Good morning, and welcome to the Chesapeake Energy third quarter 2022 earnings teleconference. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing star, then zero on your telephone keypad. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Chris Ayres, Vice President, Investor Relations, and Treasurer at Chesapeake Energy. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Andrew. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our call today to discuss Chesapeake Energy's third quarter 2022 financial and operating results. Hopefully, you've had a chance to review our press release and the updated investor presentation that we posted to our website yesterday. During this morning's call, we will be making forward-looking statements, which consist of statements that cannot be confirmed by reference to existing information, including statements regarding our beliefs, goals, expectations, forecasts, projections, and future performance, and the assumptions underlying such statements. Please note that there are a number of factors that will cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements, including the factors identified and discussed in our press release yesterday and in other SEC filings.
Please recognize that, except as required by applicable law, we undertake no duty to update any forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on such statements. We may also refer to some non-GAAP financial measures, which help facilitate comparisons across periods and with peers. For any non-GAAP measure, we use a reconciliation to the nearest corresponding GAAP measure and can be found on our website. With me on the call today are Nick Dell'Osso, Mohit Singh, and Josh Viets. Nick will give a brief overview of our results, and then we will open up the teleconference to Q&A. With that, thank you again. I now turn over to Nick.
Good morning, and thank you all for joining our call. Before we get to Q&A this morning, I want to cover three topics that we believe are most important to our shareholders. The first is our strong third quarter execution. Second is our industry-leading cash returns. The third is our strategy to continue our momentum into 2023 and be LNG ready. To start off, we had another strong quarter operationally. We delivered on our production in the Haynesville and Marcellus and had some great well results in the Eagle Ford. We did experience a few delays in Eagle Ford production due to facility delays that pushed some volumes into Q4, but we believe those will be temporary. We're reaffirming our annual production and CapEx guidance ranges for 2022, reflecting our confidence in our delivery as we finish out the year.
In Haynesville, we've made significant strides with midstream capacity. We've increased our gathering and treating capacity by 25% for this year and up to 60% in outyears. We've also committed 700 million cubic feet a day to a new pipeline to be built by Momentum Midstream from the heart of the Haynesville Play down to Gillis. This project also has an associated carbon capture and sequestration program with it, and we're really excited to be a part of this, we think, unique and transformational project. We have an opportunity to participate in up to 35% of the equity of the project, and we expect to take that option.
This gives us greater than a Bcf day or more than 50% of 2024 and beyond Haynesville volumes that are contracted for Gulf Coast delivery and pricing with both the Momentum pipeline and our Golden Pass transaction. In the Marcellus, our synergies from the Chief acquisition continue to come to fruition. We've discussed before, we're maximizing the capacity of the combined gathering systems, and we're looking forward to 2023, where our well design improvements of longer lateral length and enhanced completions should show up with improved productivity per well. We've also been able to add a little bit of leasehold in the lower Marcellus core of the play, which we're really pleased to do. Looking forward in the Marcellus, we're moving to a co-development of the upper Marcellus in the core of the basin to optimize development of all zones of inventory.
We expect the 2023 program to be about 50% upper Marcellus and lower Marcellus. This will bring the average well performance down marginally, but does maximize overall inventory returns. Combined, the lower and upper Marcellus remain the top natural gas return opportunity in the U.S. On the Eagle Ford, I'm sure you all have questions about the process. We have no new news to report this morning other than the process is moving along very well, and it's too early for any results. We've been very pleased in the breadth of the interest in the assets, and we'll report results when available. Turning to our cash returns. Our model continues to lead the industry in delivering returns to shareholders.
We generated $773 million of adjusted free cash flow in the third quarter, and this yielded $3.16 per share of total dividends to be paid this quarter. Additionally, we recently purchased 400 million of shares from former creditors. This brings buybacks for the year to $1.1 billion, 80% of which have come directly from former creditors. Our total returns to date, including buybacks and dividends, total $1.9 billion this year. We're really proud that Chesapeake stands alone at directing its free cash flow to meaningful actual cash returns. During the quarter, we also were able to simplify our capital structure with the warrant exchange. That resulted in eliminating two-thirds of the outstanding warrants, and it also resulted in a reduction of our short interest by 55%.
