Earnings call transcript: Liberty Energy Q3 2025 reveals EPS miss

Liberty Energy’s earnings call for the third quarter of 2025 revealed a miss on earnings per share (EPS) and revenue expectations. The company reported an EPS of -$0.06, falling short of the forecasted -$0.02, marking a significant 200% negative surprise. Revenue also came in below expectations at $947 million, compared to the forecast of $967.05 million. Despite these results, Liberty Energy’s stock surged by 20.94% in after-hours trading, closing at $11.94, reflecting investor optimism about the company’s strategic direction and operational efficiency improvements. According to InvestingPro analysis, the company currently appears undervalued based on its Fair Value calculation, with a solid financial health score of 2.8 out of 5, rated as "GOOD."

[Get access to 6 more exclusive InvestingPro Tips for Liberty Energy and comprehensive analysis for over 1,400 stocks with an InvestingPro subscription.]

Key Takeaways

• Liberty Energy reported a Q3 2025 EPS of -$0.06, missing the forecast by 200%.
• Revenue for the quarter was $947 million, below the expected $967.05 million.
• The stock price rose by 20.94% post-earnings, despite the earnings miss.
• Operational efficiency improvements were highlighted, with record daily pumping efficiency.
• The company plans to expand its power generation capacity significantly by 2026.

Company Performance

Liberty Energy’s performance in Q3 2025 highlighted both challenges and opportunities. The company faced a decline in revenue and net income compared to the previous quarter, with net income dropping from $71 million to $43 million. However, operational efficiencies and technological innovations, such as the DigiPrime fleet and STEM Commander AI software, have contributed to significant cost savings and improved fleet efficiency. The company is focusing on expanding its power generation capabilities, anticipating significant growth in this area.

Financial Highlights

• Revenue: $947 million (9% sequential decrease)
• Net income: $43 million (down from $71 million in the prior quarter)
• Adjusted net loss: $10 million
• Adjusted EBITDA: $128 million (down from $181 million in the prior quarter)
• Cash balance: $13 million
• Net debt: $240 million

Earnings vs. Forecast

Liberty Energy’s Q3 2025 earnings fell short of expectations, with an EPS of -$0.06 compared to the forecast of -$0.02, representing a 200% negative surprise. Revenue also missed the forecast, coming in at $947 million against an expected $967.05 million. This performance deviates from historical trends where the company has met or exceeded expectations.

Market Reaction

Despite the earnings miss, Liberty Energy’s stock experienced a significant surge, rising by 20.94% in after-hours trading to close at $11.94. This increase reflects investor confidence in the company’s strategic initiatives and operational improvements, as well as optimism about future growth in power generation.

Outlook & Guidance

Looking ahead, Liberty Energy expects industry activity to stabilize in 2026. The company is focusing on expanding its power generation business, targeting approximately 500 megawatts of capacity by the end of 2026 and over 1 gigawatt by 2027. The company also increased its quarterly cash dividend by 13% and anticipates normal seasonal trends in Q4 2025.

Executive Commentary

• "We are building a company for decades, a generational company." - Michael Stock, CFO
• "Delivering the highest levels of efficiency means ensuring we have the best of everything on location." - Ron Gusek, CEO
• "Our DigiPrime platform continues to see significant demand and more favorable economics through cycles." - Ron Gusek, CEO

Risks and Challenges

• Oil and gas industry frac activity remains below levels needed to sustain North American oil production.
• Macroeconomic uncertainty may lead oil producers to moderate completions.
• Potential global oil oversupply is expected to peak in the first half of 2026.
• The company faces challenges in maintaining its competitive edge in technology innovation.
• Financing power projects may require careful management of project-specific debt and partnerships.

Q&A

During the earnings call, analysts inquired about Liberty Energy’s power generation opportunities, particularly with data center customers. The company plans to finance these projects through project-specific debt and partnerships, indicating ongoing investment in its frac business and exploration of various power generation technologies.

Full transcript - Liberty Oilfield Services Inc (LBRT) Q3 2025:

Conference Operator: Welcome to the Liberty Energy Earnings Conference call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Anjali Voria, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Anjali Voria, Vice President of Investor Relations, Liberty Energy: Thank you, Bailey. Good morning and welcome to the Liberty Energy Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Joining us on the call are Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I would like to remind all participants that some of our comments today may include forward-looking statements reflecting the company’s view about future prospects, revenues, expenses, or profits. These matters involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. These statements reflect the company’s beliefs based on the current conditions that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that are detailed in our earnings release and other public filings. Our comments today may include non-GAAP financial and operational measures.

These non-GAAP measures, including EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income, adjusted net income per diluted share, adjusted pre-tax return on capital employed, and cash return on capital invested, are not suitable for GAAP measures and may not be comparable to similar measures of other companies. A reconciliation of net income to EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA, net income to adjusted net income and adjusted net income per diluted share, and the calculation of adjusted pre-tax return on capital employed and cash return on capital invested, as discussed on this call, are available on our Investor Relations website. I will now turn the call over to Ron.

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us to discuss our third quarter 2025 operational and financial results. Liberty Energy achieved revenue of $947 million and adjusted EBITDA of $128 million in the third quarter, despite a slowdown in industry completions activity and market pricing pressure. Our team delivered solid operational results, once again delivering the highest combined average daily pumping efficiency and safety performance in Liberty Energy’s history. We are committed to driving outstanding results for our customers while navigating current market challenges. Our leadership in technology innovation and service quality delivers differential results, strengthening long-term relationships and reinforcing our competitive position through cycles. While we anticipate market headwinds will persist in the near term, we are well positioned to capitalize on opportunities that will make us stronger as the cycle improves. Our DigiPrime fleets are achieving outstanding performance and leading efficiency metrics across the company.

