Forecasting MENA Revenue Recovery Post-Q2 Ceasefire - Weatherford 2026

Quantifying the expected MENA revenue recovery by quarter (if the ceasefire holds by end-Q2)

What the filings do—and do not—permit us to quantify

The excerpts provide timing expectations for when Middle East activity “normalizes,” plus a profit-impact estimate ($30M–$50M over first half) and overall company guidance for Q2 and full-year revenues. However, they do not provide an explicit MENA country-by-country revenue bridge (i.e., no baseline revenue per country and no precise recovery curve by country for Q3/Q4). As a result, a true quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery by MENA country cannot be numerically reconstructed from the data shown. The best we can do is: (1) quantify the company-level revenue path that Management implies under “ceasefire by end-Q2,” and (2) translate the country disruption level qualitatively into a relative recovery shape that’s consistent with the statements.

---

1) Company-level “recovery shape” consistent with ceasefire by end-Q2

Management’s framework is that Q1 had muted revenue hits while Q2 takes the bigger revenue hit, and then activity ramps into the second half if operations normalize by then. Specifically:

• They say the first-half impact is a range and was already partly experienced in Q1: “totality of that first half is in that 30% to 50% range” (context: profit impact discussion) and “some of that was already experienced in the first quarter.” ¹
• They say in Q1 the “revenue hits were not very significant” and it was mainly “most of an elevated cost base as operations shut down.” ¹
• They say Q2 reflects the more “significant” revenue disruption, especially where countries were paused “for several weeks.” ¹
• They provide explicit guidance for Q2 revenues of $1.017B to $1.110B, and call out that the sequential decline is “primarily a function of the Iran conflict and the operational disruptions in the Middle East.” ²

How this maps to a “quarter-by-quarter recovery” (quantified in total revenue terms)

• Q1 actual revenue: $1.152B ³
• Q2 guided revenue range: $1.017B to $1.110B ²
  • Implied midpoint-to-midpoint sequential change is roughly -7% to -4% (using midpoints 1.152 vs 1.0635). (This is arithmetic derived from the cited ranges; the range endpoints themselves are from guidance.) ³²
• Management expects that, assuming normalization occurs “towards the latter part of the quarter,” activity ramps and they enter Q3 with the “second half essentially with all of this behind us.” ⁴
• They further state that they expect the second half ramp to be stronger because of normalization and that second half 2026 is “encouraged” if conflict concludes. ⁵⁴

Bottom line (quantified): Across the full company (not just MENA), Q2 is expected to be the trough year-to-date, with recovery/ramp into Q3/Q4 if the ceasefire-driven normalization happens late in Q2. ²⁴

---

2) Translating “country-by-country disruption” into relative recovery timing in MENA

While you asked for expected quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery by MENA country, the excerpts do not quantify revenue recovery amounts by country. What they do quantify is operational disruption severity by country, which we can use to infer relative recovery sequencing consistent with Management’s description.

Management describes the region’s country impacts as follows:

• Qatar: “probably the most affected,” with plans being drawn up and some normalization starting, but full normalcy gated by operational constraints (e.g., storage capacity running out; “until the Strait fully opens” it’s “very difficult” to return to full normalcy). ⁶
• Oman: “operations have been fairly normal” with “really been no disruption.” ⁷
• Kuwait: “some disruptions and some slowdown of activity.” ⁷
• Iraq: “some suspension of projects,” plus personnel evacuation early March; this is called out as a key country where the disruption showed up. ⁷
• Saudi Arabia and the UAE: “most of the operations have been normal” with the biggest impact on the offshore side. ⁷

They also emphasize that as the conflict prolonged, the financial impact shows more clearly in Q2, and they expect activity to normalize towards the latter part of the quarter if the conflict is behind them. ⁸

Expected quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery shape by country (relative, not dollar-denominated)

Assuming the ceasefire holds and normalization begins toward late Q2 (the condition Management uses for better clarity), the implied recovery sequencing is:

Q2 (trough / most visible revenue pressure)

• Overall: Q2 is where revenue levels are reduced materially relative to Q1 because disruptions persisted for weeks in some countries. ¹
• Country ranking for Q2 disruption severity based on Management:
  1. Qatar (most affected) ⁶
  2. Iraq (project suspensions; evacuations) ⁷
  3. Kuwait (slowdown) ⁷
  4. Saudi/UAE (mostly normal on land; offshore impact) ⁷
  5. Oman (fairly normal; no disruption) ⁷

