Good day, and welcome to the Core Lab Q2 2020 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. I would like to turn the conference over to Larry Bruno. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Hayley. Good morning in North America, good afternoon in Europe, and good evening in Asia Pacific. We'd like to welcome all of our shareholders, analysts, and most importantly, our employees to Core Laboratories' Second Quarter 2020 Earnings Call. This morning, I'm joined by Chris Hill, Core's Chief Financial Officer; and Gwen Schreffler, Core's Senior Vice President and Head of Investor Relations. The call will be divided into 5 segments. Gwen will start by making remarks regarding forward-looking statements. We'll then have some opening comments and review Core's strategies and the 3 financial tenets that the company employs to build long-term shareholder value. Chris will then follow with a detailed financial overview and additional comments regarding shareholder value. I'll then go over Core's 2 operating segments, detailing our progress and discussing the continued successful introduction and deployment of Core Lab's technologies as well as highlighting some of Core's operations and major projects worldwide. Then we'll open the phones for a Q&A session. I'll turn the call over to Gwen for remarks on forward-looking statements.

Before we start the conference this morning, I'll mention that some of the statements that we make during this call may include projections, estimates, and other forward-looking information. This would include any discussion of the company's business outlook. These types of forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties relating to the oil and gas industry, business conditions, international markets, international political climate, and other factors, including those discussed in our '34 Act filings that may affect our outcome. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize or should any of our assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary in material respects from those projected in the forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. For a more detailed discussion of some of the foregoing risks and uncertainties, see Item 1a Risk Factors in our most recent annual report on Form 10-K as well as other reports and registration statements filed by us with the SEC and the AFM. Our comments include non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures is included in the press release announcing our second-quarter results. Those non-GAAP measures can also be found on our website. With that said, I'll pass the discussion back to Larry.

Thanks, Gwen. First, I'd like to say that our thoughts are with all of those that have been directly affected by COVID-19, particularly among our employees, our industry colleagues, and their families, as well as the medical professionals and others serving on the front lines. While there are clear headwinds across the entire oil and gas industry due to a combination of reduced oil demand and oilfield operational disruptions tied to COVID-19, Core Lab's dedicated staff continues to safely and efficiently provide all the vital services and products required to meet the needs of our global client base. Now to review Core Lab's strategies and the financial tenets that Core has used to build shareholder value over our 25-plus year history as a publicly traded company. The interest of our shareholders, clients, and employees will always be served by Core Lab's resilient culture that relies on innovation, leveraging technology to solve problems and dedicated customer service. While we navigate the current challenges, Core will remain focused on its three long-standing, long-term financial tenets, those being to maximize free cash flow, maximize return on invested capital, and return excess free cash to our shareholders. Core generated almost $24 million in free cash in the second quarter of 2020, marking the 75th consecutive quarter of generating positive free cash. Core's asset-light business model continues to focus on maximizing returns on invested capital. Excluding one-time adjustments for asset impairments, Bloomberg's calculation of Core's ROIC was 8.5%, among the best in the industry. As described in recent communications, Core will continue to use free cash to reduce debt and further strengthen its balance sheet. In the second quarter, Core reduced net debt by approximately $23 million. The company very quickly undertook major steps to align its cost structure with client activity levels. Compared to 2019, structural costs have been reduced by $61 million on an annualized basis, and most of these reductions have already been implemented. All of the announced cost control measures will be completed by the end of the third quarter. While this is a challenging task in this uniquely volatile market, Core's management team remains sharply focused on rightsizing its cost structure while still maintaining workplace safety for our employees. Moreover, we will meet all of our client project needs and, very importantly, remain positioned for the recovery in client activity. Central to our long-term growth strategy is the continued introduction of new technologies. Core Lab's internal pipeline for new technological offerings remains very strong, and the unique collaborative relationship that Core maintains with its technologically sophisticated client base has always allowed Core Lab's scientists to provide innovative solutions to address industry needs. Before we move on, I want to thank Core Lab's management team for their decisive actions to address unprecedented challenges in the industry. Those of us that have been around the oil field for several decades certainly understand there could be no predetermined playbook to prepare for the events of the past 4.5 months. I also want to thank all of our employees for their dedication and adaptability in meeting all of our client needs and for the personal sacrifices many have endured as we both navigate the moment and stay prepared for a more active market. I'll now turn it over to Chris for a detailed financial review.