We're pleased that when you combine this with our repurchase efforts, we're still able to lower our fully diluted share count. Separately, we continue to work with the rating agencies in recognition of our investment-grade quality balance sheet, and we're pleased that S&P upgraded us to BB this month. To wrap up, I want to talk about how we're positioned for 2023. Our Marcellus program will remain steady and continue to highlight leading capital efficiency and the very best returns of all gas opportunities in North America. In the new slides we posted today, we added some slides that lay out our Haynesville market strategy.
We expect to leverage our capital efficiency leadership, our growth flexibility, and our midstream partnerships to position Chesapeake to be LNG-ready as the macro tailwinds from the significant increase in demand due to export capacity expansions arrive in the second half of the decade. We've been consistent in our message to grow when capacity additions are available to meet incremental demand. As export capacity doesn't begin to increase until at least 2024, we're setting up our near-term volumes to be relatively flat and begin to ramp slowly as we approach 2024. We're truly excited about what this setup means for our shareholders, as we're uniquely positioned to deliver differential shareholder value over the next several years due to our superior capital returns, deep, attractive inventory in the best places, and a premier balance sheet, all while doing things with a focus on sustainability.
Andrew will open it up for questions now.
We will now begin the question-and-answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the key. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question comes from Scott Hanold with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Thanks, and, good morning, all.
Good morning, Scott.
Obviously, the Haynesville, you know, you all are, you know, we're preparing to do more there. You know, I guess the last couple of quarters, there had been some, I guess, constraints. You know, and there were a couple of different constraints. Can you just provide a little bit of color on that? Then to slide 23, it looks like you've got some solutions, but just give us a sense of, like, timing and level of confidence this, you know, that you have in this plan and strategy, because it does seem like that the Haynesville, you know, from an LNG perspective and just from a, you know, volume perspective, is gonna be important to you all going forward.
Yeah. Great question, Scott. It's super important. I'll talk a bit about this, and others may have something to add in here. We have seen constraints. We've been talking about that for a number of quarters, and we've been active in contracting for incremental capacity, both on the gathering side as well as the treating side. We've also now contracted for incremental takeaway with the Momentum pipe. We are positioning for what we do think is an opportunity to grow over the next few years. In the near term, we really don't see any need for growth. 2023 is probably setting up to be about flat on a year-over-year basis. We'll have, as we talked about last quarter, an exit-to-exit growth rate.
When you think about what we've done in the Haynesville, the beginning of last year, as we were integrating the Vine assets and recognizing some of the constraints that existed, we dropped to five rigs. There's a lag effect on the reduction in rig count like that, and we're seeing lower turn-in-lines, as a result of that, reduction in rig count show up now in the fourth quarter, as well as into the first quarter of 2023. That's really all exactly as expected, and the capacity additions that we've contracted for, and you can see on that map on slide 23 that you've referenced, they do begin to show up as we move through 2023 and get into 2024.
We're right in line with aligning our volumes to capacity additions as we've been talking about. Volumes tick down a little bit in the first quarter of 2023, and then as we build our activity moving through the year, we'll see an exit-to-exit growth. We think this is all very well timed with where we think the longer-term supply-demand dynamics will head, and we're pretty pleased with the setup.
Got it. Just to clarify that, so you've got your guidepost up for Q4, which is a downtick, and then 2023 is another downtick before it goes up? Just wanna clarify that.
The first quarter of 2023 should be a little bit of a downtick from there, yeah.
Okay. Got it. Okay. My follow-up is on that Momentum pipeline. You know, can you just discuss a couple things? One, you know, the pricing dynamics around that for y'all and the gas. Number two, you know, the CCS options you talk about. It sounds like you're going to commit to the 35% participation. You know, what kind of capital and timing around that capital would that result in?
Sure. So the pipe itself will deliver gas to Gillis, and so we'll pay a rate which isn't disclosed. You know, we can't disclose it for the terms of the contract. But if you look at the market out there for FT in the basin, we think this is right in line with what other pipes are charging. We ran a pretty competitive RFP to determine which pipe we would participate in, and ultimately selected this one, so we felt it was a really attractive overall rate on the pipe as well as market delivery solution. Then the carbon capture piece was quite helpful as well. Momentum's also going to build a bit of gathering for us in the field.
