the record. You know, over the last year, we spent over $100 million acquiring potentially north of 80 locations in the Utica. this does not this does nothing but make us screen worse in the quote-unquote capital efficiency and free cash flow metric yet it's definitively adding asset value into the enterprise albeit non-productive at the moment you can tell the bonus and i can tell you the bonuses paid for that land are up in some cases 50 plus percent since we began that campaign so no cash flow just capex but did we add value likely the answer is a resounding yes as i stated in my prepared comments screening leverage is another example if we borrow money and buy an asset the market has focused on the leverage as a negative when comping but they don't recognize that now we have an asset that's worth a heck of a lot of money and i can say with a lot certainty that the current future values of our uinta and utica assets which were funded with leverage are greater today than when we purchase them and likely grow further over time as the operators improve and delineate again this is a business model viewpoint we struggle to reconcile at times we could be unlevered and screen better we could only spend money on dnc capital and look better by these metrics but at the end of the day now we have these assets and in virtually all the cases scarcity and quality has proven that the assets that we purchased are now appreciably more valuable if we need to monetize them to prove to the market as a mechanism that the value since only cash yields are being used we're fine with that at the end of the day our job is to maximize value but it's a shame they're not analyzed for what they would be in virtually any private setting um put to you this way if our assets were worth the lowest end of our expectations and we sold half we'd take in roughly half our float and have zero debt that implies the stock value more than triple the the current levels. So if the market wants to be singularly focused on production volume cadence versus expectations, a leverage multiple and a free cash flow yield where 75% of the competing stocks are not replacing any inventory, but just depleting away, that's incredibly short-sighted when in reality, we're about owning and harvesting assets at good values. At the same time, we need to ensure the market understands how valuable all the assets we purchased have become. You have an insane dichotomy going on at the moment where people are paying north of $330,000 per acre and assets have never been so sought after at significant premiums even a few years ago, and yet a public market that wants to give it away. But to be fair, when that happens, the onus is on us to prove it, and make no mistake, we will. Back to you. Thanks for the quick comment. I told you, you got me monologuing. Sorry. Our next question comes from Charles Mead from Johnson Rice. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Nick, that was a wonderful monologue. In all candor, I appreciate you sharing that point of view. And it's, you know, I liken the, you know, it's a fashion in the market right now to to be lower leverage and maybe you guys aren't aren't there but uh but the question i want to ask actually touches on this this leverage point and when you talk about you and and adam also talked about uh allocating capital and you know putting it in in the uh you know in the best uh at the best places whether it's the ground game or dnc or things like that it's easy for me to imagine how you stack up, say, a ground game acquisition versus buying back your own shares. It's a little harder for me to imagine how you consider paying down debt. There seem to be more intangibles, benefits, or maybe costs related to paying down net versus looking at an acquisition or buying your own share. So can you talk about how you view the desirability or the framework for debt reduction or debt additions? Sure. I mean, I think, look, I would say that, number one, there are a couple of ways to de-lever, right? So obviously, highly efficient capital, which grows your cash flow, can lower your leverage metrics. And that's important. And that's a big part of the capital allocation. But to be candid, you know, what I tell you about our shares, as an example, is that that's clear and present opportunity, right? That may or may not be there tomorrow. And we're extremely focused on that, as you see. Leverage is the easy part, because ultimately, I tell that as I mentioned just before in my long-winded monologue, which is that you know we have incredibly desirable assets so if we want to solve for leverage we can do that almost immediately right um and i don't chat do you want to add to that no i think you're right i mean obviously you know our stock right now where it's trading at you know closely yesterday it's up nine percent yield so i mean it's certainly massively accretive for us to continue to attack that and we'll we'll kind of be we'll be prudent about it and it's a fluid and dynamic situation for us yeah but i mean i think you have to you have to weigh in the fact that your asset value uh your leverage is a function of the fact that we've acquired all these assets right so we didn't have to do it the way we did it but we did it because we knew that they would be more valuable they are today and so to the extent that um to the extend that the market wants to discount the value because the leverage you use to acquire them that that's an easy answer okay okay thank you for that detail in your thinking. And then, Adam, I want to go back to something you said in your prepared comments. I believe I heard you say that you have a lot of recent wells that are outperforming your internal expectations, your type curves. And I wonder if you could just give a little bit more detail on where that's happening across your asset base. