US Energy - Earnings Call - Q1 2025

Executive Summary

• Q1 2025 results reflected the transition toward industrial gases: revenue was $2.193M and Adjusted EBITDA was –$1.498M, with net loss of –$3.111M (–$0.10 per diluted share) as legacy hydrocarbon volumes declined after 2024 divestitures.
• Significant operational milestones: two new Duperow wells underway (budgeted $1.3M each), successful Kiefer Farms well workover and 3.2 MMcf/d flow test, and processing plant engineering finalized (17.0 MMcf/d capacity; ~$15M capex; construction start July 2025).
• Carbon management advanced: sustained injection of 17.0 MMcf/d across two wells (projected ~240,000 metric tons CO₂/year), Class II injection well approval anticipated June 2025, MRV submission targeted late June 2025.
• Balance sheet remains conservative: debt-free with $10.502M cash and $30.502M total liquidity at quarter-end; 832,000 shares repurchased YTD (~2.5% float), supporting capital discipline and shareholder returns.
• Against S&P Global consensus, Q1 missed: revenue $3.504M* vs actual $2.193M, EPS –$0.04* vs actual –$0.10, and EBITDA $0.172M* vs Adjusted EBITDA –$1.498M; misses driven by post-divestiture volume declines and lower commodity pricing while industrial gas monetization is still pre-plant.

Note: * Values retrieved from S&P Global.

What Went Well and What Went Wrong

What Went Well

• Processing plant design finalized; construction to begin July 2025 with 17.0 MMcf/d capacity at ~$15M, enabling multi‑revenue streams (helium sales, processing/gathering fees, CO₂ management).
• Upstream progress: Kiefer Farms well showed ~0.6% helium; post-workover flow test exceeded 3.2 MMcf/d, expected near-term contributor to the plant.
• Strong CO₂ injection performance and regulatory progress (Class II application and MRV plan underway), positioning carbon management as an integral cash flow component.

Management quotes:

• “We’re positioned to deliver a fully integrated, multi‑revenue stream operation… monetization of helium while permanently sequestering up to 240,000 metric tons of CO₂ annually” – Ryan Smith, CEO.
• “Our capital plan remains measured and achievable… funded by our strong balance sheet and supported by a thoughtful capital strategy” – Ryan Smith.

What Went Wrong

• Material revenue decline versus prior year due to asset sales and weaker oil pricing: $2.193M in Q1 vs $5.391M in Q1 2024; Adjusted EBITDA turned to –$1.498M vs $0.237M in Q1 2024.
• Production fell to ~47,008 BOE (64% oil), and LOE/BOE increased to $34.23 due to portfolio mix after divestitures.
• Slightly divergent cost/timing signals: wells budgeted at $1.3M in the press release vs ~$1.5M for CO₂ wells in Q4 call commentary; CO₂ sequestration projection refined from ~250k to ~240k metric tons/year, and plant completion window pushed to late Q1/early Q2 2026 due to equipment lead times and Montana winter.

Transcript

Operator (participant)

Greetings and welcome to the U.S. Energy Corporation's first quarter 2025 results conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Mason McGuire, Vice President of Finance and Strategy. Thank you, sir. You may begin.

Mason McGuire (VP of Finance and Strategy)

Thank you, Operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to U.S. Energy's first quarter 2025 results conference call. Ryan Smith, our Chief Executive Officer, will provide an overview of our operating results and discuss the company's strategic outlook. Our company's Chief Financial Officer, Mark Zajac, will give a more detailed overview of our financial results. Before this morning's market opening, U.S. Energy issued a press release summarizing the operating and financial results for the quarter ended March 31st, 2025. This press release, together with the accompanying presentation materials, is available in the Investor Relations section of our website at www.usenergy.com. Today's discussion may contain forward-looking statements about future business and financial expectations. Actual results may differ significantly from those projected in today's forward-looking statements due to various risks and uncertainties, including the risks described in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update our forward-looking statements. Further, please note that non-GAAP financial measures may be disclosed during this call. A full reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP measurements is available in our latest quarterly earnings release and conference call presentation. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Ryan Smith.

Ryan Smith (CEO)

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. I'm pleased to walk you through our first quarter results, highlight key milestones, and provide a strategic and operational update as we continue executing our growth plan. As we've discussed previously, U.S. Energy's primary focus is the development of our Montana industrial gas project. We believe this platform is ideally positioned to meet growing market demand, support attractive economics, and deliver the scale necessary to drive relevance in the public markets. While Montana's winter limits certain field activity, we have now launched the most significant phase of our initial development program. This includes workovers and flow testing of existing wells, drilling two new development wells, advancing our infrastructure planning to the point of final investment decision, and making substantial progress in our carbon management initiatives. I'll touch on each area individually.