Several fleets deployed with our largest customers broke new records for pumping hours, horsepower hours, and proppant volumes pumped during the quarter. Additionally, our team’s uniquely engineered DigiPrime pumps are realizing measurable cost improvements relative to conventional technologies. Early indications show total maintenance cost savings are greater than 30% on DigiPrime pumps. The elegant simplicity of Liberty Energy’s design reflects advanced engineering and thoughtful innovation, resulting in a streamlined, power-dense unit that delivers superior performance and increased output between maintenance cycles. Across our fleet, we are also driving meaningful efficiencies for our customers with our AI-driven, automated, and intelligent rate and pressure control software, STEM Commander. This advanced fleet control software enables pump operators to navigate diverse fleet designs while seamlessly managing on-site pressure and rate.

By automating these functions, STEM Commander delivers significant benefits: faster and more consistent stage execution, reduced time on location, fuel savings, lower emissions, and improved safety. Today, fleet automation is driving a 65% improvement in the time to deliver the desired fluid injection rate and a 5% to 10% improvement in hydraulic efficiency. This marks the culmination of a decade of effort by the Liberty team, enhanced by the strategic acquisition of SLB’s completion technologies during the COVID downturn. Liberty’s cloud-based platform, Forge, further empowers STEM Commander with intelligent asset orchestration through continuous AI optimization. By analyzing billions of data points and leveraging years of Liberty’s best-in-class operational execution, Forge enhances STEM Commander’s performance and precision. We mistakenly called it a large language model in our press release, but it isn’t static AI. It’s a distributed agentic intelligence system built for the field.

It continuously plans, learns, acts, and adapts through real-time feedback and reinforcement loops, ensuring each iteration enhances the next decision. By modeling the evolving behavior of every asset, Forge turns raw data into predictive intelligence, driving compounding performance gains across every stage, fleet, and operation. It also integrates critical insights from proprietary Liberty platforms like Fractals, our real-time monitoring and analytics system, to provide comprehensive tracking of fleet condition, performance, and emissions. Together, these technologies create a powerful, adaptive automation ecosystem that delivers increasing operational efficiency and value. Structural demand for power continues to strengthen, as evidenced by large-scale, long-duration power commitments across the industry. AI compute load represents a meaningful long-term growth opportunity, and broader electrification trends and industrial reshoring efforts are also driving incremental, steady base load demand.

At the same time, the grid is facing mounting reliability and capacity challenges, driven by increased intermittent generation and a lack of investment in transmission infrastructure. Liberty’s power opportunities are strengthening as sophisticated electricity consumers seeking dynamic, flexible solutions are recognizing the value of having an advantaged energy partner that provides a solution aligned with their specific needs. Liberty is in close engagement with potential customers with large, highly transient power demand that will benefit from rapid deployment schedules with high-reliability power solutions at grid-competitive prices. Customers will have a key power partner that offers a fully integrated energy solution spanning on-site power, fuel management, and the option for grid integration and attributes. Furthermore, our on-site power solutions are fully customizable power plants that provide consumers with reliability and surety around long-term power costs, serving as a strategic hedge against potentially significant increases in grid power prices.

We are confident in the growth trajectory of our power business and are expanding our power deliveries in anticipation of customer conversions from our expansive pipeline of opportunities. We are in the process of securing additional power generation, bringing our total capacity to over one gigawatt to be delivered through 2027, and we expect further increases will be necessary to meet the growing demand for our services. Oil and gas industry frac activity has now fallen below levels required to sustain North American oil production. Oil producers, which comprise a vast majority of North American frac activity, opted to moderate completions against a backdrop of macroeconomic uncertainty and after exceeding production targets during the first half of the year.

Slowing trends in oil markets have more than offset increased demand for natural gas fleet activity, where long-term fundamentals remain encouraging in support of LNG export capacity expansion and rising power consumption. Moderation in activity anticipated in the near term is transitory in nature. Global oil oversupply is expected to peak during the first half of 2026. Many shale oil producers are targeting relatively flat oil production, requiring modest activity improvement in the coming year from current levels, and long-term gas demand and related completions activity continue to be on a favorable trajectory. Together, these factors set the backdrop for improving frac fundamentals later in 2026, assuming commodity futures prices remain supportive. Lower industry activity and underutilized fleets in today’s frac markets are driving pricing pressure, primarily for conventional fleets.

This slowdown is accelerating equipment attrition and fleet cannibalization, setting the stage for a more constructive supply and demand balance of industry frac fleets in the future. An improvement in frac activity, coupled with tightening frac capacity, would support better pricing dynamics. The outlook for higher quality next-generation fleets remains strong as operators continue to demand next-generation fleets that provide significant fuel savings, emissions benefits, and operational efficiencies. Liberty’s DigiPrime platform continues to see significant demand and more favorable economics through cycles and leverages our total service platform with scale advantages, integrated services, and robust digital technologies. Although industry frac activity has declined since early 2023, the Liberty team has consistently outperformed markets by staying relentlessly focused on customer success and alignment of shared priorities. During the third quarter, we further strengthened our simul frac offering with the reallocation of horsepower for long-term partners.

We remain focused on expanding competitive advantages through cycles, allowing us to navigate softer anticipated conditions in the months ahead while remaining well-positioned to react swiftly when demand for frac services rises. We have never been better positioned to face tough markets and take advantage of profitable opportunities. We are excited by the momentum we are seeing in both our completions and power opportunities and are well-positioned to deliver an unparalleled offering in the years ahead. I wanted to take a moment to share that we recently welcomed Alice Yake, a recognized energy and infrastructure expert, to our board to help guide and accelerate our efforts in power services. With decades of leadership across energy infrastructure, power service and strategy, and regulatory affairs, as well as critical perspectives on electrical infrastructure challenges, she brings a rare combination of technical depth, policy insight, and executional excellence.

As the energy landscape rapidly evolves and demand for resilient, reliable power systems grows, we’re excited to move forward with intention, drawing on her expertise to shape impactful power solutions. I will now turn the call over to Michael to discuss our financial results and outlook.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Good morning, everyone. Let me begin by celebrating the successes of the Liberty team. Our year-to-date results have been solid during a period marked by macro uncertainty, OPEC Plus supply increases, and softening frac trends. The Liberty team has outperformed the market by leading in reliability, technology, and service quality across all facets of the business, from frac and wireline to our sand mines and sand handling businesses to CNG deliveries and power services. We are proud of the hard work and dedication our team has shown over the last several years, continuing to drive innovation in equipment and digital technologies and strengthen our long-term competitive advantages. In the third quarter of 2025, revenue was $947 million, compared to $1 billion in the prior quarter. Our results decreased 9% sequentially as activity softened following a strong uptick in the second quarter, and market-driven pricing headwinds took hold.

