Good day, and welcome to the California Resources Corporation Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Joanna Park, VP of Investor Relations and Treasurer. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Welcome to California Resources Corporation third quarter 2022 conference call. Participating on today's call are Mac McFarland, President and Chief Executive Officer; Francisco Leon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; as well as the entire Executive Committee. I'd like to highlight that we have provided slides on our Investor Relations section of our website, www.crc.com. These slides provide additional information into our operations and our third quarter results. We have also provided information reconciling non-GAAP financial measures discussed to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures on our website as well as in our earnings release. Today, we are making some forward-looking statements based on current expectations. Actual results could differ due to factors described in our earnings release and in our periodic SEC filings. As a reminder, we have allotted additional time for Q&A at the end of our prepared remarks, and we ask that participants limit their questions to a primary and 1 follow-up. With that, I will now turn the call over to Mac.

Great. And thank you, Joanna. At CRC, we are a different kind of energy company. We are focused on delivering consistent and predictable free cash flow. We are focused on disciplined capital allocation and shareholder returns from the free cash that we generate, and we are focused on advancing and accelerating our carbon management business, a simple but focused strategy. So let's discuss each of these in greater detail. First, consistent and predictable cash flow. During the third quarter, we continued to deliver strong results by producing 92,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and $128 million of after-tax free cash flow. We did this despite externalities, including the continued litigation of the current County EIR, which has been recently resolved in the courts as well as ongoing inflationary pressures. We were able to accomplish these results because we have a robust portfolio of assets that allows us to adapt to the ever-changing landscape. Our portfolio allowed us to ramp up the 5 D&C rigs during the year and increase our downhole maintenance activity to deliver on our production goals. For the full year 2022, we are projecting approximately $235 million of D&C capital expenditures while maintaining oil production essentially flat entry to exit. And that's after adding back the impact from the current County EIR litigation delay, and taking into account A&D transactions from earlier this year. And while inflation has impacted our nonenergy OpEx and CapEx costs and as a result, slightly squeezed our margins, we are still delivering on full year 2022 expectations on the current price deck. Francisco will describe this in greater detail. But as we have said, we anticipate long-term average D&C capital of approximately $300 million per year to keep oil production flat after adjusting for the inflationary pressures that we are seeing.…

Thank you, Mac. Our assets continue to perform well, delivering consistent and predictable results. Third quarter production averaged 92,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, up 1% from the second quarter. Changes in our development plan and well mix in response to the current County EIR litigation and the heat-related electricity outages throughout the state impacted our quarterly production volumes. Yesterday afternoon, the court issued a favorable ruling lifting the stay in the current county EIR litigation. We expect the county to promptly begin processing permits in accordance with that ruling. From a commodity realization standpoint, CRC continued to benefit from strong realized prices across all three hydro partners. Our average realized price for oil in the third quarter after settlement payments on our derivative contracts registered at $62.45 per barrel. Third quarter NGL realizations declined from the second quarter, which were in line with seasonal pricing and expectations at $57.68 per barrel. California natural gas prices remained strong, registering five consecutive quarters of increases. CRC realized 109% of NYMEX after hedges at $8.58 per mcf. As we turn to the cost side of the business, we saw total quarterly nonenergy operating costs rise by $0.77 per BOE quarter-over-quarter, mainly as a result of increased downhole maintenance activity. In addition, increases to natural gas prices drove energy-related operating cost of $1.63 per BOE, or 17% from the previous quarter. As California's largest natural gas producer, we are net long the commodity, which means that we produce and sell -- what we produce and sell is greater than the natural gas purchased for using our operations. During the third quarter, CRC generated $234 million of adjusted EBITDAX and quarterly operating cash flow of $235 million, demonstrating CRC's significant cash generation capability. We remain disciplined and invested $107 million in CapEx, which…

Thanks, Francisco. Before we conclude, I'd like to thank the employees of CRC. Sorry about that, I had the microphone muted. Before we conclude, and thanks, Francisco, I'd like to thank the employees of CRC for their tireless dedication as well as their safety and environmental stewardship. Nothing is possible in the results that we achieved without their work. Thank you for your interest in CRC, and thank you for joining us on today's call. We'll now open the line for questions, and I'll turn it back to the operator.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from Davis Patris with RBC Capital Markets.

It's Scott Hanold here with RBC. Just kind of curious now that the current county oil and gas permitting is kind of greenlit, can you talk about like what -- how many, I guess, permits you have in there and we'll call it backlog. And how long do you think it's going to take you to get some of those? So ultimately, when do you think you can get kind of back on pace to what you view is the most optimized drilling program in 2023?