Thanks, Larry. And as Larry stated, throughout the second quarter, the company continued to align our cost structure with current activity levels in the industry while remaining focused on the company's liquidity position and reducing our debt. I will first briefly summarize the modified financial covenants associated with our credit facility that was executed through an amendment on June 22. Then, the company's current liquidity position, and then provide the overview of our operational performance for the second quarter, material items in the balance sheet, and cash flow. As previously announced on June 23, we executed an amendment to the company's revolving credit facility. The credit facility, which limits the company's leverage ratio, was amended and increased the maximum leverage ratio permitted from 2.5x up to 3x leverage through June 30, 2021. The maximum leverage ratio is then stepped back down to 2.5x at the end of 2021. During the second quarter, the company reduced net debt by $23 million and ended the quarter with a leverage ratio of 2.21 as calculated under the agreement. If current market conditions and industry activities do not significantly deteriorate, we believe the amended facility and financial covenants provide sufficient latitude for the company to navigate these current challenges. The size of the credit facility was also adjusted, from $300 million to $225 million, under which we had borrowed $138 million at June 30, and the ability to draw $73 million, if needed. However, we continue to project Core Lab will remain profitable and generate free cash, which will continue to be focused on reducing debt for the foreseeable future. We also continue to evaluate Core Lab's long-term debt structure. I would like to reiterate the comments that Larry shared earlier, and that we're very pleased with how the organization has responded in their efforts to execute and implement the cost reduction initiatives. These efforts and actions continue to demonstrate Core's ability to adapt to the ever-changing and challenging conditions faced by the energy industry. The factors described above with the cost reduction initiatives implemented by the organization and the company's ability to remain profitable and continue generating positive free cash flow are all positive indicators that Core Lab will continue to be in a much stronger financial position than many other companies within the energy sector. Before we review the financial performance for the quarter, the guidance we gave on our last call and past calls specifically excluded the impact of any FX gains or losses and assumed an effective tax rate of 20%. So accordingly, our discussion today excludes any foreign exchange gains or losses for current and prior periods. Additionally, the financial results for the second quarter of 2020 include charges of $13.3 million, primarily associated with the write-down of inventory and additional severance as we expanded our cost reduction plans during the quarter. These items have been excluded from the financial results to provide a clear understanding of the performance from the underlying operations. Now looking at the income statement. Revenue from continuing operations was $115.7 million in the second quarter, down about 24% from $152.4 million in the prior quarter. The decreased activity and disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a sharper decline of 44% in North America as compared to a 10% decrease in the international revenue, which was more resilient. Of this revenue, service revenue, which is more international, was $91 million for the quarter, down from $110 million last quarter, or about 17% sequentially. Service revenue was most notably impacted by the significant decrease in drilling and completion of U.S. onshore wells. Our network of laboratories across the globe have remained operational throughout the second quarter as we advance existing projects for our clients. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for operators and service companies to navigate the travel restrictions and develop and implement appropriate protocols and procedures at the well sites. This has resulted in delays for advancing existing projects and starting new projects during the second quarter, which is also expected to have some impact in future periods. Now moving on to product sales, which are tied more to North American activity, were $24.7 million for the quarter, a decrease of 42% from $42.4 million last quarter. Product sales associated with the U.S. onshore market were down in line with the decrease of over 60% in well completion activity. Our product sales to international markets were more resilient and are not as dependent on drilling and completion of new wells. We continue to experience delays in the delivery of products and instrumentation caused by disruptions with air freight carriers and travel restrictions associated with the COVID pandemic. Moving on to the cost of services for the quarter, they were 74% of services revenue, which is consistent with the prior quarter, as the decline in service revenue was mitigated by cost reduction initiatives implemented during the quarter. Cost of sales in the second quarter was 96% of revenue, which is up from 81% last quarter due to the sharp decrease in product sales to the U.S. onshore market. Cost reductions implemented throughout the second quarter will become more fully realized in future periods. And with reduced costs, we would expect an improvement in our cost of sales. G&A ex items for the quarter was $9.2 million, a 30% decrease from the $13.1 million last quarter. The decrease in G&A cost for the quarter is primarily a result of the expanded cost reduction initiatives. Depreciation and amortization for the quarter was $5.4 million, which is comparable to the last several quarters. In 2020, we would expect depreciation expense to be slightly lower when compared to prior year levels, and our capital expenditures are projected to be down approximately 50% from last year. EBIT ex items for the quarter was $10.7 million, and given the current circumstances, continues to represent best-in-class EBIT margins of over 9%. Our operating loss for the quarter on a GAAP basis was $2.6 million, which includes a non-cash charge of $9.9 million associated with the write-down of inventory and $3.4 million of additional severance and other charges as we expanded the company's cost reduction initiatives. Income tax expense ex items and using an effective tax rate of 20% for the quarter was $1.5 million. On a GAAP basis, the company recorded an income tax benefit of $300,000. For the remainder of 2020, the effective tax rate will continue to be somewhat sensitive to the geographic mix of earnings across the globe and the impact of items discrete to the quarter. Income from continuing operations ex items for the quarter was $6.1 million, down 55% sequentially from $13.7 million last quarter. GAAP operating loss from continuing operations was $5.7 million for the second quarter of 2020. Earnings per diluted share from continuing operations ex items was $0.14 for the quarter, and the GAAP loss per diluted share from continuing operations for the second quarter was $0.13. Now we'll move on to the balance sheet. Receivables was $101.5 million and decreased approximately $25 million from the prior quarter. Our DSOs are up slightly from last quarter at 74 days for the second quarter. We will continue to monitor our collections closely as we currently do not expect any significant changes in payment practices from our client base. Inventory was $41.5 million, down approximately $10.7 million from last quarter, which includes the $9.9 million write-down, primarily associated with excess inventory. The company's inventory is primarily dedicated to serving the U.S. onshore market, and excluding the inventory write-down, our team did a nice job working the inventory levels down slightly during the quarter despite the sharp and significant decrease in U.S. onshore activity. On to the liability side of the balance sheet, our long-term debt at quarter-end was $288 million, and considering cash of $21 million, net debt was reduced to $267 million, or a decrease of $23 million. Our debt is comprised of our senior notes at $150 million as well as $138 million outstanding under our bank revolving credit facility. As stated earlier, management's focus for the foreseeable future is to direct excess free cash flow towards reducing debt. Looking at cash flow. In the second quarter, cash flow from operating activities was $27 million, and after paying for $3.1 million in CapEx, our free cash flow for Q2 was $23.9 million. For 2020, the company anticipates that its CapEx will be down approximately 50% as compared to 2019. As we project cash flow for future periods, we would expect less contribution from working capital, however, also reduced cash payouts for severance and lower operating costs as the implemented cost reduction initiatives will be more fully realized. This also marks the 75th consecutive quarter Core Lab has generated positive free cash flow, and we are projecting to continue generating positive free cash flow as we manage the organization through these challenging markets ahead. We believe evaluating a company's ability to generate free cash flow is an important metric for shareholders when comparing a company's financial results, particularly for those shareholders who utilize discounted cash flow models to assess valuations. I will now turn it over to Gwen for an update on our guidance and outlook.