Third quarter net income of $43 million compared to $71 million in the prior quarter, adjusted net loss of $10 million compared to adjusted net income of $20 million in the prior quarter, and excludes a $53 million tax-affected gains on investments. Fully diluted net income per share was $0.26 compared to $0.43 in the prior quarter. Adjusted net loss per diluted share was $0.06 compared to a profit of $0.12 in the prior quarter. Third quarter adjusted EBITDA was $128 million compared to $181 million in the prior quarter. General and administrative expenses totaled $58 million in the third quarter, flat with the prior quarter, and included non-cash stock-based compensation of $5 million. Other income items totaled $57 million for the quarter, inclusive of $68 million of gains on investments offset by interest expense of approximately $11 million.

Third quarter tax expense was $12 million, approximately 22% of pre-tax income. We continue to expect tax expense rate to be approximately 25% of pre-tax income in 2025. We expect no significant cash taxes in the fourth quarter. We ended the quarter with a cash balance of $13 million and net debt of $240 million. Net debt increased by $99 million from the prior quarter. Third quarter usage of cash included capital expenditures, working capital, lease payments, debt issuance costs, and $13 million in cash dividends. Total liquidity at the end of the quarter, including availability under the credit facility, was $146 million. Net capital expenditures were $113 million in the third quarter, which included investments in DigiFleet, capitalized maintenance spending, LPI infrastructure, power generation, and other projects.

We had approximately $6 million of proceeds from asset sales in the quarter, and we now expect total capital expenditures for 2025 of approximately $525 to $550 million. In the fourth quarter, we’re anticipating normal seasonal trends relative to the third quarter. EMP production outperformance, coupled with economic uncertainties, already led to an industry-wide activity reduction in the third quarter, setting up a more normal cadence of activity into the fourth quarter. At these levels, we believe the industry activity will begin to stabilize and could see an eventual uptick during 2026. Looking ahead, our 2026 capital expenditures are markedly shifting towards growing opportunities for power generation services. We now expect to have approximately 500 megawatts of generation delivered by the end of 2026 and over one gigawatt of cumulative power generation by the end of 2027.

We expect further increases will be necessary to meet significant power opportunities while our completions CapEx moderates in the years ahead. We remain relentlessly focused on generating significant value for our shareholders. We believe we are fast approaching the bottom of the trough in our cyclical completions business, and we’re excited by the momentum we are seeing in power opportunities. As such, we increased our quarterly cash dividend by 13% to reflect the confidence we have in our future and a continued commitment to delivering long-term value to shareholders. We’ll now turn it back to the operator for Q&A, after which Ron will have some closing comments at the end of the call.

Conference Operator: We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on your touch-tone phone. If you are using a speaker phone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any time your question has been addressed and you would like to withdraw your question, please press star, then two. Our first question comes from Stephen David Gengaro with Stifel.

Stephen David Gengaro, Analyst, Stifel: Thanks, and good morning, everybody.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: All right, Steven.

Stephen David Gengaro, Analyst, Stifel: Hi, Ron. I think the first for me is I think we’ve, in general, come to have a lot of confidence in Liberty Energy’s deployment of capital. The big question that we get often is, you know, you have power on order, and we’re sort of awaiting contracts. Can you just talk about your visibility on demand for the power generation assets that you are planning to add over the next 24 months?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Certainly, Steven. First of all, I appreciate you recognizing that we are sound stewards of capital. We’ve done that for 15 years, and I would certainly assure you that we don’t view the power business any differently than that. This is not something we’re going to approach any differently than we have our core business. I would tell you a few things in answer to that. First of all, I think we’ve learned that it takes a little longer in the power business to get a contract to completion than it does in our core oilfield services business. While you always have lots of great opportunities, and we’ve talked about our sales pipeline there, it just takes a bit more time to get these things to the place where we’re comfortable making an official announcement around them. I would say, maybe in general answer to your question, a few things.

Number one, in the last 90 days, our sales pipeline has more than doubled from what we talked about at the end of the second quarter. I would tell you also that the urgency in that sales pipeline has increased meaningfully. We’re absolutely feeling that, and you’re seeing that in our response around ordering power. I would tell you that between LOIs and contract terms, we have out in front of customers paper for more than a few gigawatts of capacity needs. I would tell you that ourselves, as the leadership team, together with our board, are sufficiently confident in our ability to convert some of that to long-term contracts that we have made the decisions we have around the ordering of additional capacity.

These conversations will carry on, and when we get to a place where we have paper we’re comfortable talking about and making a firm announcement around, we’ll absolutely do that. I would say that in all cases, we’re talking about long-duration partnerships here, things that are measured in 15+ years. I would also say that these are things that would be deployed over a period of time. This is not conversations for deployments overnight, but as you’ve come to see, I think with data centers, things that would grow gradually in building blocks over a period of years.

Stephen David Gengaro, Analyst, Stifel: Great. Thanks for all the detail. Just one quick follow-up. Is there a specific customer base we should be thinking about, or is it data centers, energy applications, etc., or is it something specific that you’re really targeting?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: I would say that we can, of course, we continue to talk to a range of end-use customers. I would say that my expectation is we probably end up with a higher % of our capacity with data center customers than maybe we had anticipated at the outset of our foray into this business.

Stephen David Gengaro, Analyst, Stifel: Great. Thanks for the color.

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Thanks, Steven.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Marc Gregory Bianchi with Cowen. Please go ahead.

Hey, thank you. I guess on the financing of all of this capacity that’s coming in, where is the capital going to come from? Are you potentially getting customer prepayments, or maybe we have some sort of PPA and you can finance against that? What should the capital look like for funding this growth?