Scott, it's Mac. I want to flip this over to Shawn Kerns, our Chief Operating Officer. But look, it's late-breaking news, okay? And it's good news, and we're optimistic about what this brings to us. But I'll let Shawn tell you about some of the process that we're looking at from here.

Yes. Scott, yes, late breaking news, we're very encouraged by what we heard with through the court's decision. As you're aware, we're having conversations with the permitting agencies about how they're going to restart in an orderly manner. So we've been engaged in conversations throughout the year, anticipating that this may happen. And so I think it will take a little bit of time to unpack the permitting backlog, but we're very, very excited about what this can mean for 2023.

Do you have a sense -- I was kind of curious on your backlog.

Go ahead, Shawn, sorry.

Yes. We have a number of permits that are kind of in place and under hold. And so there's some conversations going of how do we get those restarted. And then we have a number that are just waiting on the permit system to reopen.

Scott, the way I'd say it is that there's a number of permits. It's not just us. It has created a backlog and that has to be worked through, both through certifying under this EIR as well as going through the CalGEM process. But we remain cautiously optimistic that it will return to normalized activity in 2023.

That's good to hear. And as my follow-up, it was good to hear you kind of reaffirm your view that -- you hope to have an emitter signed up by the end of the year. And a couple of things with that. First of all, is there certain things that we should look for as sort of steps that need to occur? I know there's an EIR in current county for 26R that I think we should be getting some kind of flow on soon. And then also, to the point of the slide that you all have on your presentation on Page 19, where you define those existing sources that can be greenfield projects, currently, I think a lot of those may not be in the LCFS-compliant molecules, but are you seeing any progress to kind of get that put into an LCF compliance bucket to even make them more enhanced opportunities?

Yes, there's a lot to unpack there. I mean -- so look, as far as the overall process is concerned, you mentioned 26R, we're passing -- we're just passing a year in the permitting process. As we've always said, we expect to get that permit by the end of next year on sort of that 2-year time frame. So we're excited about that, and that permit as well as the A1A2 permit continue to progress through as well as our other permits. And going on that time line, we said we are targeting an emitter contract, which we're calling a CDMA at this point. And as CDMAs, if we attain our objective by the end of this year, sort of puts us on track for going to final investment decision, hopefully, right around the time that we have the permit. So we remain confident that we'll be able to do that. I think what's exciting about the page that you brought up on Page 19 and the prior page on Page 18, which just shows an expanded market opportunity, is that when you think about some of these -- the new energy economy, whether it be hydrogen, ammonia, ethanol, et cetera, there is a lot that is coming to the forefront. And why has that happened is because with the changes in the Inflation Reduction Act and the $85 for permanent storage, that has moved things that don't have a lot of capture capital into the economic discussions, things that we think would fit within the economic type curve that we laid out. The other advantage is that they will be -- they can be co-located next to our sites. And so therefore, that has an advantage for elimination of transportation and things of the like. Anything you want to add, Francisco?

Just to kind of build on that point, Mac. We have 47,000 surface acres in Elk Hills. We were one of the largest surface owners in the state. So it's a really good way to think about how to leverage our land position.

And Scott, I think you also asked about LCFS, is there a pathway. So for example, on ammonia and hydrogen, there's not an established pathway that I'm aware, but if there -- well, there is for hydrogen for the fueling stations. But if they're used for transportation fuels, there is an ability to apply for a pathway. And so that would allow you to do the stacking as well. But this is -- I think these are pretty exciting as well as there are ongoing conversations associated with the direct air capture in California in addition to that.

Our next question will come from Doug Leggate with Bank of America.

This is Kalei on for Doug. My first one is a follow-up on the current EIR. So my understanding was that when the ruling occurred in May, some of the permits that you had were frozen. Can you talk about whether or not those permits are now viable again, and if -- and what would happen to the permits if the opposition should file an appeal?

Yes, Kalei, this is Shawn. Yes, those permits that were frozen in May are still viable. So they were just really pending the outcome of an EIR kind of CEQA notification. So you have some in the queue, some that are yet to be filed. But as a team, we've been thinking through different scenarios and planning for this event. So there'll be more conversations in the near future of how to get this restarted in an orderly fashion.

Got it. What happens in an appeal, Shawn?

Yes. I'll let Mac take this.

So the stay was lifted and the permitting process can begin immediately. However, obviously, the litigation is not completely resolved, and the petitioner -- the original petitioners will have the opportunity to seek an appeal of the M2 stay new process, if they so choose. That's certainly not a foregone conclusion that they would be able to achieve a further stay. And we think, as an observer of the litigation, that both the county and the judge have been very careful in addressing all of the issues that were raised in the first appeal. So no guarantees about kind of future results in the litigation, but we're optimistic.