There was a couple of sections on the Vine acreage that had yet to be contracted for wellhead gathering. We've been able to tie that in to this entire contract and get that done at a very attractive rate as well. The carbon capture element of it is gonna take longer to be built out than just the delivery to Gillis. The way this will work is that we will deliver the gas to Gillis inclusive of CO2, so it won't be CO2 treated in the field. The CO2 will all be removed at the delivery point, so you'll have scale in the removal of the CO2 before it goes further downstream to market. That, with that scale, you can afford to sequester the carbon. We think it's a really innovative project.
We're excited to be a part of it. It's not done yet. We still have to finish the contracts and the documentation around the equity participation, but we do intend to do that.
Yeah. Do you guys know?
Um, the cost-
Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. The cost to participate in the equity, of course, is, you know, it's a projection, not completely known, but we would estimate probably around $350 million over a couple year period. Again, you know, the return on that investment to us should be quite attractive.
Thank you.
The next question comes from Umang Choudhary with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my questions.
Morning.
Morning. I would love your thoughts around the macro environment here, given prices, gas prices have been so volatile and weak recently, and there are concerns around supply outpacing demand next year. I would love to get your thoughts around what price levels will you look to reduce activity in the Haynesville, if, say, the winter weather is more warmer than expected.
Great question, Umang. We spend a lot of time talking about the macro lately. It has certainly been volatile, as you suggest, and it has been headed a bit lower. The great thing about the gas market today is, while it's been volatile and while it's been headed a bit lower, we're still talking about gas prices at which our company makes a really attractive profit, and we generate great cash flows for shareholders. We think we're really well prepared for either a weaker gas price environment or if it does turn cold and gas prices go back to being more robust, we're obviously prepared for that as well.
I would tell you that, you know, based on the setup of growing supply that we see across the market today, and demand that is really going to rely on weather in the short term, we're very well prepared for a weaker gas market here as we move into 2023. Can't predict it. Don't know if that will actually happen, but if it does, we'll be ready for that. At what price would we reduce activity in the Haynesville is a great question. There's no real hard and fast answer to that, Umang. It depends on a handful of things. One, it depends on how the curve reacts, relative to just the nearest term months on the curve.
It depends on how we see the dynamics that affect that. What the drivers really look like they are. We do remain super bullish on the longer-term supply-demand fundamentals, particularly for the Haynesville, but really for the U.S. as a whole. We will pay very close attention to the 2023 and 2024 setup as to really how that supply-demand is gonna play out and the timing that growth and demand should show up. There's plenty of uncertainty around the precise timing of when export capacity will come online. We subscribe to all the same research that everybody else does, and we know that even the very best efforts at estimations there could be off by several months in an environment where supply chains are still challenged and labor markets are tight.
We're very prepared to be responsive to this kind of market. I think if you saw prices fall, a sustained price or a price throughout the curve fall down into the mid- to low $3s, we'd probably pull back a bit. I think we still make a good bit of money at that level, but it would be an indication to us that the supply-demand fundamentals are weaker than we probably expect as we sit here today, and that would give us a reason to step back and think about whether or not activity should come down.
Really, really hard to predict exactly what that looks like because it depends on the facts at the time, but that is certainly a point at which we would evaluate whether or not we have our capital allocation where we want it.
That's great, clear. Thank you. My next question was on your capital spending outlook for next year. As you go through your budgeting process, any early read across in terms of how you're thinking about cost inflation, and the impact on your spending next year? You talked about enhanced completions and shifting to longer laterals. Any benefits from that, as you add more of those into your program next year?
Good morning, Umang. This is Josh. You know, as far as inflation goes for next year, you know, year-over-year, you know, I think we're thinking it's gonna be in the 10%-15% range. If you think about, you know, the activity that we've been talking about, you know, kind of carrying forward five rigs in Marcellus, you know, we're just in the process of adding a seventh rig in the Haynesville, you know, which again, as Nick's talked about, we'll continue to monitor the markets and be flexible with that program. A relatively steady two to three rig program in the Eagle Ford is the activity that we're outlining. So that's kinda how we see the year shaping up, you know, from a capital standpoint.