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Yeah, I’ll take that one, Marc. Power plants, PPAs, or any long-lived assets like this, you know, like we think about how the co-locators or the builders of data centers fund their projects, there will be a long-term ESA, Energy Services Agreement, PPA. The assets themselves will be most likely for the large load customers dropped down into a project company. Those project companies will be funded via debt that is backed by that PPA or ESA. Think about the fact that most likely that’ll be project-specific debt, maybe around you could get to approximately 70% of the capital needs by debt. It’ll be non-recourse to the corporation, probably funded, if you were looking at the debt markets at the moment, anywhere depending on whether you’re in construction or whether or not you are in production of electrons.

That’s probably somewhere between mid to high single-digit paper that you’re looking at there. The balance would come from cash flow, which is, again, the 70% would come from cash flow from the company and corporate debt. We may look at, depending on the size of the project and the partners involved, taking on potentially minority infrastructure partners alongside us in some of those projects. That’s the large load. When you think about the data center, the big large load projects, or even the large load CNI, if you think about greenfield industrial projects. The smaller projects, if you think sub-100 megawatts, will be funded on the balance sheet. Those ones where you think about oil and gas customers, etc., they will be sort of maybe of shorter term, somewhere between 5 and 10-year contracts of small numbers.

As you see, some of our larger projects, we may well do within our other partnership, technology partnerships. As we see, you may have multiple technologies in there, as evidenced by our Oklo partnership. That is in the future in the 2030s, but that will also potentially be part of it as well. There will be a lot of details around each of these projects that’ll come out when we make the announcements.

Yep. That’s very helpful. Thank you, Michael. The other question I had was, we’ve heard some of the other participants in sort of mobile energy support for data centers talk about transient response, and you guys mentioned it in your press release. These other participants have said that there’s, you know, certain technology advantages that they have around satisfying that need. Can you talk about how Liberty plans to handle that and maybe just educate us a little bit about what the transient response involves?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Certainly, we’re working on some thoughtful and I’d say maybe somewhat proprietary solutions around that. I would tell you that our electrical engineering team has been working very, very closely with our partners in that space around a very specific solution to that. That solution’s tailored specifically to the generation assets that we will be deploying to any given individual project. Of course, as you can appreciate, a large reset behaves slightly differently than a smaller reset, behaves slightly differently than a gas turbine. As you consider being able to respond to transient loads in each of those environments, you need to have a solution that is tailor-made to that. We’re confident that our engineering team, together with those partners, have a fantastic solution that meets those needs. We’re comfortable with how we’re moving forward there.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Yeah, one thing I might clarify there, Marc, just a little bit. I wouldn’t characterize it as mobile power. I think that’s sort of a leftover from a couple of years ago. There is some mobile power, what we use for frac. There will be some version of mobile power that we will use for, think about data hall commissioning or special power boosting when needed, when you’re kind of doing an expansion on a site-specific project. This is in-situ power, permanently in place, doing permanent power generation. I would say I think you need to kind of think about that differently from the sort of the generator intercom companies. This is truly pure power generation.

Great, thanks so much. I’ll turn it back.

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Thanks, Mark.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Scott Andrew Gruber with Citi Group. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I want to get a little more details just around the CapEx buildup for next year with the additional megawatts coming in. I assume that the base business is kind of down towards maintenance CapEx, and maybe if you can give us some additional color on the building blocks for that 2026 CapEx figure.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Yeah. As obvious, we always give you the details in the January call, and we’ll give you the buildup and then kind of update that guidance as we go through it. We’re expecting to have approximately 500 megawatts through the end of the year. Some of that will be landing towards the end of the year, which will just be the package generation, but a significant portion of it will be with installation. I think you can use sort of a variation around, maybe just think about installed generation around about $1.5 million, $1.6 million a megawatt if you think of sort of long lead and generators at around $1.1 million. It’ll be a balance of that, and we’ll give you an updated view of that in January as we go through.

We’ll probably, I’d say, expect in January a bit more of a longer-term look on our current views on future cash flows in the power business. We’ll probably take a little bit of a longer view on how we talk to the street by January on that part of the business.

Going to speak to my next question. I was going to ask maybe to provide some color just on the EBITDA payback on the contracts. You’re seeing, you know, if it’s kind of $1.5 million-ish on CapEx per megawatt, you know, are you still thinking we’re kind of in that three to four-year payback, you know, on that investment?

Scott, it obviously depends on the term of the contract. When you’re talking about longer live contracts with investment-grade clients in the 15-plus years, you’re going to have a longer cash-on-cash payback to achieve our targeted return profile of an unlevered cash return in sort of the high teens, right? You’re probably talking five, five and a bit, five and a bit on that. Shorter-term contracts will be a quicker payback. If you’re doing shorter-term contracts in the five to seven years for a smaller oil and gas implementation, you’ll be on the three-plus year, the three-year version of that. The longer life contracts, you’re going to have a longer payback period. Much more secure, and it’s going to be take-home pay ESAs.

I gotcha. If I could sneak one more in, is there a tension today between kind of reserving some capacity for larger data center contracts and kind of not wanting to dedicate, you know, that capacity to some other end markets, or is the data center opportunity moving so quickly that you guys don’t really feel a tension, in terms of dedicating capacity at this juncture?

There is significant, significant tension around reserving capacity. Near-term generation capacity, near-term generation need is very high. Near-term generation capacity is nowhere near what’s available in the market. There is significant tension around that.

Interesting. Okay, I’ll take it back. Thanks for the thoughts.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Adi Modak with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning, team.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Good morning.

Ron, you mentioned it’s taking longer to sign some of these power contracts because the market is different. Can you help us think through the steps that you are looking at to sign these contracts so that we understand it?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Yeah. I think there’s a number of them. Of course, these are big projects. These are billions and billions and billions of dollars of investment that are going into the ground there. As you think about all the pieces that have to come together there, it’s not an insignificant number. In our oilfield services world, you have an E&P that’s already locked up land. They’ve done their geology work, and they’re drilling wells in a pretty straightforward cadence. They have a pretty clear outlook to that. In this case, you’re talking about a series of parties that have to come together, identify the land, take care of air permitting, fiber, fuel source in the form of natural gas, and end use. If you’re a hyperscaler, the end-use contract with the customer that’s going to co-locate in that facility.