Got it. So maybe if I could summarize, it sounds like you're not totally out of the woods yet, but it feels like the worst of the possible outcomes is now behind us or past that point. Is that fair?

Yes. Kalei, I would say, the indications we get right now is it's resuming. So the teams are meeting on how to restart permitting, and that's what we're going to be focused on.

Okay. My next question is on the step-back rule as it relates to L.A. basin. As you assess that impact, can you talk about how you're thinking about the production cadence and the inventory debt of those assets? Maybe to add on, we came across the comments in a old slide deck presentation that stated that workovers in L.A. Basin provided about 3,500 BOE per year in terms of production. So, it seems like the impact, if it does affect the workovers, could be quite meaningful. How do you guys view the cadence?

Yes. On the 1137 again, it still has to go through a rule-making process there to fully kind of understand the impact. We've put out what we think preliminary the impact would be on certain portions of our assets. There's other areas of the field, it's a very large field, where you can continue developing or drilling from different locations. So it's kind of yet to be seen what the impact is.

And as you saw, Kalei, this is Francisco, we've changed our drilling rigs to come into this year to drill some wells in the L.A. Basin that we had this location identified that prime candidates for the beginning of next year. We're moving them into this year. As a result of that, they might be potentially impacted by setbacks in the future. So we're accelerating activity in that basin because of that reason.

Great. Francisco, maybe just to put a finer point on it, what do you see the inventory depth in the L.A. Basin? How long can you hold current production flat?

Yes. I mean we're still evaluating the impact, Kalei. But as Shawn indicated, these are large fields that have -- we'll still have running room to go, and the setback doesn't impact entirety of the field. So we're still evaluating the numbers, we still obviously have to see what the final rules are going to be, but we do have inventory left, and we'll talk about it at the future date once we have more clarity as to what the inventory looks like.

Our next question will come from Leo Mariani with MKM Partners.

I wanted to follow up a little bit on the Brookfield deal here. So I think I saw in the release that you made some comments that you put a handful of maybe new projects in front of Brookfield. Can you provide any more color around that? And is there some kind of time frame they have to kind of look at these projects and decide to move forward on them? How does the mechanics sort of work there?

Leo, it's Mac. So we did submit a couple other -- the A1A2, CTD2 and CTD3 to the JV is farmed down into the structure. And there is the commercial terms, I don't know that we've necessarily disclosed, but there's a defined time frame by which they have an opportunity to respond. If they decide not to pull those into the JV or drop them in from our perspective that there's a deferral mechanism with some carry on it. And then it's basically part of the right of first offer or et cetera, as we've described for them to take a look at it until we go through FID, and then it's an ultimate decision that has to be made. So right now, we're in the waiting time frame and should hear relatively shortly as to whether or not those will be dropped in immediately or deferred.

Okay. And then also in your prepared comments, I think you said that it sounds like you're going to get Class 6 permits around 120 tonnes this year, and I think your goal was 200. It sounds like you come up a little bit short there, if I heard that right? Just any color around that? Are we just looking at maybe some minor delays? What are you seeing happening there on those permits?

I'm going to let Chris Gould to jump in and explain because he's handling that process. But I would say in a simple fashion is that the stakes are being taken off at the EPA, and we've been building credibility all along the way with the quality of our permits. And so we want to make sure that we have the highest quality of permits. And so we're just not going to rush anything. But Chris, do you want to provide additional color?

Yes. I think that's right. We've always been committed to setting the highest standards. And given the previously limited amount of Class 6 applications before CCS has really come on to the scene here, it's not unexpected that EPA is going to learn and adjust. And frankly, we appreciate the need to have the highest standards on projects of this importance. So we are well positioned to keep our standards high, meet their standards. And we're talking about things related to data requests and additional requirements around the edges. But nonetheless, things that we want to be very deliberate, very thoughtful and very careful about how we deliver these permits at the highest standards. So we remain on track for our eye set for 200 million tonnes, of permits and to hit our 5 million tonne per annum goal in 2027.

All right. Just wanted to follow up on the oil production here. So I think if I heard right, the prior comments, you guys are talking about a 50,000 -- 55,000 barrel a day exit rate, that's what you're kind of expecting. I guess that's kind of flat where you were in the third quarter. Just wanted to acquire just some text in the press release where I think you referenced that maybe a loss to another kind of 1,000 barrels a day, just kind of reshuffling of the permits and moving the rigs around. Did I kind of hear those numbers right that in terms of the ops, you're a little behind on the oil just because of having to reshuffle the program? Is that continuing to kind of be an issue? And I would assume that if this ERR is not appealed and is fully resolved, then this issue would pretty much go away in 2023?