You asked about the enhanced completions. If I maybe go ahead and address that. Really where we're looking at that is gonna be in the Marcellus specifically. One of the things that we're attempting to do there is not only increase lateral lengths, but we're also looking at adding additional wells per pad, and that's one of the advantages we find with the co-development. The completion optimization there is really about your fluid loading. We think there are some areas that benefit actually from less fluid. Those are the things that we'll look at, which not only drives potential cost reductions and enhances our capital efficiency, but we also think there's opportunities there to increase productivity as well. That comment was really specific to Marcellus.
Great. That's really helpful. Thank you so much for all the color.
The next question comes from Doug Leggate with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Good morning, guys. Thank you for taking my questions. Nick, I'm clearly losing the value erosion debate on the variable dividend, so I won't flog that to death. I do have a question on use of proceeds if and when you eventually sell the Eagle Ford. What should we think in terms of how you deploy those proceeds, whether it be to incremental acquisitions to the balance sheet or indeed to share buybacks, given that, I guess, you and Doug continue to see your share price undervalued?
Great question, Doug. We've talked about with the proceeds from the Eagle Ford that, you know, we have a return model. We would think about applying these proceeds through that return model. We've said that the dividends really are about operating cash flow. This is not operating cash flow. We would lean more heavily to buybacks when we think about the proceeds here. Importantly, I think especially as we recognize that we could have a softer gas market here at least for a year or a little bit more, and again, I think the softer requires a little bit of emphasis there because we don't really anticipate it to be a negative market for us as a company, just maybe not quite as robust as 2022 has been. We will pay down some debt with the proceeds.
We will make sure that as we sell off an asset that has a lot of EBITDA, we make sure our balance sheet stays in great shape. We expect to look at the proceeds that come in, think about what the right balance sheet impact is to reduce leverage, and then think about the best way to pursue a return of some of that capital to shareholders through a buyback. We'll have to wait and see when the proceeds come in, the magnitude of the proceeds and exactly how it all plays out to have specific answers for you, Doug.
Great. Thank you. Well, it's a good enough answer. Thank you, Nick. I appreciate the directional color. I guess my follow-up is, I hate to be predictable and ask you about inflation, but one of your peers, you know, reported last night, not direct peers perhaps, but, you know, and pointing to perhaps higher than consensus expectations for capital. You guys haven't really given a 2023 look yet, but your fourth quarter run rate doesn't seem to be seeing a lot of cost pressure, so upward cost pressure. So I wonder if you could just give us a steer as to what you think in your two core basins inflationary capital impacts could look like for the 2023 budget and that flat production profile you talked about. I'll leave it there. Thanks.
Yeah. Good morning, Doug. This is Josh. You know, first on the Q4 burn rate, you know, we do see some activity pull back in the fourth quarter 'cause, of course, we dropped some rigs in the Eagle Ford, so that's pulling back our Eagle Ford spend. Then also we see a little bit lighter completion quarter in the Haynesville. You know, that's why our burn rate in Q4 will look a little bit different than maybe what we saw in the preceding quarter. As we think about 2023, and again, I'll kind of reference year-over-year inflation, you know, we would expect to see the most inflationary pressures in the Haynesville.
You know, I think you're gonna be looking at, you know, 15% plus there potentially, assuming, you know, we see rig counts stay relatively flat to where we are this year. In the Marcellus, you know, we expect that to be a little bit more moderated. You know, that basin just, you know, tends to be more stable in nature. The inflation that we're anticipating there is really gonna be in the mid-single digits.
Doug, I'll just add.
Really helpful. Go on, please.
Yeah, I'll just add that, while we haven't given full CapEx guidance yet, we did put dollar per foot expectations for 2023 for both the Haynesville and the Marcellus in our slides today.
That's inclusive. Yeah, that's inclusive of our expectations for inflation.
Got it. Thank you.