Thank you, Chris. Core believes the actions taken by E&P companies during the first half of 2020 in response to the decrease in crude oil prices confirm lower overall activity in 2020 versus 2019, particularly for U.S. land. As the third quarter unfolds, crude oil production quotas and targets previously announced by the OPEC+ members continue to provide balance to the crude oil market, which should support crude oil prices at current levels for the near to midterm. As economies emerge from the COVID-19-related restrictions beginning late in the second quarter, increasing mobility and business activity has led to improvements in global crude oil consumption, which have also helped bring more balance to the market. However, demand will likely not be enough to materially alter E&P spending plans in the near term. Although crude oil prices improved from the lows seen in April, E&P companies further reduced their 2020 capital expenditure plans, especially in the U.S. as we have seen a steep decline in the frac spread index and completion activity has declined over 60%. As the third quarter of 2020 began, U.S. land improved slightly from the lows experienced during the middle of the second quarter and have shown some stability over the last several weeks. In addition, while we remain cautiously optimistic, unpredictable travel restrictions and workflow disruptions associated with COVID-19 may continue to delay international project activity. Core continues to project international activity will be down approximately 10% to 15% year-over-year. The company expects delays in project work and international shipment of projects to improve somewhat during the second half of 2020 from the lows experienced mid-second quarter. For Reservoir Description, we expect reservoir fluids analysis, which accounts for more than 65% of the segment's revenue, to be more resilient given the work is not solely tied to drilling and completion of new wells. Production Enhancement has a wide range of innovative product offerings with ongoing projects unrelated to drilling and completion, including a large international plug and abandonment and well remediation program. Production Enhancement should track or outperform future improvements in U.S. land completion. As described earlier by Chris, Core has implemented substantial structural cost reduction plans, which will benefit the financial performance of both segments. So when projecting the future financial performance of Core Lab, it is important to consider the following: the cost reductions will benefit Reservoir Description's future financial results by over $9.3 million per quarter or $27.9 million for the remainder of 2020. And for Production Enhancement, cost reductions will benefit future financial results by over $5.9 million per quarter and over $17.9 million for the remainder of 2020. Now I will pass the discussion over to Larry.