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think, you know, we looked to Appalachia. We just finished up our, you know, West Virginia joint development agreement. We've seen significant outperformance relative to internal expectations there. That was a driver in the gas volumes that you saw this quarter. And we're also seeing it in the UNTA, notably both on kind of legacy production from the XCL assets as well as the 2026 campaign Jim I don't know if there's anything else that is notable that yeah I think you can if we're really seeing across all of our basements right you know even in the Wilson we continue to see out performance across operators you know they drill longer laterals getting more efficient we're not seeing the decline rate that you might expect as you go from a two to a three to a four mile lateral so really it's across all our basins that we're kind of outperforming internal expectations yeah and I'd say it's early but even on our new ohio program where we've really started to put on our first pads uh we've seen really really strong performance so uh kudos to the infinity guys thanks for the color our next question comes from phillips johnson from capital one please go ahead your line is open hey thanks for your time and happy friday um i have to say that i'm also a fan of the monologue So thanks for that, Nick. And I'm actually going to be the guy that asks about the short-term production trends, so my apologies in advance. Your implied oil production guidance for the second half of the year is around 74,000 a day on average, I guess. If we adjust your second quarter volumes upward to account for the shut-ins, it sort of implies your second half production is going to go by a couple thousand barrels a day relative to Q2. Obviously, there's a lot of positive momentum, given your strong wells and process figure at the end of June, and you talked about the accelerated ASE and election activity. I realize it's still a pretty uncertain operating environment, but it seems like the guidance could be a little conservative with some upside potential, so I just wanted to get your take on that. Yeah. It's definitely possible. I mean, I think, look, to your point, it's very fluid. Oil prices are all over the place, and so it's too early to declare victory. But obviously, you have really just the base assets returning to trend. You also have the addition of the DuVernay assets on top of that. And I'd say as we stand today, you know, one of the things that has been difficult for both you and investors in general, which is that, you know, we got a lot of questions when oil prices spiked, you know, why weren't you seeing the reaction? And the answer was really that,you know, one of our biggest growth engines is the Permian, and it's really been hampered by, you know, the logistical problems. And we tried to be really forthright about that, that it was going to take a little bit of time. Obviously, I think what I would tell you is, as it stands today, some of those challenges have resolved themselves faster than I would have thought. And we had really pushed and we had frankly had those conversations with the operator said there was good reason for we had really pushed a lot of that development that had been delayed really starting in the end of the fourth quarter of last year. And even in the third quarter, we started seeing things being moved towards the end of this year. We're actually seeing that trend invert and we're seeing a lot of that stuff being brought forward. So it really bodes well for the remainder of this year again um i think it's too early to declare uh total victory and we want to make sure we see it before we really come out and brag about it but i'd say uh your thoughts in general are correct yeah i mean i think phillips we've seen some operators you know jockeying kind of figuring out kind of 2027 plans as well um you know maybe picking up a rig sooner than otherwise kind of expected seeing some you know drilling efficiencies there and so you know depending on how that all kind of shakes out next to northern that would be another thing to kind of keep an eye on okay sounds good um on the loe guidance you you did reduce the four-year guidance uh a little bit um as we look at slide four which is really great disclosure by the way um there's a there's a pretty wide range of operating costs across your basins um so my question is how will your evolving you know production mix and the addition of the duvernay volumes um which obviously have the lowest loe on the slide um influence i guess your your loe trajectory over the next uh four to six quarters or so yeah yeah so that's good so number one like i want to i'm not trying to be pithy or make a pith comment but you know our loe is not loe as you would say it includes loe but it also are you know we don't have a separate gp and t line so it carries a bunch of gathering transportation costs uh some other portion of the gp t is in our differential which we really look at is from wellhead to sales um so we report a little bit different than other people so but what i would tell you is that if your production remains flat uh and this is not uh this is for any company your loe will will rise over time right uh and so uh to your point Our goal in general is, as we add growth areas such as the DuVernay and I think potentially the Uinta over time, those areas should offset the fact that LOE, if you look at our Williston total production costs, and our Willston volumes have stayed relatively flat for the last four or five years, those used to be $10, right? uh now some of that is just inflation of and work over costs have increased over time but some of it's just the aging of the wells right which is that you know you you've got call it in your LOE i think about 50 percent of the costs generally are fixed and so as the wells decline over time that LOE naturally goes up but obviously the maintenance capital associated with it goes down as well so your cash flows that your while your operating costs go up your your capital costs go down. So a long-winded way of saying I think our goal is to try to keep LOE flat to down. Obviously as our gas volumes grow that also helps lower that because they're at their advantage and I'd say our joint development program which is extremely liquid switch as that declines and you see an increase in and you've seen an increase in our Ohio volumes over time that should actually offset that trend a little bit and get LOE to go down some over time and so in general I think we feel very good that we can kind of maintain the current levels for some time. I do think you have to keep in mind fuel prices and other things that can flow through