The next question comes from Zach Parham with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I guess just another follow-up on Doug's question there. You know, you talked about this 10%-15% inflation in 2023. You know, if we think about that in the context of the 2022 budget, should we just add 10%-15% on top of that? And if so, does that include the impact of the seventh rig in the Haynesville and also any spending associated with the Momentum project?
Well, anything I guess maybe on the Momentum question specifically, I think, you know, anything, you know, that we've done in 2022, of course, that's gonna be an incremental capital expenditure that we would need to layer in. You know, that would be one clear addition if you're trying to, you know, come up with a 2023 estimate. Generally, we know we've guided you on activity, so the five rigs in the Marcellus, you need to account for the seventh rig in the Haynesville. Again, we've given you some guidance here on cost per foot. Then, you know, again, that two to three rig range in the Eagle Ford. I mean, you know, we'll continue to look at other opportunities.
One of the things we highlighted in the presentation today is, you know, we were successful in picking up some acreage in the Marcellus. You know, we'll continue to look for opportunities such as that. If there's more good opportunities such as that, you know, that could also, you know, push up capital just a little bit heading into next year.
Got it. Thanks for that color. One just on the operational side. You know, I think Nick mentioned that the average well performance would come down largely in the Marcellus as you do more co-development. Can you just compare the upper and lower Marcellus well productivity? You know, while both still clearly have very strong returns, you know, what's the step down in EUR you expect on the upper versus lower?
Yeah, maybe I'll just stick to, you know, what we've disclosed in our presentation. What we provided you in the deck is an estimate on a 12-month CUM per foot. You know, what you see there is it's just over a 20% reduction on a per foot basis. You know, what I'll remind you of, though, is we do have the ability to drill longer laterals in the upper. That on an absolute well basis, that starts to offset some of that productivity loss. We can drill longer laterals just simply because there's fewer wells to be navigating around. That's, you know, why we see, you know, such a you know, an opportunity here in drilling, you know, wells at really, really competitive returns.
You know, in addition to that, I'll just add, you know, something that's not necessarily, you know, layered in here explicitly, you know, which is with the upper and co-developing it with the lower, we can put more wells on a pad, and that creates additional capital efficiencies, which we think can only further enhance the returns that we've specified in the deck today.
Got it. Thanks, guys.
Again, if you have a question, please press star then one. The next question comes from Charles Meade with Johnson Rice. Please go ahead.
Good morning, Nick, to you and your team. You hear me?
Yeah. Good morning, Charles. How are you?
Okay. Yeah. I'm fine, thank you. Hey, I wanted to pick up on that upper versus lower, but go maybe in a slightly different direction. I think that this is the first time, at least I can recall, you guys, you know, comparing the productivity, and that's really helpful what you put on that slide. I'm curious, you know, my baseline, really the only other operator that has talked about the upper versus lower Northeast PA, and their number was more like, you know, the upper being 70% as productive. My understanding was that that was primarily a function of less thickness in the upper.
I wonder if you can talk about your number, I think, works out to 77%. If that number's changed over time or if it changes, you know, in the XY plane over your geography. Just give us a little of your kinda history and outlook on that upper versus lower.
Well, maybe just one thing, Charles, this is Josh, that, you know, maybe to consider is the productivity decline that you see, you know, from the lower to the upper will be dependent upon the spacing at which the lower was developed. You know, you do expect to encounter some depletion, and that depletion will vary on a number of things. Obviously, overall thickness, but also the thickness of the Cherry Valley Limestone, which is a barrier-
Right.
-between the two. But really how that lower was developed, the spacing at which it was developed at, could lead you to a lower productivity. We do know there are some operators to the east of us as they stepped into the upper that, you know, they developed the asset a little bit tighter spacing. We've been a little bit wider throughout our history, developing the lower, that's why we have a maybe a little bit advantage expectation with the upper performance going forward.
Got it. That is helpful, Josh. Thank you. Shifting to the Haynesville, maybe. This may be more for Nick. Nick, if I think back to our last quarterly call, you were talking about the possibility of an eighth rig in 2023. If I'm understanding your commentary right, that remains a possibility, but it seems like it's more of a distant possibility or maybe a second half 2023 possibility at this point. Do I have the right sense?
