Permian Resources Q2 2026 Production Outlook and Guidance Outlook

Expected year-end production trajectory if activity stays at the current pace

1) What management indicates about the “back half” trajectory

Management explicitly frames the production year as back-half weighted if they extend growth/acceleration beyond the near-term plan. Specifically, they note that “if you are going to go further from Q2… it would, by definition, be back half weighted” ¹.

They also describe a structured ramp:

• Q1: focus on accelerating near-term barrels via increased high-return workovers and maximizing run time ².
• Q2: they expect further acceleration by keeping an elevated workover program and taking steps to accelerate additional POPs into the quarter, and they expect production and CapEx in Q2 to be modestly higher than Q1 ².
• Second half: management states they have “maximum flexibility” and that if conditions remain strong they “would expect to come out at the high end” of both production and capital ranges; if conditions soften they “would expect to reduce activity and come at the lower end” ².

Implication for a “current pace” assumption: If workovers and related activity remain elevated as they describe (and don’t require a reduction due to softer conditions), the year-end trajectory should remain rising into Q2 and then continue but with uncertainty about how far above plan they can push beyond that, because additional upside would be back-half weighted rather than front-loaded ¹².

2) Quantitative signals about the “current pace” capacity to add barrels

There are two quantification points in the excerpt that help triangulate trajectory:

(a) Workover intensity / ability to accelerate TILs Management says workover rig counts “doubled” from roughly “30, 40 workovers a month” to “70, 80, maybe upwards of 90 a month” ³. They also say operationally they are using existing equipment to “accelerate TILs above and beyond” the original base plan and they “may have to do lots of things as the market changes,” but the intent is to “hit the gas pedal… within the confines of the equipment… not pick up any additional rigs” ³.

(b) Expected incremental TILs vs base plan They estimate they could add ~5% (maybe a little over 5%) incremental TILs to the year: “I'd call it 5—probably right around 5%, maybe a little over 5% incremental TILs to the year” ⁴.

They also earlier allude to a flexibility band of outcomes rather than a single deterministic endpoint: “there just… feels like… a pretty wide band of outcomes” and they’re cautious on specifics because of macro uncertainty ¹.

Implication for year-end production trajectory: With (i) elevated workover activity and (ii) an articulated ability to add roughly ~5%+ incremental TILs, the most supportable conclusion from the excerpt is that the year-end production level would likely be at or near the upper portion of the guided range if strong conditions persist—because management already ties activity posture to ending at the high end under strong conditions ². The incremental capacity they describe is more consistent with a modest “push” above base expectations (order of ~5% incremental TILs), not with an unlimited acceleration ⁴².

Could the exit rate exceed full-year guidance?

1) Guidance framing: “high end” depends on conditions and activity posture

Management ties the “exit rate” logic directly to whether they maintain or reduce activity:

• If crude prices remain strong, they “would expect to come out at the high end of both our production and capital ranges” ².
• If conditions soften, they expect to “reduce activity and come at the lower end” ².

This means that yes, an exit rate exceeding what one would expect from the midpoint/base plan is possible under strong conditions because management signals potential to end at the high end of guidance ². However, the excerpt does not provide the actual numerical full-year production guidance range or an explicit statement that “exit rate will exceed full-year guidance” in absolute units (e.g., barrels/day). So the best conclusion is conditional: exceedance depends on hitting the high end rather than a guaranteed overrun ².

2) What the transcript implies about the “shape” of production vs guidance

When asked whether, at the current pace, the exit rate could be higher than full-year guidance, management’s response emphasizes:

• The uncertainty about when/how macro conditions end (“We just don't know when or how this ends”) ⁵
• Flexibility to pivot between higher-for-longer and a reversion case ⁵
• If they were to do “further growth from what we'd outlined,” it would be back-half weighted ¹

So the transcript supports a scenario where—if the strong-price/high-activity posture continues—the exit rate could be pulled up relative to earlier quarters because incremental effects are more likely in the back half ¹². But it’s not stated that they will mechanically overshoot the full-year guidance; rather, they present overshoot as a function of ending at the high end of the range ².

3) The LOE normalization comment also supports plausibility of sustained elevated activity

They discuss that LOE was abnormally low in Q1 and that incremental workover activity should bring LOE back near the midpoint of guidance:

• LOE midpoint “of $5.45 per BOE” and they expect to “end up averaging for the year” around that ⁶.

This doesn’t directly prove production exceedance, but it supports the idea that increased activity is not expected to create runaway cost dynamics that would force an immediate activity rollback—consistent with staying on an elevated run plan rather than cutting back abruptly ⁶².

Bottom-line answer

• Year-end production trajectory (at current pace): Based on management’s plan, production should remain elevated into Q2 (Q2 modestly higher than Q1) and then be potentially back-half weighted if growth is extended beyond initial Q2 framing, but with a stated wide band of outcomes due to macro uncertainty ²¹. The excerpt also supports a ceiling-type concept via ~5% (possibly slightly more) incremental TILs achievable through operational acceleration ⁴.
• Could exit rate exceed full-year guidance? The excerpt supports that coming out at the high end of guided production is plausible if strong conditions persist, because management explicitly says that under strong conditions they expect to “come out at the high end” of production ranges ². However, the provided text does not confirm a guaranteed exceedance of full-year guidance in numeric terms; it frames it as conditional flexibility rather than an assured overrun ²⁵.