Weatherford 2026 Q2 Earnings: MENA Revenue Recovery Outlook and Trends

Can you quantify expected quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery by MENA country if the ceasefire holds by end-Q2?

Based on the provided Weatherford filings/transcript, there is not enough country-level information to quantify a quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery schedule by specific MENA country (e.g., exact revenue rebound amounts for Oman vs. Kuwait vs. Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia vs. UAE) once the ceasefire holds. Management instead provides (a) regional financial ranges for the Iran-driven disruption’s impact, and (b) qualitative/country-by-country operational disruption descriptions (normal vs. paused vs. offshore impact), plus (c) a high-level “activity ramps up significantly” expectation into the second half if operations normalize toward the latter part of Q2.

That said, you can quantify a probabilistic / scenario-style revenue recovery framework using what is disclosed: a MENA-related sequential step-down into Q2, followed by material ramp in 2H if normalization occurs late in Q2.

---

What is quantifiable from the excerpts: a disclosed profit impact range, not a country revenue schedule

1) Management quantifies the Iran-conflict financial effect as a profit impact (H1), not a revenue-by-country path

• Management states the conflict results in about $30 million to $50 million profit impact over the first half of the year. ¹
• They also describe that first-quarter revenue hits were “not very significant” and the quarter was “most” elevated costs as operations shut down, implying the revenue disruption becomes clearer in Q2. ²
• They further say the assumed impact shows more clearly in the second quarter due to lead times, inventory drawdowns, and logistical bottlenecks, and that activity normalizes toward the latter part of the quarter under their assumption. ¹

2) Q2 guidance indicates a sequential revenue decline driven by Middle East disruptions

• The company’s Q2 2026 revenue guidance is $1.017B to $1.110B, and management attributes the sequential decline to the Iran conflict and operational disruptions in the Middle East. ³
• Therefore, if the ceasefire holds by end-Q2, recovery is not expected to be immediate in Q2; rather, the “return to normalcy” occurs toward the latter part of Q2, shifting stronger improvement into 3Q/2H. ¹⁴

3) The “recovery shape” described is: muted early impact, heavier Q2 disruption, then ramp in 3Q/2H

• Management’s described pattern: Q1 had muted revenue hits, Q2 reflects a reduction in revenue levels as countries pause operations for several weeks, and activity ramps up significantly entering the third quarter if “all of this is behind us.” ²⁴
• They also say they expect the ceasefire to be a gating factor, especially offshore, and that while plans are being drawn up, they have not yet seen activity that suggests “back to immediate normalcy,” with expectation it occurs “over the course of the quarter.” ⁵

---

What is not quantifiable: country-by-country, quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery

Even though management provides country-specific operational disruption descriptions, the excerpts do not provide:

• revenue baselines by country,
• the percent revenue impairment by country,
• or a bridge that converts operational normalization timing into an explicit revenue recovery curve per country by quarter.

What we do have qualitatively:

Country operational “starting points” (qualitative only)

• Oman: “operations have been fairly normal” with “no disruption.” ⁶
• Kuwait: “some disruptions and some slowdown of activity.” ⁶
• Iraq: “suspension of projects” and personnel evacuation in early March. ⁶
• Saudi Arabia and UAE: “most of the operations have been normal,” with biggest impact on the offshore side. ⁶
• Separately, management lists “countries that have gotten significantly disrupted” including mentions of Iraq and “pieces of Kuwait,” plus offshore and Saudi. ²
• They also emphasize that getting back to full normalcy is gated by the Strait reopening and storage capacity constraints, which limits barrel handling even after a ceasefire. ⁵

But none of this includes quantification (e.g., “Oman revenue returns to X% of normal in Q3”). Without numerical country impact parameters, any quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery map by MENA country would be speculative and not “supported with specific facts and data from the excerpts,” which your task requires.

---

A supported recovery framework (regional, scenario-based) if ceasefire holds by end-Q2

Since country-level revenue recovery is not disclosed, the best supported answer is a regional quarter-by-quarter recovery expectation consistent with guidance and management’s described “normalization toward latter part of Q2.”

Step 1: Q2 remains disrupted (sequential decline expected)

• Q2 revenue guidance: $1.017B–$1.110B, with the sequential decline attributed to the Iran conflict and Middle East operational disruptions. ³
• Management also indicates that as we go into the second quarter they saw significant impact especially where operations paused for weeks. ²

Implication (supported): even if ceasefire holds by end-Q2, Q2 is still the trough quarter for revenue, with any recovery likely back-half loaded. ²¹⁵

Step 2: Q3/2H should show a stronger ramp if normalization happens late Q2

• Management states they assume activity normalizes towards the latter part of the quarter and that the activity profile ramps up significantly entering the third quarter if “all of this is behind us.” ¹⁴
• They explicitly connect the ramp to having capacity “on the ground” and ability to ramp “very quickly.” ⁴

Implication (supported): the revenue recovery “turns on” primarily in Q3, consistent with the ceasefire acting as a condition for normalization. ¹⁴⁵

---

What you can quantify “by MENA country” with current disclosure: ranking of likely recovery speed (not revenue dollars)

While we cannot quantify revenue recovery amounts, we can rank relative speed of normalization based on disclosed disruption severity:

1. Oman (fastest / least disrupted): operations “fairly normal” and “no disruption.” ⁶
2. Saudi Arabia & UAE (faster onshore; offshore gating): operations “most…normal,” but offshore biggest impact, with offshore ceasefire permanence emphasized. ⁶⁵
3. Kuwait (medium): “some disruptions and some slowdown.” ⁶
4. Iraq (slowest): “suspension of projects” and evacuation early March. ⁶

This ranking is consistent with management’s broader point that impact varies by country and that disruption timing/normalcy shape the recovery. ²⁶

---

Bottom line

• No: The excerpts do not provide enough numerical, country-specific inputs to quantify expected quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery by MENA country (e.g., Oman vs. Kuwait vs. Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia vs. UAE) under a “ceasefire holds by end-Q2” scenario. ⁶³
• Yes (region-level, supported): You can quantify the timing shape credibly:
  • Q2 is expected to be still down sequentially due to Middle East disruptions (per Q2 revenue guidance and stated drivers). ³
  • Q3/2H should show a significant ramp if normalization begins toward the latter part of Q2 and the ceasefire proves durable—management explicitly frames this as the “activity profile ramps up significantly” period. ¹⁴⁵
• Country-level quantification (revenue dollars by quarter): unavailable from the provided excerpts. ⁶

If you need actual country-by-quarter revenue recovery figures, the missing elements are (for each MENA country) the baseline revenue run-rate, the percentage revenue disruption by quarter, and/or a disclosed bridge that converts the operational normalization timeline into revenue by country—none of which appears in the excerpted text. ⁶³