I think you do, Charles. I mean, I think I would just call it an option. One of the things that we wanted to communicate around that is that we wanted to make sure we had midstream capacity, takeaway capacity, in the gathering and treating space should we get to a place where we want the eighth rig. Look, over time as LNG export capacity grows and there's incremental demand out of the Haynesville, I'd love to see us at eight. I'd love to see us more than that as we get into the second half of the decade. We certainly have the inventory and the great assets to justify acceleration when there is demand that's not being met. As we sit looking at the market today, we don't really anticipate that an eighth rig would be needed during 2023.
Now, if it turns out that it is needed, then great. We'll be ready, and we can add a rig, and we have the full setup to do it. Right now, we're not expecting to go to 8 in 2023.
That makes sense, Nick. Thanks a lot.
The next question comes from Subash Chandra with Benchmark. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Hey, Nick, I appreciate, you know, the Eagle Ford sale proceeds is a bit hypothetical, but still want to ask you on the debt reduction to keep sort of calibrate the debt ratio there. You have a very healthy, you know, working capital surplus. If you include that in that, you know, debt calculation, and if you can sort of give a, you know, maybe a rough number of what the debt reduction piece might be, maybe you can't really do that because it's too hypothetical. Secondly, you know, I guess on return of capital related to the Eagle Ford sale, have you considered, you know, a special dividend that, you know, might accompany the sale, or is that, you know, hypothetical as well?
Subash, this is Mohit. Thanks for those questions. On the first one, as Nick said before, the intent is to let the process, the sales process play out and see what kind of proceeds we get from them. I'll maybe go back to what was said earlier, which at a very high level, the intent is to pay down some debt. At this point, we would not get into the specifics of how much that would be. Overall, I would say we are very, very happy with the shape that the balance sheet is in. As you can see from the materials, we are saying net debt to EBITDA is 0.4 turns. We are very comfortable with that.
The intent behind it is when we're selling a producing property, then the loss of EBITDA has to mirror the overall pro forma debt levels. We will pay down some of it, but the specifics of that will come at a different point of time. On your second part of your question about a special dividend, I guess the same logic applies. I think, you know, once the bids are in and once we recognize which path we are taking, we'll be happy to share more details around that.
Yeah. Fair enough. Thank you.
One just obvious connection, Subash, I would make is that, you know, as we talk about the fact that we don't see structural supply-demand growth for the gas market, until, you know, at the earliest, 2024, that could mean soft gas prices. Soft gas prices can lead to weaker equity prices just as a gut reaction. Should that happen, we think our stock would be even more undervalued than it is today. We certainly don't mind the dynamics that we would receive a bunch of cash from this transaction and be poised to, you know, acquire our stock, if you will, if it's falling, due to macro, which we would, at that point, believe is short-term in nature with growth and demand coming.
We like the setup of thinking about the fact that there's volatility in the near term of natural gas prices. That volatility can obviously lead to volatility in equities, and we should have a lot of cash.
Yeah. That would be a good place to be. Follow-up is on could you just remind us about your bid week versus spot for fourth quarter? I guess we got October, November bid week in already. How much of your 4Q is locked in at this point?
Yeah. October and November are pretty well locked in. When we give our basis expectations, the biggest floating piece there is gonna be December. We did lean a little bit heavier on first of month for November than we typically do. We see the forecasts for warmer weather in the East Coast through at least the first half of the month. This week, there's the first reports of the potential of cold fronts showing up. It's pretty early, and supply is plenty robust. We leaned a little bit harder on first of month pricing for the month of November.
Excellent. Thank you.
The next question comes from Nicholas Pope with Seaport Research. Please go ahead.
Morning, everyone.
Morning, Nick.
I had a question on kind of the post-quarter share repurchases. I think you made a comment that you all have repurchased 400 million shares in October. Just looking at kind of the math, it seems like with the dividend and with kind of the cash flows where they are, that you probably use some debt to repurchase those shares. I was curious if that was kind of a choice because it was a creditor that had some availability, there's a block trade, or if that is just kind of the timing of kind of when the dividend's gonna be paid out in December versus kind of where everything is. Just kind of curious about that big share repurchase that you know that you commented on.