Starting with upstream development, in Q4 2024, we drilled our first industrial gas well. Since then, we've been analyzing the results to refine our development approach. In January, we acquired 24,000 net acres in what we believe is the core of the Kevin Dome structure, along with an existing well showing significant concentrations of non-hydrocarbon helium. We're currently drilling two back-to-back wells targeting the helium and CO2-rich Duperow Formation, with each well budgeted at approximately $1.2 million. We anticipate these wells will validate the scale and quality of our resource, with one expected to be designated as a Class II injection well for permanent CO2 storage. It's important to emphasize the uniqueness of our upstream Kevin Dome position. Most U.S. helium production today is tied to hydrocarbons. In contrast, our project is based on a non-hydrocarbon gas stream, giving it a significantly lower environmental footprint.

That distinction represents a competitive advantage, especially as sustainability continues to be a differentiating market factor. Turning to infrastructure, upon completing our initial development program in June, we will begin construction of our processing plant at Kevin Dome. This facility will separate upstream gas into helium and CO2 streams, and it's expected to process approximately 17 million cu ft of raw gas per day, comprised of approximately 80%-85% CO2 and 0.5%-1% helium. The estimated $15 million plant is expected to be completed in roughly 40 weeks and funded through our current balance sheet and modest strategic use of debt. Beyond our own needs, we see opportunities to provide infrastructure solutions to undercapitalized producers in the region. By controlling the majority of the basin's gaseous helium supply, we believe we are well positioned to unlock multiple sources of value.

Lastly, I would like to touch on U.S. Energy's carbon management front. U.S. Energy controls one of the largest known CO2 deposits in the United States. To monetize the helium within this gas stream, we must process it and permanently sequester the CO2. Fortunately, the Kevin Dome's geology is exceptionally well suited for carbon storage. We already hold multiple Class II injection permits and expect to receive more this upcoming June. Recently, we completed successful injection tests at two disposal wells, injecting around 17 million cu ft per day. Once our processing plant is operational, we anticipate sequestering approximately 250,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. We've begun drafting our monitoring, reporting, and verification, or MRV, plan and expect to submit it to the EPA in July. Additionally, and in the near term, we also plan to evaluate merchant CO2 sales, particularly given the coastal supply shortages.

We're highly optimistic about what lies ahead. This asset represents a transformational opportunity for U.S. Energy and positions us as a first mover in the industrial gas sector with a resource and geographic location that cannot be replicated. Our strategy is focused on building a full-cycle platform from production and processing to long-term carbon storage while maintaining a disciplined capital allocation approach. The data we've collected to date supports a highly economic development path both at the wellhead and infrastructure levels. Our capital plan remains measured and achievable, with initial phases funded by our strong balance sheet and supported by a thoughtful capital strategy. Turning briefly to our legacy oil and gas assets, as you know, commodity prices have pulled back materially this year, which has affected earnings across the sector, including ours. While these assets are no longer our core focus, they still carry meaningful value.

Following our successful monetization program in 2024, which helped eliminate debt and build a substantial cash position, we remain opportunistic in pursuing value-maximizing divestitures of non-core oil and gas assets. As we move through 2025, we will continue to execute a disciplined strategy, investing in our core Montana project while monetizing legacy hydrocarbon assets where appropriate. This approach will establish 2025 as a pivotal year in U.S. Energy's transformation, underpinned by access to non-dilutive or low-dilutive capital, a key differentiator in today's market. We believe U.S. Energy stands apart as we have a scalable, economically attractive development platform backed by legacy assets that hold meaningful value with minimal reinvestment. This enables us to reinvest in the high-return industrial gas opportunities while insulating the business from commodity price volatility.

On the capital return front, we remain committed to shareholder value creation, and so far in 2025, we've repurchased approximately 832,000 shares, representing roughly 2.5% of our outstanding float. In addition, management has continued to increase its ownership, reflecting our strong conviction that our shares remain undervalued and represent a compelling use of our capital. In closing, U.S. Energy is emerging as a differentiated, growth-oriented, non-hydrocarbon industrial gas company with operational exposure across upstream production, infrastructure, and carbon management. Our strong financial position, clean capital structure, and access to internally generated cash flow provide a foundation that many of our peers lack. As we continue to execute on our strategy, we believe we are unlocking a scalable and high-margin growth platform that will create lasting shareholder value.

With that, I'll now turn the call over to our CFO, Mark Zajac, who will provide an update on our financial results for the quarter.

Mark Zajac (CFO)

Thank you, Ryan. Hello, everyone. Let's delve into the financial details for the first quarter of 2025. Our operating results reflect the cumulative impact of our divestitures since the fourth quarter of 2023. Revenue was approximately $2.2 million, down from $5.4 million in the same quarter last year, reflecting the impact of divestitures in the second half of 2024. Oil comprised over 80% of the revenue this quarter, reflecting our focus on optimizing our remaining oil assets. Our lease operating expense for the quarter was $1.6 million, or $34.23 a BOE, compared to $3.2 million, or $29.02 per BOE in the same quarter last year. The overall decrease reflects our divestitures since the first quarter last year, and on a BOE basis, the increase is a function of our assets remaining in our portfolio.

Cash, general, and administrative expense was $1.9 million for the first quarter of 2025 and included approximately $0.3 million for discrete costs such as transaction costs and contractor utilization to integrate our acquired assets. Normalized quarterly general administrative costs are expected to be approximately $1.6 million, or an 18% reduction from the same period last year. As for our balance sheet, as of March 31, 2025, there was no debt outstanding on our $20 million revolving credit facility, and our cash position stood at over $10.5 million, reflecting the net cash proceeds of $10.3 million generated from our successful equity offering during the first quarter. We also are in talks to renew and extend our credit agreement, which we expect to be completed in the second quarter of 2025.