Yes. That's right. Leo, this is Francisco. The 1,000 barrel impact shown on Slide 10, it's a full year impact. As we look at, okay, look back at the current county EIR delays and we'd want to measure, okay, how much we could have done if it wasn't for that litigation, it's about 1,000 barrels for the full year. Our accelerate numbers already take this into account. There's no other true-up changes. We just wanted to say, okay, this is the impact based on the litigation and expect to be back in full on a normalized basis in 2023.

Our next question will come from Nate Pendleton with Stifel.

For my first question, your Carbon TerraVault business, can you speak to the potential logistics your team is working through to move the captured CO2 to the planned sequestration sites and how transportation impacts your assessment of potential sources of CO2?

Nate, it's Mac. Yes, obviously, one of the things that we're talking about with this new energy economy is the ability to not have to move it very far. With respect to existing sources and being able to move, we've looked at things that are within close proximity being, call it, 30-mile radius. And those are longer term because you'd have to basically create a point-to-point pipe, if you will, because there's no trunk line here of CO2 movement. So it goes into our calculation as to what are the best opportunities, okay, from an economic standpoint because obviously, there's an economic cost of having a pipeline to connect source to sync. However, as we mentioned in these greenfield opportunities, you can cite it right, at Elk Hills, as Francisco mentioned earlier, you don't have a lot of piping to do. It's all in field for all practical purposes.

Got it. And then as my follow-up, given your subsurface understanding and progress in the Class 6 process, can you help us understand how your position is differentiated for sequestration from a geologic perspective in the state, especially the reservoirs presented to the JV? And how widespread that opportunity is for high-quality sequestration across your acreage?

Yes. So we're positioned well, I believe we've talked about many times here, our subsurface expertise in the reservoirs that we brought forth thus far. It comes down to, we are one of the largest holders, if not the largest, of seismic data, 3D seismic in state of California. So obviously, when you're characterizing these reservoirs, you have to know how they will act with CO2, and you need the data, subsurface data to be able to do that, which we have, we're the largest holder. That then translates into us being the largest, one of the largest depending on mineral and surface owners in the state. You put that together, and you combine that with the skills and expertise of a company that's been focused on California for decades, and that is where our competitive advantage comes into play.

Our next question will come from Eric Seeve with GoldenTree.

Congratulations on the favorable ruling in the current county EIR litigation. I understand that you guys are still working through the permitting process with the regulators there and are still working through your 2023 budget. But my question is sort of a qualitative one given that I know you're still working through those things. If you can achieve flat oil production with $300 million of D&C CapEx, on my numbers, it seems to imply really spectacular return on capital for the drilling program. So my question is, what is your intent and what is your ability with respect to the drilling program in '23. Are you -- if you can achieve such terrific return on capital, is there any intent to grow? And do you have clarity yet on the permitting constraints? Would that be a constraint to growth?

Eric, it's Francisco. Yes, we're still working through it. We were -- we had multiple different variations of the business plan for next year, anticipating a favorable resolution, but also thinking about, okay, what happens if it doesn't come through, right? So we're looking at all the options. We're going to deliver an optimized plan next year. And we haven't come to a decision as to how many rigs and what the pacing of that is going to be, right? We're focused on finishing the year strong, focusing on accelerating some of these wells that we thought could be impacted down the road. So I think it's just a matter of we saw the ruling yesterday after the market closed, and we're working hard to provide more clarity.

Okay. Great. My other question is on the Huntington Beach asset. You guys mentioned you're going to do sort of an exploratory process with a small part of the real estate there. Just trying to get a rough sense of how big is that piece? And is it contiguous with the rest of it? I'm just curious how you sized it and how big it is and how you're thinking about that?

Yes, Eric. So we have a number of properties that are attractive future real estate developments. And this one, in particular, is not contiguous to our bigger Huntington Beach strip, but it's close. It's within a few blocks, also beachfront property, and that's where we -- we think this is a very marketable property. It's an oil field today, but it will -- we'll do the work to get it in a position so that it tries to maximize real estate value. So we're going to work through that. It's like I said, beachfront property, and I'll send you some pictures, so you can look at it. It's right next to the oil field.

How many acres is it?

It's 1 acre approximately.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mac McFarland for any closing remarks.

Well, great. Thanks, everyone, for joining us, and we look forward to your continued support at CRC. Have a good day.

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