Nick, this is Mohit. You're right. The trade was done after the quarter close. We've been clear all along that the intent of having a $2 billion share buyback, share and warrant buyback plan is to have availability that in case one of our creditors at emergence, if they want to sell down, then we are ready to provide a bid. As was said earlier on the call, more than 80% of the buybacks we have done are former creditors, and it helps remove the overhang or the perceived overhang from these former creditors.
We've been very pleased with our ability to be able to do about $1.1 billion of buybacks and well ahead of schedule, and we still have about $900 million until the end of 2023 to prosecute the rest of the program.
Got it. I appreciate that. As you look at that credit facility, if you're gonna kind of add on to that, it looked like I think y'all commented that 6.6% kind of average interest rate in the credit facility in the third quarter. What's the timing of that? Is it? It's obviously a, you know, coming out of the bankruptcy, it's a little higher than kind of where your peers or even where your debt metrics would kind of say you could kind of get that too. What's the timing and the ability to kind of move around the credit facility and kind of go to a more traditional facility in the near term?
Yeah. Thanks for that question also. The interest rate that you referenced, yeah, it's obviously goes off of a pricing grid depending on how much utilization that we have of the credit facility. We carefully monitor the conditions and, you know, the intent would be to try and refinance that credit facility before it becomes current. It matures. It'll become current next year. We are looking into ways of trying to refinance the credit facility prior to it becoming current. Depending on what happens in the macro conditions, the Fed is obviously increasing rates as you know. But given the shape that the company is in on our engagement with different lenders, we feel pretty optimistic about being able to do it in a timely manner.
Got it. That's really all I had. I think everything else has been asked. I appreciate the time, everyone. Thank you.
Thanks, Nick.
The next question comes from Phillips Johnston with Capital One . Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. Thanks. Just one more on the cost inflation front. Nick, you referenced slide 12, which is really helpful. Looks like you guys are anticipating Haynesville well cost to move up to a little over $1,600 per foot on a blended basis next year. What are the factors that could sort of move that number either higher or lower? And can you maybe give us a sense of what percentage of that's essentially locked in from a pricing perspective?
Yeah. Good morning, Phillips. This is Josh. You know, I think some of the risks that we see to inflation is, you know, diesel is one of them. You know, that we're seeing shortages, you know, really across the country right now. You know, we'll need to continue to monitor that and see how it plays out. That affects our mud cost on the drilling side, has an implication on our transportation costs for things such as, you know, proppant. That's one that we'll, you know, continue to monitor closely. The demand for rigs, pumping services obviously remains quite high with, you know, most high spec rigs you know, being utilized today.
If that demand were to remain high through the course of the year, you know, obviously that, you know, may enable those providers to continue to, you know, push on pricing. We've been very active in the second half of the year and specifically in the third and early parts of the fourth quarter, where we've been, you know, working with our existing suppliers and it may look like us taking on a little bit higher cost today, but providing some pricing certainty and protection from additional inflation in 2023. That's something that we think is a good indicator of, you know, how we can preserve it.
As far as, you know, an absolute percentage, I'm not really in a position to go down that path with you today. The bulk of our primary services being on the frack, on the drilling side have been locked in for next year.
Okay, great. I appreciate the color. I also wanted to ask just about potential timing of ultimately achieving investment grade and just how important that is to the company. I know it's not something that you can control directly and you know you clearly have the financial metrics already. So based on your conversations with the agencies, is the limiting factor mainly just a function of scale? Also just you know what's the overall path that they wanna see? You know how important is investment grade rating to management and the board?
Yeah. Phillips, this is Mohit. Investment grade is important to us. As you start thinking about the LNG strategy that we have in play, you know, being investment grade would be extremely valuable in that scenario. We are actively engaged with all three rating agencies. There's, you know, as you referenced, the credit metrics are obviously investment grade quality already. There is an element of seasoning and showing a track record of performance which we clearly are demonstrating. The tone of that conversation is great. The engagement is there, and as we referenced, S&P just last month upgraded us to double B. We are seeing green shoots of that, you know, notch upgrade that we are seeing, and we are a couple of notches away from getting to investment grade.