Thanks, Gwen. First, I'd like to thank our global team of employees for providing innovative solutions, integrity, and superior service to our clients. The team's collective dedication to servicing our clients is the foundation of Core Lab's success and is really shining through in the current challenges. Turning first to Reservoir Description. In the second quarter of 2020, Core Lab was engaged by a U.S.-based shale operator to conduct a large integrated project to evaluate a stacked play opportunity focused on heavy oil production in the Mid-Continent region of the U.S. Over 1,100 feet of conventional core was recovered from the vertical well and transported to the laboratory where the rocks were immediately scanned using several of Core's non-invasive technologies for reservoir optimization, branded as NITRO. This package of technologies included dual-energy CT scanning, high-frequency spectral gamma logging, and continuous scanning x-ray fluorescence. The combination of these technologies quickly provided the client with high-resolution, 3-dimensional images of the core, detailed millimeter-scale lithologic and mineralogic determinations as well as a wide variety of model petrophysical and geomechanical properties. These fast turnaround NITRO deliverables also serve as a basis for expedited sample selection for traditional laboratory testing methods. The datasets generated with the NITRO technologies, along with other lab measurements, were then used in combination with machine learning-based multidimensional cluster analysis to classify and rank stratigraphic intervals in terms of both reservoir quality and geomechanical properties. The result will be used to identify optimum target zones for frac stimulation. The ongoing laboratory analysis, along with analog reservoir data from Core's proprietary RAPID database and Core's experience in stacked plays will be used to provide the client with recommendations on landing zones and completion strategy. Moving now to Production Enhancement, where Core Lab's uniquely combined strengths in both energetic systems and completion diagnostics were on display. During the second quarter, an offshore Gulf of Mexico operator had a large well completion plan. This completion plan was to perforate multiple stages with a large-diameter, high-shot density pattern with perforating charges provided by a third party. Each zone would then undergo a frac-pack. The operator then planned to evaluate the completion with Core Lab SpectraStim, SpectraScan, and PackScan completion diagnostic services. On the initial stage, the operator experienced problems pumping into the zone after using the third-party's perforating services, charges, and equipment. A remedial program was attempted, spotting acid into the perforations. However, this was unsuccessful, and communication with the formation was still not achieved. The operator then decided to pull the sand control screen and attempt to surge the well to clean up the perfs to establish communication. Core Lab's wellsite engineers, already on-site to perform the completion diagnostic services, rallied experts from across Core's production enhancement team. Problems with the initial perforating program were identified, and Core Lab's energetic solutions were offered. Within hours, a Core Lab proposal was presented to meet the new completion design, penetrating past near wellbore damage by using Core's ultra-high shot density perforating system along with Core's proprietary super good hole HERO charges. Core began manufacturing the solution immediately after approval was given and had the products ready to be delivered in less than 24 hours, thus minimizing costly offshore rig time. After shooting the Core Lab perforating system, the well immediately began taking completion fluid, confirming communication with the formation and achieving injectivity for the subsequent frac-pack operation. The completion was then evaluated using SpectraStim, SpectraScan, and PackScan diagnostic services, which indicated a successful completion had been achieved. This stage of the well was perforated and frac-packed before any of the other service providers could have mobilized their perforating solutions, thus leading to a $1 million savings in rig time alone. Due to the success of Core's perforating solution on Stage 1, the operator changed the completion design for Stage 2 and specified Core's large-diameter, super high-density, super good hole system. Stage 2 was successfully perforated and completed according to plan without any additional equipment, time, or cost. Core's team of experts, technology, and responsiveness to an operator's problem helped reduce delays and unplanned costs for the completion, ultimately improving the client's return on investment. That concludes our operational review. We appreciate your participation, and Hayley will now open the call for questions.