LOE and work over expenses, which we really saw a huge increase on as the wells have aged in both the Permian and the Williston over the last few years, but that's generally stabilized at this point. Excellent. That's a great color. Thanks, Nick. Yep. Our next question comes from Noel Parks from Toohey Brothers. Please go ahead. your line is open hi good morning um you know i i was wondering um i did appreciate your your comments on valuation and um in particular i i um sort of keyed on your uh mention that um what I think it's what others call a free cash flow is actually on, is actually a depleting annuity. And so it sort of got me thinking as you've expanded into different basins and would share the realities of valuation, what you do and don't get credit for. I'm just wondering, um i think of the the story as being one largely of base and arbitrage you recognizing opportunities and from that perspective being able to get them at a good price that other people would overlook so um i mean doesn't doesn't base an arbitrage alone if you continue on that path doesn't that sort of naturally kind of help you build value more or less regardless of kind of what the public markets are saying? Yeah, I mean, I think there's a public and a private view, but I think we recognize our job is to make sure that that value is recognized, right? So that is part of our job, whether, you know, what, and that's one of the hardest things to do, to be candid, Noel. You know, slide four in our earnings deck, you know, we really, one ofthe comments we got was people wanted more visibility and we're happy to provide it. We really show a basin-by-basin look at the company. And what I tell you about that is when we acquired the Uinta assets, we had spent a significant sum of time, a year plus prior, evaluating and reviewing the Uintas. And we understood that this was a basin that had economics that could compete or even exceed the Permian. When we evaluated Canada, which we've been doing for several years, and we found the light oil part of the Duvernay, we were incredibly encouraged by both the length of inventory on it. I mean, you're talking about a 20-plus-year asset, as well as the incredible margins it generates. And slide four really underscores that when I say those things, I sometimes get blank stares. but when your margin in uinta is 20 higher than in the permian and people ask you about differentials you can sit there and say i don't care like the the proof is in the pudding you know in the case of the duvernay uh similar which is that we talked about it when we acquired it which is it had very unique properties uh and we really found you know so we are we are truly seeking the best assets and we'll allocate our capital accordingly we're not someone who just does one thing and does it well and i think sometimes that that does have value in a public market that wants surety and clarity but i think we're trying to provide that here and people should recognize it i don't know adam or john if you don't want to add to that okay uh great thanks and and i'm just wondering um you know thinking about the the gas side of the equation. The move towards some of the larger players towards sort of an integrated gas model, you know, bringing back in-house infrastructure or acquiring infrastructure that they had at one time spun out. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Does it have an effect on your model or is it compatible, that trend sort of with your own model? And I guess it makes you think about those sorts of players as opposed to you know for gas exposure the permian for example there's a ton of associated gas so you have plenty there so i just wondered um what that sort of change in the landscape is uh is telling you yeah so we own significant infrastructure in the uinta uh in the permium uh and in uh and and in the uh both the duberne and the uintas sorry the Utica excuse me and what I would say about that is that obviously the most notable thing is that when we acquired the Utika it implies a higher upfront multiple but you're talking about something that with the fully integrated model drops your breakeven costs you know a dollar twenty versus the prior operator and so you make a more resilient asset importantly as well you also have control and control is really important which is look no further than the permian where you know the bulk of it is through third-party gathering and processing systems uh and you run through periods of time in which quite frankly you just can't get your gas out right and some of that stuff is not stuff that emps would own like long all pipes but at the end of the day controlling the infrastructure is really critical it also builds a moat in which once that system is built you will ultimately become you know the acreage and the surrounding acreage becomes by de facto really only valuable to you that being said and we would never you know we would consider anything you know people are knocking on our door every day trying to buy that infrastructure at significant values and so it's always an option but i would tell you that there are there there's extreme value to having that infrastructure and being integrated i think you've seen you know one of our top operators is eqt you've seen them do that in appalachia it's a great success and i think at first when people saw it they might not have fully understood it but a couple years later it proves its value our last question comes from paul diamond from city please go ahead your line is open uh good morning paul's taking the call uh morning just got a quick one for you so last quarter we obviously saw some current curtailments and reactivity to invasive pricing you guys diversification i guess when as you see the winter approaching or any other operational purposes did you see that occurring anywhere else across your basins or is it uh if any warning lights free uh not at the moment i mean i think one of the interesting things about the gas market right now is that you know there's been a lot of um a lot discussion and and research around you you know, potential super El Nino. And the strip really reflects that. My experience over time has been most people are wrong about the weather all the time. And so I think that the fact that