In terms of a shift in CapEx, during the first quarter, we closed on a Montana acquisition and spent $2.1 million acquiring acreage as well as an industrial gas well with production potential adjacent to our recently acquired WaveTech acreage. Overall, our operating performance and financial results reflect our recent divestitures as well as the company's new initiatives. We continue to maintain balance sheet discipline integrity, and my objective continues to be to ensure that the company's reporting process maintains a high standard of excellence, and we feel confident in our ability to support the growth initiatives we currently have underway. Thank you for your participation this morning. We are now ready to take your questions.

Operator (participant)

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the Star keys. One moment, please, while we pull for questions. Thank you. Our first question comes from a line of Tom Kerr with Zacks Smallcap Research. Please proceed with your question.

Tom Kerr (Senior Research Analyst)

Good morning, guys.

Ryan Smith (CEO)

Hey, good morning, Tom.

Tom Kerr (Senior Research Analyst)

The cost of the processing plant, I believe that was higher than expectations. Was there complications or higher cost factors involved?

Ryan Smith (CEO)

No, there wasn't. I guess the whole time is we've looked at all the infrastructure built out and then the wells that are going to supply that plant and what we think the production of those wells is going to be. It's always kind of been a moving target of size of the plant, what we think the production is going to be, and kind of what is that key economic fulcrum of processing dollars, rate of return, CO2 that we process, and then CO2 that we believe that we can inject. I know you know this, but as many, many parts go into that plant, it's not like a one-size-fits-all type of cost. There are different kinds of compressors, different kinds of horsepower requirements, different kinds of power requirements, etc.

Now that we've kind of moved forward our project with a very high degree of confidence on what all of those inputs are going to be, that $17 million a day type of plant kind of checks all of those boxes for us. There's some lead time on some of those parts. I think that CapEx number is fair. I think it's conservative. I think that that is a full sticker price with what we know right here and now. Are there ways that price could come down on some of these incremental parts that go into that plant? There is, and we'll work on that. I think that there's some possibility for that number to come in a little bit lower than that 15, but I think that's a number that we're comfortable with budgeting for right now.

Tom Kerr (Senior Research Analyst)

All right. Sounds good. The completion, we're still looking at the first quarter of 2026. Could it bleed into the second quarter of 2026?

Ryan Smith (CEO)

I think it's a weather thing, really, when it gets on there. I mean, when I was counting my weeks on my calendar from when we plan on starting, I think it came out to a March type of date. It could be the end of the very first quarter. It could be the very beginning of the second quarter. I think right now, just thumbing the air, modeling, we're using April 1st just as a clean date, but there could be a two- or three-week swag there kind of either way.

Tom Kerr (Senior Research Analyst)

Got it. Okay. One last question. Can you kind of give us a big picture update on the helium markets or helium end markets, pricing, demand, contract terms, or anything significant change in that area?

Ryan Smith (CEO)

I do not think a whole lot has changed in terms of a few parts of that question. I mean, the end user base is the same. You have all types of different industries. I would say the largest and the biggest growth forecast industry is semiconductors and chips. That is the one that is exponentially going forward. The more we move those over here as well, in a way, the helium markets are kind of a long-dated link to semiconductors. On pricing, it has remained steady. It has come down a little bit from the super peak of a couple of years ago. I think what we are seeing right now in the market for gaseous helium is around, I think, on the low end, $400 per MCF in terms of offtake agreements that are currently out in the market.

I think liquefied helium, as it is a more specified use in the medical world, in the chip world, goes for a much higher price, sometimes two to three X that. We model, of course, that lower gaseous number. On the length of offtake, it ranges. The most typical that I see now is kind of a two- to five-year number. Some people would be willing to go to a 10-year type of number, which I do not think we are interested in, just because if you look back at helium prices, the one thing that screams off the graph is that there are huge spikes in price. It seems like every 18 months or less. As we start looking at these agreements, I think that baseline number per MCF is the number that we model to now. I think there is upside to that number.

On an expected offtake, I would like to keep them shorter rather than longer for optionality and the fact that these industries are not going to stop using this. It's only going to keep growing. Again, I think right now we see about $400 per MCF and two to five year offtake agreements that are ample out there in the market.

Tom Kerr (Senior Research Analyst)

Great. Thanks for the update. I'll get back in the queue.

Operator (participant)

We have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. I would now turn the floor back over to management for closing remarks.

Ryan Smith (CEO)

Yes. Thank you all for joining us this morning. We're excited about what we're working on. We've extremely de-risked our project year to date. Our existing development program that we started a few weeks ago and are continuing today through early June is going in the expected direction that we plan for, that we hope for, really setting the stage for us to launch and grow this initiative and reach scale within the next 12 months from where we are now. We are very excited about what we're working on and look forward to giving more updates as we continue to progress forward.

Operator (participant)

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day.