We feel confident that we are on the right trajectory, and it's kind of a little bit of a matter of time to see that, but we remain confident that we'll get there eventually.
Okay, great. Thanks so much.
Thank you.
The last question today will come from Matt Portillo with TPH. Please go ahead.
Good morning, all. Just a question in the Haynesville. I appreciate the color on slide 12 around the cost difference between the Haynesville and the Bossier. I assume a little bit of that might be apples and oranges as you've got some shallower targets in the Haynesville, further north in the basin. Could you talk a bit about the cost difference between the two horizons? If we head into a lower commodity price environment in 2023, 2024, is there the potential to cut back on the Bossier development, or should we consider that necessary from a co-development perspective moving forward?
You know, the Bossier, just in general, is a more challenging, you know, formation for us. I mean, it is shallower, but, you know, the lithology, the rock type there, you know, does make it a little bit more difficult from a drilling and a completion standpoint. That's ultimately what ends up driving some of your cost differences. You know, at this point, you know, I don't think we would pivot away from that. We think that's a really important, you know, interval for us to continue to develop. Obviously, it represents a relatively modest, you know, part of the program, but we think it's important to continue to, you know, work down a learning curve within that, you know, particular zone. You know, continue to you know extend the limits of it and what we see it.
You know, just simply as we think about the long-term optimization of the asset. We do think there's some opportunities to get better. It's probably one that we've benefited the most, you know, through the learnings with Vine. They were more active in that interval. We just think there's a lot of efficiency still to be gained and so that's hopefully a story we're talking about next year.
Perfect. As my second question on gas marketing, just curious, the Momentum Midstream brings a unique opportunity here with CCS. We've obviously seen some industry participants talk about, net zero or carbon neutral oil, marketing going forward and potentially achieving a premium. Just curious on the gas side. I know you've talked a bit about, RSG getting a very small premium at the moment. But if you guys are able to tie kinda your gas marketing opportunities with CCS and then obviously working towards LNG contracts, do you think we could see a more meaningful, uplift to your gas pricing as we step forward with all these projects in the queue?
Matt, that's a great question, and there's no question in my mind that we should see that. I think it's gonna take a bit of time for it to evolve. What we are seeing in our early discussions with LNG offtakers in Europe and Asia is that they are extremely interested in the carbon footprint of the gas that they're buying. They're asking a lot of questions about it. They're wanting to understand what being Responsibly Sourced Gas means. They're wanting to understand the overall footprint. When we flash stats like the fact that we have a 0.02 methane intensity from our gas production, it certainly gets the attention of international gas buyers. We think it will increasingly get the attention of domestic gas buyers as well.
I'd remind you that today, there's no tax or structural incentive for buyers of gas to pay more for a lower emissions footprint gas molecule. That may come. We think it should probably come at some point. There is the talk, of course, in the IRA about the methane tax and what that will look like over time and how that will show up in the way that producers develop their assets is something that, you know, we're gonna be keenly interested in. We think with the footprint that we have, we are very well positioned relative to that potential tax.
We think this is an area that will evolve pretty significantly as the world recognizes the huge need for growing natural gas production and the big demand that really does exist out there today and should continue to grow as the world seeks to have more of the affordable, reliable, and lower carbon energy that solves some of the biggest challenges facing the economy today.
Thank you.
All right. Well, I think that's the last question we had this morning, so I wanna thank everybody for the time. Just to reiterate, we are extremely excited about the setup we see. We have worked hard to position this company, our portfolio, and our execution for the market conditions that we see today. We know there will be plenty of volatility in these market conditions, and we think we are uniquely positioned to take advantage regardless of where that volatility heads in the near term, and then certainly with the structural tailwinds that we see to supply demand for natural gas in the second half of this decade. Again, just as I said a minute ago, we think that the production we're delivering to market goes a long way to solving the biggest challenges facing the economy today.
Every employee at this company is proud to produce the energy that delivers reliable, affordable, and lower carbon solutions for energy generation around the world. We think the demand for what we do only grows from here, and the best operators seek to benefit the most. Look forward to continuing the conversation with you all as we move to the end of the year. Thanks very much.
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.