You have to have a number of these pieces that all come together. Ultimately, when all of those are satisfied, then they get comfortable signing the final energy services agreement with us. While they are somewhat long in the making, I would say we get to clarity around what the end result is going to look like sooner than that. That doesn’t mean you’re at a firm contract at that point in time. We just have to work alongside of them as they work through these steps and patiently stand by until we get to a place where we can sign the final documents.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the explanation there. Maybe for Michael, you talked about project-level financing for some of these entities. Would you consider equity or any kinds of converts as potential tools in the mix?

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Obviously, Adi, we are always looking for the most cost-effective and the most efficient way to finance the growth of this company to drive the highest value for our investors. As we would say, nothing is necessarily off the table. We have, I believe, a very, very clear path to being able to fund a large portion of these projects without major dilution.

Got it. Thank you so much. Thanks, guys.

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Thanks, Adi.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Saurabh Pant from Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Hi. Good morning, Ron and Mike.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Ron, Mike, it sounds like you’re making a lot of good progress on the power side of things. Maybe kind of a follow-up on what Adi just asked on the contracts, right? How you’re thinking about those contracts. These are very different from what not just you, what we are used to, right? We are trying to figure out how are you looking at potential risks and pitfalls and liabilities, right? All of that good stuff, right? Maybe just a little bit of color, 15-year, maybe north of 15-year contracts. How do you protect yourself from that risk? I know the opportunity is fantastic, right? I’m just weighing up both sides of the equation.

Right. The first way that you look at it is who’s your counterparty there, Saurabh? You’re looking at, even though let’s just say 70% of the sort of data market that’s going to be built is probably six or seven very, very large investment-grade clients. The other 30% is more the multiple users, the banks, the BFAs, the JPMorgans, the smaller companies in the world. Just a joke. Those sort of things are going to be large investment-grade offtake, and your ESA is with that large investment-grade offtake. You’re doing it in conjunction with a company, these very large developers who build the data centers and run them as a REIT. You choose your counterparty on that side very closely, somebody who’s got an execution history, the ability to put the buildings on the ground in a reasonable timeframe.

You’ve got to look at, obviously, you’ve got an engineering effort on your own, making sure you understand your solutions, make sure you understand the delivery of your supply chain and your EPC partner that is executing on that to make sure that you set a reasonable time schedule, you have no issues around delays around LDs. It’s an engineered solution, making sure that you’re building, let’s just say, 1.2, 1.3x to get you to your 5.9s, which we can do with the smaller resets, and your comfort level around being able to deliver that IT load that they need. It’s all of that, managed by the team here, rolling up into a risk committee that’s reviewed on every single project. That balance of that is what protects you.

Each one of these projects, these large load projects, will be rolled down into a separate project code, as I said, with non-recourse debt that will have specific, or just like you do with any other large real estate development, with the corporate protections around that. It’s a very different setup from our current business, but we’ve thought through all that very, very carefully.

Okay. Okay. No, that’s fantastic, Kellan Mike. We’ll keep an eye out on how things evolve. It’s one other thing, Ron, Mike, whoever wants to take this on the technology side of things, right? When we were talking about 400 megawatt, that was supposed to be all natural gas resets, right? Now that we are over 1 gigawatt, and again, this is not the end, by the way, right? You, you, I’m sure you would look at more opportunities. How are we looking at the technology side of things evolving between resets and turbines and maybe a little bit of a battery to supplement all of that, right? How are we thinking about that? Just the lead time to order that and get that in time?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: That’s a very good question. I would say that I think we’ve always said resets are going to form the core of our technology platform, that we recognize there are going to be cases where other technologies will make a lot of sense in concert with those or maybe in place of those. I would tell you today that of the capacity we are procuring, the large majority of that remains gas reciprocating engines. We like that technology, and we believe it brings some inherent benefits to the table, particularly around heat rate. That said, when it comes to power density, you get some real benefits from a gas turbine. We absolutely see those as part of the puzzle.

As you think down the road, you know the end-use parties that are going to be consuming these electrons, or at least the vast majority of them, and they all have publicly stated goals around reducing the carbon intensity of their electricity. We have some very specific partnerships around that, particularly the Oklo partnership. We will, sometime into the next decade, be able to bring small modular nuclear to the table. We see that being a piece of the puzzle as well. In the nearer term, recognizing that emissions can be a challenge, particularly in non-attainment areas. We’ve talked about the Colorado Air and Spaceport as an example. The Front Range of Colorado is a non-attainment area and requires some very specific solutions to ensure we can achieve the emissions caps that are necessary there. Fuel cells offer a great partnership together with gas reciprocating engines to help accomplish that.

You can expect, as we talk about these projects in the future, likely a mix of generation technologies that are best suited to address the needs of that particular site.

Okay. Fantastic, Ron. I’m glad we are talking about the next decade and not the next quarter. Thank you for the color, Ron. I’ll turn it back.

Awesome. Thanks so much.

Conference Operator: Our next question is from Thomas Patrick Curran with Seaport Research. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Sticking with the power as a service business here, for the initial 100 megawatts of capacity being delivered this quarter, Q4, would you please review the deployment timeline and its major stages? Are you still anticipating about six months from equipment delivery to first revenue out in the field? Do you anticipate opportunities to maybe shorten that timeline as you ascend the learning curve?

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: It depends on the technology. Generally, from package resets to electron generation, six months is a good sort of average number. When you move up the scale onto the turbine side of the world, you probably take that to maybe all the larger resets, which will be large power halls. That’s probably nine months from generation to electrons. Now, depending on where the project is, some of these large projects are going to be interesting because that’s sort of an average, as you’ll be doing the dirt work and the building and landing the generation. Some of the early generation will have a longer time to revenue generation, and some of the later engines that get installed will have a shorter time.