that sort of baked into the gas market today is pretty interesting to me, right? So usually they bake in a normal winter, they think it's going to be a cold winter, and then things wind up disappointing. I think, you know frankly, the situation today is probably the opposite. You know, several years Years ago, as you remember, we had some significant storms in both the south and around the country, and it caused huge disruptions in areas because of extreme weather. Over that time, you've seen a lot of investment in infrastructure to make it more resilient, so I expect operational disruptions, similar to what you saw in the Gulf of Mexico years ago, where there were huge disrupts from Katrina and Rita, and then people built the system stronger as it came back, and so I see the same scenario here. frankly um as it pertains to winter and gas uh you know we generally become a huge beneficiary uh should something happen so i think in general um you know even if it lasts as much as a month and a half or whatever and um you're using last winter as an example that incredible strength happened um right after we acquired uh our our ohio assets and we were able to actually take really advantage hedges which are on the book today and take advantage of that scenario and And so I would hope we see similar, like volatility can be bad, but it can also be very good. Got it. Makes perfect sense. And then one more, I guess, larger strategic one quickly. You guys have worked pretty strongly to diversify across basins, splitting about, you know, 30-30-30 across Williston, Permian, Appalachia, and then adding Uinta and DeVernay. I guess how do you see that on a long-term basis? Is the idea to be, like, split evenly amongst those five, or do you see, I guess, more opportunity sets in one versus the other? I guess I have to think about those knobs turning over time. Yeah, I think it's hard to say in some cases and easier in others. I mean, I Think the Williston is very mature, and I think episodically we may see opportunity to come up in the Willston, but in general, you know, it is a very, very mature basin. And the Permian comes and goes so that, you know, obviously several years ago there were enormous numbers of assets coming to market. We took advantage of that the last year or so. It's probably been less exciting to us, but that can infer it on itself over time. You know, I think what I would tell you is we are a management company at the end of the day, and we're really focused on economics. So the diversity is certainly part of the business model, but it's also going where the opportunities are, and those can change and are very dynamic over time. I don't think there's a desire to be more diversified or less diversified. But similarly, when assets are sought after, it could be a scenario in which we take advantage of that and monetize a portion of it over time, I think. where everything's for sale every day, everything is both for us to buy and for us to sell, and I think we'll do whatever makes the most economic sense. I don't know if you want to add to that. Yeah, I think that's the competitive advantage of the business model, right? We can expand in basins in a relatively cost-efficient way. You saw that with the entry into Canada. We've been looking at Canada for the last two years, both in the Montney as well as duvernay and and you know this quarter we're fortunate to find an asset that checks the box and so you know even looking at our ground game we had activity in every single basin and the competition ebbs and flows you know depending on what you're looking at you know in what period of time and our ability to move quickly and leverage the proprietary information that we have with the evergreen models that we have enables us to make those decisions on a real-time basis. And so we'll continue to look at the opportunities that are within the basins and in our own backyard and sandbox now. But that's not to say that we're not looking at a number of other different basins at any given moment in time. I think we've got 15 different large asset transactions that we are looking at right now. you know a lot of the stuff that you know was in market was was formal auctions but a lot of the that we're having conversations around you know in the third quarter has really been bilateral conversations so we'll continue to stay dynamic in terms of you know how we're sourcing and looking at opportunities yeah i mean i'd use the example obviously we've grown our utica position probably in excess of what we would have thought the opportunity was when we entered the basin. We've made a significant investment in acreage, and our phone is ringing off the hook now of things to do with it, right? And so from operators all over the map. But I do think it's a really important distinction about our business model versus, say, an operator, right, and I think the market spoke long ago, which is that too much diversity as an operator can be challenging, And there are some specific reasons for that, which is, one, you know, do one, then do a well. Can you be really good at lots of different things? Secondly, allocation of capital for operators in which they have to maintain a team and rig activity and all these things can get a little bit squirrely. For a non-operator, it's very, very different, right, which isthat for us, it is truly just capital allocation. So it is just dollars in and dollars out. And so the diversity, while it might be a little bit harder to model and annoying for you at times, at the end of the day, it doesn't have the same inherent challenges that it can be when you're trying to maintain multiple business lines for an operated business. Got it. Appreciate all the detail and clarity. I'll leave it there. And we have no further questions. I would like to turn the call back to Nick O'Grady for closing remarks. Thanks, everyone, for joining the call today. We'd like to remind investors to view our new earnings presentation slide supplement, which contains new enhanced disclosures, which highlights our asset value and the incredible investment opportunity. As always, reach out to investor relations with questions, and we look forward to continuing the mission. Thanks again. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.