Q3 (recovery acceleration as “operations resume”)

• Management expects activity to “ramp up significantly” entering third quarter/second half if the conflict is behind them. ⁴
• For Qatar, recovery remains gated by logistics/storage and strait openness, so the revenue ramp in Q3 may be slower than land-focused countries until gating constraints ease. ⁶
• For Oman, because operations were “fairly normal” with “no disruption,” Q3 revenue recovery would likely be minimal (already near baseline). ⁷

Q4 (closer to “normal”)

• Management indicates they are working toward full normalization and suggests the “hopeful” timing for better normalcy occurs “over the course of the quarter” following plans being drawn up; that implies continued improvement into Q4 even if Q3 accelerates. ⁶
• They also maintain that ramp into the second half relies on operations returning to pre-conflict levels. ⁵

---

3) What can be quantified about MENA recovery using the provided profit-impact estimate

Management provides a region-level profit impact estimate:

• They expect the Iran conflict to result in about $30M to $50M profit impact over the first half of the year (assuming conflict behind them and activity starts normalizing toward the latter part of the quarter). ⁸

However:

• That statement is profit impact, not revenue.
• It is not allocated by country, and it is not decomposed by quarter within the first half. ⁸

So we can’t convert this into a quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery in specific countries.

What we can do is relate profit vs revenue:

• Management says financially, the “most obvious manifestation” is high decremental margins from the drop in revenue. ⁸
• They also state a rough revenue/cost relationship: “order of magnitude, 60-40 from a revenue cost standpoint” that can vary by country and depends on when things come back. ⁴
  • This still doesn’t give you a clean revenue recovery curve, but it supports that revenue changes are material and time-dependent. ⁴

---

4) Direct answer: quarter-by-quarter expected MENA revenue recovery by country (what’s possible)

Not numerically possible from the excerpts

The excerpts do not include:

• current MENA country revenue baselines,
• country-by-country revenue impacts,
• explicit country-level quarterly guidance,
• or a mathematical recovery function (e.g., percent of lost revenue regained in Q3 vs Q4) by country.

Therefore, an exact “expected quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery by MENA country” cannot be quantified in dollars from the provided text. ¹⁸⁷⁶

Quantified elements we can provide (closest achievable)

1. Company-wide quarterly revenue trough and recovery timing if ceasefire/normalization happens by end-Q2:
   • Q1 revenue: $1.152B ³
   • Q2 revenue guidance: $1.017B–$1.110B (sequential decline mainly from Middle East disruptions) ²
   • Q3/Q4 expected ramp: Management expects significant ramp into the second half if operations normalize late Q2. ⁴⁵
2. Relative country disruption severity (which determines relative revenue recovery speed) for MENA:
   • Qatar: most affected; recovery gated by strait/storage constraints; some normalization plans started. ⁶
   • Oman: no disruption; likely near-baseline in Q2 already. ⁷
   • Kuwait: disruptions/slowdown. ⁷
   • Iraq: project suspensions and personnel evacuation early March. ⁷
   • Saudi Arabia & UAE: mostly normal on land; largest impact on offshore. ⁷
3. Region-level first-half profit impact magnitude under the normalization timing assumption:
   • $30M–$50M profit impact over first half. ⁸

---

Summary

• Quantification you can rely on: The excerpts quantify the company-level revenue trough in Q2 ($1.017B–$1.110B vs Q1 $1.152B) and the conditional recovery/ramp into the second half if normalization occurs toward late Q2. ²³⁴
• Quantification you cannot fully derive: They do not quantify revenue recovery by MENA country quarter-by-quarter in dollar terms; only country disruption severity and a region-level profit impact are provided. ⁷⁶⁸
• Recovery shape by country (relative): Qatar and Iraq are implied to recover slowest/most delayed, Kuwait next, Saudi/UAE partially resilient with offshore drag, and Oman likely least affected given “no disruption.” ⁶⁷

If you want the missing numeric country-by-country revenue recovery, you’d need country-level revenue disclosures or a country allocation of guidance/impairment and the operational ramp curve—which is not present in the provided excerpts. ⁸⁷