Just talking in general averages, I think that’s sort of a fairly reasonable, it’s going to be project and site-specific around that, around on average over the next five years.

Got it. Liberty not only has a well-deserved, consistently earned stellar reputation as a sort of capital, but I would argue on the technology side, frequently the smartest guys in the room, trailblazers on innovation and technology adoption. I don’t want to unfairly highlight one that didn’t work out here. When it comes to Natron, obviously, you nailed it with being ahead of the curve on advanced nuclear and the Oklo relationship, as well as on enhanced geothermal and Fervo. Natron hasn’t worked out. Ron, I’d just be curious to hear when it comes to long-duration energy storage and that longer-term potential for where you might go with batteries as part of LPI’s DPS fleet. How are you thinking about sodium ion technology?

Do you still think that’s going to be one of the likely longer-term winners, or are you maybe pivoting to other electrochemical technologies when it comes to batteries?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Yeah, good question. I would say that as far as the technology itself goes, still a big fan of sodium ion technology. If you think about things like the C rating and potential cycle count for a sodium ion battery, it’s just awesome technology in that regard. You can dump charge into and remove charge from those batteries at rates that are hard to match with some other technologies. The total cycle count or lifespan for one of those batteries is meaningfully higher than for lithium-based technologies. We really do like the technology. Unfortunate, the Natron situation that they just couldn’t get to scale, but I will still continue to watch for that technology to be deployed. Of course, we use a lot of battery capacity in our world today. That’s present in our Digi world, both on the DigiPrime fleets and on the Digi frac locations.

We rely on lithium-based technologies there because you have a weight consideration that comes into play. You don’t get the same energy density out of a sodium-based chemistry as you do out of a lithium-based chemistry. When weight and size are a factor, there’s a reason lithium technology is the technology of choice in EVs, for example. The same is true for us. We have size and space considerations when it comes to deploying batteries on our frac locations. We’ve leaned towards lithium technologies there. We’re familiar with those. We have strong partnerships there. We’ll continue to leverage those partnerships as necessary, both on the core OFS space and in the power space to the case that that makes sense. We’ll continue to keep an eye on those other technologies for future opportunities as well.

Very helpful. I appreciate your taking my questions.

Thanks a lot.

Thanks, Tom.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Jeffrey Michael LeBlanc with Tudor Pickering Holt. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Ron and team. Thank you for taking my question.

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Morning, Jeff.

Thank you.

I was just curious, how should we think about capital allocation between frac and LPI moving forward? We know that you previously mentioned that the base case is for no DigiPrime bills in 2026. Given the compelling opportunity in power, is there any reason this shouldn’t be the case moving forward if frac prices stay at the current levels?

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Our frac business is an incredibly vibrant and great business that has great long-term cash generation ability over the next decade. We invest in that business, as we always have and as we always will, on the basis and the timing of the cycle for that business. That won’t be affected at all by investments in our power business. We are not going to be capital limited as far as investments in these two businesses. They stand alone, and we will invest as makes sense for our future cash generation abilities.

Yep, that makes sense. Thank you very much. I’ll hand the call back to the operator.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Derek John Podhaizer with Piper Sandler. You may go ahead.

Hey, good morning. I just wanted to go back to Saurabh’s question and maybe clarify the answer on just the type of equipment that you’ll be ordering and delivering. I know initially it was the 400 megawatts. I think that was typically made up of the resets, the two and a half to five megawatt units. When we think about the incremental 100 by the end of next year and then the 600-plus to get to over a gigawatt, I think you started mentioning we might get a mixture of type of assets. Can you be more specific if you will continue to invest in the reset and then if you are moving towards the turbines, maybe how much we can think about that in terms of megawatts for your deliveries?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Derek, I would say that the vast majority of this incremental capacity is also gas reciprocating. Turbines will play a role in our world, although I think as we continue to look forward, we will still lean very heavily on the gas reciprocating technology. If you think about, and I’ve said this in past calls, ensuring long-term durability in the business, bringing the best technology to the table in support of our customers. We like reciprocating because of the heat rate. You have an opportunity under simple cycle conditions to deliver conversion of molecules to electrons at a level that is on par with the grid today at about 45% thermal efficiency. That is impossible to achieve with a simple cycle turbine. You’re going to, right out of the gate, put yourself at a disadvantage with respect to fuel burn per electron delivered.

While we believe there is an important place for turbines in the power generation world, we’ve talked about density as one of those attributes. We really like the gas reciprocating technology, and you should expect to see that be a very meaningful part of our portfolio today, tomorrow, and in the years to come.

That’s helpful. Maybe just to clarify in that, is there any larger resets that you can go out and acquire? I mean, I know the 2.5 to 5, but 10 megawatt plus type of resets out there that you can put into your portfolio?

Yes, there absolutely are. If you think about our portfolio going forward, it is going to be, we’re going to have capacity centered around the Jenbacher unit, which is 4.3, 4.4 megawatts per unit. You absolutely can get much bigger gas reciprocating engines. Michael mentioned the idea of a power hall. The Jenbachers are a packaged unit, something that we package and deliver to site, basically ready to go, say, for some basic dirt work. As you start to move into that larger capacity, the 10, 11, 12 megawatt kind of size, those are very, very large units. Those are going to be inside of a power hall, a building that will be constructed on site, and then we’ll have those installed in there. As he was alluding to, the different timelines from delivery to power generation were specifically around those two different asset scales that he was talking about.

You should expect to see both that smaller, more modular type approach in our world, along with the larger units deployed in a power hall type facility also.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: If you look at it, Derek, you’re going to have power blocks, basically, with our partners at Caterpillar, sort of the 2.5 megawatt and 25 megawatt blocks. You’re going to have the larger Jenbachers in 50 megawatt blocks to deliver. We’ll have the 200 megawatt power hall, which is delivered by a number of our core partners for these larger reciprocating engines. As you go up in size after that, if it’s any very, very large installations, that’s when, as Ron pointed out, you might go to a larger scale turbine solution, as well as waiting for the Oklo and Aurora powerhouses, which would be our natural sort of large scale behind the reciprocating engines once we get past 2030. Once into 2030, that’ll be the solution there.