And the first question comes from Scott Gruber of Citigroup.

Really impressive margin performance...

Scott, we're having a problem. You're breaking up. All we heard was your comment about margins.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Now we can.

Okay. Quickly, RD margins in the second half, how do they progress from here? And then if you get back to the $100 million run rate in revenue, what kind of RD margin do you think is achievable?

Yes. So I think we've got to be a little bit cognizant of the volatility that we've seen in operational activity. We've had a number of cases, and we're still going through this right now, Scott, of what I would call go-standby-go situations of launching two well sites. So I think that it's very difficult to look at performance on a sequential quarter basis necessarily. I think things will kind of balance out over the back half of this year. I think the margins that you see today are very admirable. Great job by the team. There could be a little bit of bobble in there. But I do think the big picture is that, with the cost structure we have now, and the incremental margin opportunities that Reservoir Descriptions always had, 60% plus incremental margins on future revenue are not a stretch by any measure.

I think the margins that you see today are very admirable. Great job by the team. There could be a little bit of bobble in there. But I do think the big picture is that, with the cost structure we have now, and the incremental margin opportunities that Reservoir Descriptions always had, 60% plus incremental margins on future revenue are not a stretch by any measure.

Sorry, Scott, you're breaking up again there. If you maybe want to dial back in, we'll try to get back to you.

The next question is from Sean Meakim of JPMorgan.

I'm considering the international expectations you've mentioned. The overall spending decrease of 10% to 15% aligns well with the industry perspective. There are a few aspects to clarify. Could you indicate how much of that decline is due to budget cuts versus disruptions caused by COVID? It would be beneficial to understand how those factors are separated. Additionally, depending on the fluctuations of those factors, how do you anticipate Core's RD business will perform in relation to that? You hinted at potential improvements in the latter half of the year, and I'm interested in how these elements interact as we progress through the year.

Yes, Sean, you're exactly right. There are two factors that need to be addressed. One is the reduction in capital spending and related activity changes. The other factor is the short-term disruptions, hopefully temporary, from COVID-19. As we mentioned, Reservoir Description typically lags market changes. The transition from the first to the second quarter was largely influenced by COVID-19. This also means that new work entering the lab has temporarily slowed down. However, we anticipate that it will pick up as operations begin to recover, and we are noticing some positive signs in that regard. We believe that the long-term reduction in spending related to capital budget adjustments will become evident over time in Reservoir Description, which is our most internationally focused segment. Therefore, in the short term, the effects are mostly related to COVID-19, while in the longer term, the changes in budgets and spending plans will play a role. Consequently, we expect some fluctuations. This uncertainty is one reason we were hesitant to provide guidance. We remain cautiously optimistic about the longer term when we look ahead over the next two to three quarters. Most of the discussions we've had with our clients have focused on delays rather than cancellations. We will need to see how this develops, but we believe it bodes well for us in the long term. With Reservoir Description's extensive reach and potential for additional margin, we believe that once businesses resume normal operations, we will be able to convert that into cash effectively.

