Forecasting MENA Revenue Recovery Post-Q2 Ceasefire

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

1) What the filings let us quantify (and what they don’t)

The excerpts do not provide a country-by-country revenue table or explicit guidance for MENA revenue by quarter (e.g., “Iraq in Q3 = $X”). They instead provide:

• A timing assumption: “activity starts to normalize… towards the latter part of the quarter” if the conflict is “behind us.” ¹
• A profit impact range for the first half: $30 million to $50 million profit impact over the first half of the year attributable to the Middle East conflict disruption. ¹
• Directional country impacts (Oman “fairly normal,” Kuwait disruptions/slowdown, Iraq project suspensions, Saudi/UAE mostly normal except offshore). ²
• A “quarter shape” statement: guidance for Q2 revenues reflects a reduction in revenue levels as activity disruptions extend for “several weeks.” ³

So, the best we can do is a scenario-based revenue recovery “shape” (Q2 → Q3) grounded in the excerpted mechanics, while being explicit that precise numeric revenue recovery by MENA country cannot be calculated from the provided text alone.

---

2) Baseline: how disruptions flowed through Q1 vs Q2 (MENA)

Management states that the first quarter revenue hits were “not very significant,” with the early impact more about an elevated cost base as operations shut down. ³ It also says the “totality” of the first half impact is in the 30% to 50% range (context: “first half view” and the conflict’s first-half totality). ³

For Q2 specifically, management indicates:

• “As we go into the second quarter… reflected in our guidance with the reduction in revenue levels.” ³
• The second-quarter disruption is more severe where countries were “significantly disrupted” and operations have paused for several weeks.” ³

Additionally, they describe when the disruption worsened:

• “Over the course of March is when things started to slow down a little bit more.” ²
• “Going into April is kind of when everything was… at the level… at… a disrupted level.” ⁴

Implication for quarter-by-quarter recovery: under an end-Q2 ceasefire, Q2 is the “trough” quarter, because the revenue reduction is explicitly guided as occurring in Q2 due to the multi-week pause. ³⁴ Recovery should therefore be largest in Q3, not Q2.

---

3) The “ceasefire by end-Q2” scenario: what timing normalization implies for Q3 ramp

Management’s core normalization assumption is:

• “With the assumption that the conflict is behind us and activity starts to normalize towards the latter part of the quarter…” ¹

They also state:

• “Assuming… we are entering the third quarter… the activity profile ramps up significantly.” ⁵

And they connect this to operational realities (not instantaneous):

• It is “very difficult to pinpoint this… day everything goes back,” so guidance is broader because of geopolitical uncertainty. ⁵
• Even if plans are being drawn up, they are constrained by offshore gating factors like strait opening and storage capacity: “storage capacity is essentially running out… a gating factor” for full normalcy. ⁶

Implication for quarter-by-quarter recovery under your condition (ceasefire holds by end-Q2):

• Q2 revenue recovery vs Q1: likely limited (still reflecting reductions and multi-week pauses). ³
• Q3 revenue recovery vs Q2: material acceleration, because management explicitly expects the activity profile to “ramp up significantly” as the second half begins with the conflict behind them. ⁵
• Q4 revenue: should continue improving as logistical bottlenecks and offshore gating factors clear—though the excerpts do not provide explicit Q4 percentages. ⁶

---

4) Converting the profit-impact range into a rough revenue-recovery shape (but not country-specific dollars)

The filings provide a profit impact range, not revenue directly:

• $30m to $50m profit impact over the first half from the Middle East disruption. ¹

They also provide a revenue vs cost vs logistics mix:

• “order of magnitude, 60-40 from a revenue cost standpoint” (management’s framing of revenue vs cost standpoint; country-by-country variability). ⁵

However, the excerpt does not quantify:

• baseline MENA revenue levels,
• the margin decremental rate,
• or how much of the $30m–$50m maps to each quarter and each MENA country.

So we cannot produce a rigorous numeric “expected quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery by MENA country” in dollars using only these excerpts.

What we can do is quantify the expected recovery “shape”:

• Q2 remains depressed relative to a no-conflict baseline because management’s Q2 guidance embeds the revenue reduction from disruption. ³
• Q3 is the main recovery period because they expect ramp-up “significantly” as the conflict is behind them. ⁵
• Country ranking (qualitative recovery speed) for Q2→Q3 can be inferred:
  • Oman: operations “fairly normal” (therefore likely smaller Q2 disruption and faster/less dramatic recovery). ²
  • Kuwait: “some disruptions and some slowdown of activity” (mid level). ²
  • Iraq: “suspension of projects” and “evacuate… personnel” (typically slower recovery; greater Q2 revenue drag; bigger Q3 rebound if projects restart). ²
  • Saudi Arabia & UAE: “most… operations have been normal with the biggest impact being on the offshore side” (land earlier normalization; offshore recovery depends on gating factors). ²

But these are recovery-speed qualitative, not quarter-by-quarter revenue dollars.

---

5) Bottom line (most accurate quantified answer possible from the text)

You asked for: “expected quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery by MENA country if the ceasefire holds by end-Q2.”

From the excerpts provided, the only quantitatively supported timing quantification is:

• Q2 is expected to be the most disrupted revenue period for the Middle East segment, as reflected in guidance: management attributes Q2 revenue reductions to the Iran conflict and operational disruptions where operations paused for several weeks. ³
• Q3 is expected to show the largest rebound because management expects “activity profile ramps up significantly” entering the third quarter assuming the conflict concludes and activity normalizes toward the latter part of the quarter. ⁵¹

Country-by-country quarter revenue recovery in numeric terms (e.g., Iraq Q3 revenue = +$X vs Q2) is not quantifiable from these excerpts alone, because:

• there is no country-level revenue by quarter disclosed here, ²
• and the only explicit Middle East financial figure is a first-half profit impact ($30m–$50m) rather than revenue. ¹

---

6) A practical quantified approximation (shape only, not country dollars)

If we must express the recovery as a quarter-by-quarter pattern (consistent with management’s narrative, not a precise forecast by country):

• Q2 (post-April disruption / ceasefire not yet realized): revenue still reduced vs normal due to multi-week pauses. ³⁴
• Q3 (ceasefire held and normalization in late Q2 / ramp in Q3): revenues recover meaningfully because the “activity profile ramps up significantly” with conflict behind them. ¹⁵
• Q4: continued normalization as remaining offshore/logistics gating factors clear, but no explicit Q4 uplift is stated in the excerpts. ⁶

---

Summary

• Quantification that can be supported: Q2 is likely the trough and Q3 is the main recovery quarter, if ceasefire holds by end-Q2, because management expects normalization toward late Q2 and a significant ramp in Q3. ¹⁵
• What cannot be quantified from the provided excerpts: quarter-by-quarter revenue recovery in dollars by each MENA country (Oman, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.), because the filings provide country impact descriptions without the needed country-level revenue amounts by quarter. ²

If you want, I can quantify the profit-impact-to-revenue mapping more numerically by using the company’s segment revenues (PRI/WCC/DRE) and MENA mix—however that would require additional disclosed figures not present in the excerpts you provided.