Right. Okay, that makes that very helpful detail. I guess for those powerhouses, those bigger resets, are those included in this one gigawatt target that you just laid out?

We’re not going to enter the details of exactly what it is, but you know they are basically all resets within that one gigawatt number.

Got it. Okay. That’s fair. I mean, a ton of questions have been asked on power. Just maybe a housekeeping one for me as far as how we should think about the fourth quarter. Obviously, we have some seasonality creeping in. Third quarter was much softer than expected. How should we think about maybe top line and some of the decrementals? Should we stay at that 55% level, or should we start to normalize, just given kind of where we started in 3Q and where we’re going in 4Q?

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Derek, I would say that at this point in time, we’re anticipating just typical seasonality, as really the change in cadence from Q3 to Q4. We’ll see how that plays out as the quarter unfolds, but that’s what we’re assuming at this point in time.

Got it. Very helpful. I’ll turn it back. Thank you.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Thanks, Derek.

Conference Operator: Our next question is from Keith MacKey with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning, and thanks for taking my questions.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Hi, Keith.

First, wanted to start out on that $1.5 to $1.6 million per megawatt number. I think we’d been incorporating something slightly lower than that in the $1.3 to $1.4 range previously. Can you just talk about what has driven the increase there? Is it a varying scope of the equipment you’ll be providing around these projects, or is it pricing, or is it a mix of both? Just curious what’s really driven that, and ultimately, how close do you think we are to the end stage determination of what these projects will actually cost once they get into the field? Is that $1.5 to $1.6 a 50% to 70% confidence number, or is it a 70% to 85% confidence number? Just curious for some context.

Yeah. It sort of does depend on the scope piece, you know, kind of material. That’s us taking, you know, 13A generation, stepping it up to 35 and handing the electrons off, you know, so that your scope can move. Obviously, that’s assuming to some degree, at some point, most of the gas delivered to the fence line, right? Depending on where, sort of how long a gas line, whose scope that’s in, how long the interstate connection and the pipe. A lot of moving parts around where those projects can ultimately come in, and whose scope that ends up in. That’s why those sort of numbers are there. There also are price increases, right? As you can see, there is a huge amount of demand for power generation. A large portion of that is built outside the country. Prices are moving on a fairly regular basis.

As we look out, a lot of some of these prices, we’re starting to look at and discuss with our partners, supply chains out, 2028, 2029, talking to the Oklo team about what we can do in 2030. We are talking a long way into the future in some of those. The pricing will move over time. The great thing is, when you look at the efficiency of our solution and the effectiveness of what we can do, and the capital effectiveness especially, we can provide what is a grid parity or lower than grid price now to these large load customers with very little inflationary need comparative to what the grid’s going to go up, right? A capacity fee is going to probably inflate its CPI.

Everybody, I would say, that you talk to agrees over the next 15 years, the inflation rate of natural gas, given how successful we are on our completions business and how good our service teams are there, is going to be far lower than the general inflation rate of grid power pricing, right? When customers sign up with us now, they’re getting at grid or lower than grid pricing. If they project forward 15 years, they’re going to be significantly below what the grid pricing is then. It’s a compelling, compelling technological and economic solution for these folks.

Yeah. Got it. I appreciate the color on that. Maybe if I could just circle back to Derek’s question about Q4. I understand the guidance there for normal seasonality, although it tends to be an industry where I find that normal seasonality is hardly normal.

We might agree.

If we were to put, you know, just some general guideposts around that, like if I look at the last two years, the revenue is down 12%, down 17% in 2023 and 2024, respectively for Q4, like is that sort of the range we should be thinking about for Q4 this year with kind of a similar level of decremental, or is there anything specific in this year that might make it different from those prior years?

I think that’s probably the top end. I think we get into normal seasonalities, which is lower than the last two years, right? That’s probably the top end of what you would model. Yeah, as activity-based decrementals on that. Yeah.

Yeah, okay. Got it. No, I appreciate that color. Thanks very much.

Conference Operator: Our next question comes from Eddie Kim with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. I just wanted to touch on that additional capacity of 600 megawatts. I just wanted to clarify how much of that 600 megawatts is secured or how much you’ve ordered versus how much of it you’re in advanced discussions for. Secondarily, just your confidence level in being able to deliver that full one gigawatt capacity by the end of 2027. We’ve heard a lot of OEMs that they’re all sold out. I’m just curious your confidence level in being able to deliver that on time.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Yeah. Very cut. We have unique relationships. Obviously, these are a lot of the same players that we’ve put north of $5 billion to work with over the last 12 years, right? We have really unique relationships with these folks. Very, very confident. Supply chains, we’re clarifying some of the bits and pieces of some parts of those megawatts at the moment. Yeah, very confident that it will all be delivered. Now, that’ll be landed. That’s not generating. That’ll be landed, right? That’s the key portion of what’s available. It can then be sort of like starting to be worked onto the dirt.

Understood. In terms of that 600 megawatts, is all of that in advanced discussions right now, or have you actually secured some part of that?

Oh, it’s all in advanced. As far as the supply chain, the delivery of it?

Just in terms of what you’ve ordered.

Oh, the vast majority.

The vast majority.

Yep.

The vast majority of the 600 megawatt incremental 600 megawatts is ordered. Okay. Understood.

Correct.

Okay. Great. My follow-up is just on Oklo. First, I believe you had a small equity stake in Oklo. Could you just remind us how big that stake is? With regards to the collaboration agreement, what are you currently contemplating in terms of the number of megawatts you’ll be allocating or ring-fencing for that collaboration? When do you think is the earliest we would see a deployment of those assets?

You know, sort of our investment in Oklo, I think, is in our queue. You know the details around it. You’ll see that we have been monetizing some of it and actually just moving that straight into deposits on power generation, which again, I think our long-term power generation contracts and contacts with the hyperscalers, a large number of those will eventually include the inclusion of potentially the inclusion of small modular nuclear reactors. Maybe not on the same specific sites, but with the same customers, right? If you think of the vast majority, 70% of the sort of the IT infrastructure, you know, data centers can be built by six or seven folks, right? You know, using 10 or 12 developers to do that work for them. The combination of ourselves and Oklo will be involved in a lot of projects together. We’ll see how that goes.

Yeah, it was quite exciting. I was at the groundbreaking of their national lab generator, and we’re hoping to see electrons flowing from that at the early part of 2028, I believe. I think the DOE has been very, very helpful with the development of nuclear.

Great. Thank you, Michael. I’ll turn it back.

Conference Operator: Our next question is from Daniel Robert Kutz with Morgan Stanley. You may go ahead.

Hey, thanks. Good morning.

Morning, Dan.

Michael, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think earlier, all the color that you gave around the financing options, that was all for the incremental 600 megawatts. A, correct me if that’s wrong. B, I just wanted to confirm for the initial 400 megawatts that you guys ordered, is the plan still that that’s all going to be kind of financed organically, you know, using the revolver and using organic cash? In a scenario where maybe if things played out worse than contemplated in the near term here, how would you think about financing options for the initial 400 megawatts if, you know, kind of the existing capital structure needed a little bit of extra capital to get those across the finish line? Thanks.

Michael Stock, Chief Financial Officer, Liberty Energy: Yeah. I can answer it. All right. I don’t think you should think of the initial 400, the next 600. I think you need to think about this as a building of an ongoing business, right, holistically. We will fund sort of the early-stage deposits, the movement of supply chain until those long lead-time equipments are assigned to assigned ESA. When they’re assigned to assigned ESA, now it could be, you know, megawatt number 198 or megawatt number 105, whichever megawatt it is. It’s assigned to an ESA. It’ll get dropped down into a project and then funded separately. What you’re looking at there, and about 30% of that project will be funded by equity, either ours or potentially in partnership. You’ll look at it, it’s going to be an ongoing stream, a development stream.

You’ve got to remember, what we’re doing here is we’re building a company for decades, a generational company. It’s a power generation company with strong 15-plus year cash flows that are going to be building out and exponentially additive as we go through into the future. This is something that is being built brick by brick by brick. I think that’s the key way to think about it then.

Great. That’s really helpful. Maybe for Ron or either of you, I guess I’m just thinking about some of the puts and takes on completion services or frac profitability per fleet. There are kind of some puts and takes to think through. You guys have flagged pricing pressure. I feel like Liberty tends to be less reactive in scaling up and down the cost structure, not the down cycles, but rather it kind of maintains the high-quality labor force and the overall high-quality business. I guess there’s some offsets that you guys have flagged as well, growing fleet size and horsepower per fleet. At least this year, the fleet mix improved with the incremental defect deliveries. Efficiencies are improving. If maybe you could just unpack what you’ve seen in profitability per fleet and how you think that trends moving forward. Thank you.

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Certainly, Dan. I would start by saying that, of course, we view this business just like Michael talked about the power business. We have a long-term view on this. No, of course, we don’t react quarterly to ups and downs. People are our most important asset. They are the reason we are as successful as we are. We don’t make changes in headcount because of what we view as a short-term blip in activity. I think we are very confident in the long-term viability of the business, in the long-term outlook for oil and gas demand, and the role that Liberty Energy will play in delivering that. We take a long-term view to that piece of our business as well, and particularly the people that are involved in that business. There are, as you say, some puts and takes. We are in an industry that has competitors.

Unfortunately, when we have companies that find whitespace on their calendar, the way they choose to defend market share is with price. We’re not immune to that, of course. Our customers are aware of where the market is. That ultimately leads to conversations that have us needing to adjust our pricing in line with the market. That said, we are still fully utilized today. That is a testament to the people that are in the field, the technology that they have to work with, the supply chain, and other things that support them. We expect that to continue. We’ll navigate the pricing headwinds in the near term. When things get better, we will be, as we always have been in the past, the best-positioned company to take advantage of that going forward.

Awesome. Thank you both very much. I’ll turn it back.

Conference Operator: This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Ron Gusek for any closing remarks.

Ron Gusek, Chief Executive Officer, Liberty Energy: Thank you, Bailey. We pride ourselves on delivering efficiency, on maximizing the effective utilization of the assets we deploy to the field, with the goal of delivering the lowest total cost of completions for our customers and ensuring that a barrel of oil or MCF of gas produced here in North America remains competitive on the global stage. Delivering the highest levels of efficiency means ensuring we have the best of everything on location, the best people, the best technology, the best company to deliver each individual service. We’ve always said that Liberty Energy wants to be the provider of frac, wireline, and logistics on any well site, but only if we are the best choice in each of these. If not, then take what we are best at and pair us with the best partners for the others.

Accepting mediocrity is just bad business, bad for competitiveness, bad for consumers, and bad for investors. Unfortunately, the current punitive tariff policies are doing just that. Tariffs make the economy less efficient. They’re a path to mediocrity, not excellence.

Conference Operator: They raise prices, cut profits, increase unemployment, diminish productivity, and slow economic growth. North America is a leader in energy production, energy that the world desperately needs. Unfortunately, tariffs on steel and aluminum products are driving up the cost of that production, impacting competitiveness on the global stage, potentially leading to a loss of market share. How is that a positive income for either the U.S. or our trading partners? The Secretary of Energy has called the race for AI dominance our next Manhattan Project. Winning this race requires access to massive amounts of new power generation capacity and associated hardware, along with many other sophisticated components. Much of this is currently made overseas, and much of it is now subject to tariffs. Is this a path to winning a race the administration has identified as so critical to our nation’s future? I would argue no.

It’s a path to mediocrity at best. I hope we quickly pivot to a different course, one that puts us firmly on the path to energy and AI dominance here in the U.S. Thanks for joining us on the call today.

Anjali Voria, Vice President of Investor Relations, Liberty Energy: The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.