Right. Okay. Fair enough. Thinking about Production Enhancement, I'd be curious to get a little bit more detail on how you all would perceive the relative outperformance versus what we saw in terms of rig or certainly, completions activity. And then looking forward, how much of an activity improvement is required to get that business back to break-even margins? And how much of it is within your control?

Yes. What you see is that our Production Enhancement has traditionally been one-third international and two-thirds U.S.-based, but that balance is currently shifting more towards international. The resilience in this area is linked to our ongoing international projects, including Plugging and Abandonment (P&A) and completions. Our primary focus is to reach EBITDA breakeven as our short-term goal, and with some favorable conditions, we might become EBIT positive soon. If you examine the trends in frac spread, there is still some uncertainty about the accuracy of completion and frac spread figures, particularly in a volatile market. It seems that the industry hit a low around May, with some recovery observed in June, which appears to be continuing into the early part of the third quarter. Unfortunately, it's hard to predict whether we will see continued growth or if things will remain stable from this point.

But yes, just on that. The only thing I would add is that if we do get a little top line growth in production enhancement, we could get to breakeven EBIT.

That's right.

The next question is from Marc Bianchi of Cowen.

On the revenue progression, I understand there are many uncertainties, but I'd like to clarify a few points. The COVID impact was felt in the second quarter, which likely began affecting operations well into April, leaving a significant portion of that quarter unaffected. As we move into the third quarter, regarding the COVID impact specifically, is the main assumption that, on average, there will be a larger impact in the third quarter compared to the second quarter, given that one month in the second quarter was less affected? Additionally, as we consider Production Enhancement, you mentioned starting to recover in May. Do you expect that a substantial acceleration will be necessary in the third quarter to maintain flat performance?

First, I might question some of the assumptions about when we began to notice activity impairment. It actually became evident before the end of the first quarter. We had personnel and equipment ready to deploy to rig sites in March, but those plans were disrupted. This had a significant impact on our work inflow and revenue opportunities during the second quarter and towards the end of the first quarter. Moving forward, everyone is trying to understand the next steps. As I mentioned earlier, we are navigating a go-standby-go or go-hold-go process with several international projects. Clients would ask us to prepare our teams, and we would get our equipment ready, but then they would inform us of issues such as transportation delays or rig protocol concerns related to COVID-19. These disruptions affect our short-term work forecasts. The resolution of these operational disruptions will dictate how we progress, and while we don’t have a clear outlook yet, we are beginning to see some positive signs.

It's not necessarily worse in the third quarter than it was in the second quarter; it’s just continuing.

Well, that's right. But here's what you need to dial into that, I think, and that's this concept that Reservoir Description, in particular, tends to lag inflections in the market. So the slowdown in our ability to get to rigs and well sites in Q2 will carry through into the work that we can perform in Q3.

Got it. Okay.

Now on the Production Enhancement side, I don't think it will take much to see an improvement quarter-over-quarter. Sequential performance in that group, we think, is that we feel very, very constructive about that at this time without a big inflection in activity.

Yes. Okay, great. And then the other one I had just was on the cost savings, and thanks for putting all the numbers out there. If I just try to think about the incremental benefit as we roll from the second quarter to the third quarter and then from the third quarter to the fourth quarter in terms of how much these cost savings will benefit your profitability. Removing all the other things that are happening in the market and just talking about the incremental cost savings, can you provide a number there? So maybe it's $2 million or something like that of benefit as we go from 2 to 3 and another $2 million incremental in 3 to 4? Something like that would be very helpful.

Yes, this is Chris. I think what I'd offer up there is that if you look at the two segments, the cost reductions were probably implemented earlier for Reservoir Description in the second quarter. So not as much of a change going forward. But for Production Enhancement, I would say those were rolled out more throughout the quarter, and some of those really didn't get implemented until June or even late June. So I think you'll see more of a benefit in Production Enhancement and not as much in Reservoir Description.

The next question is from Kurt Hallead of RBC.

To follow up on Marc's question, based on what you've said, it seems that Production Enhancement won't be able to reach an EBITDA EBIT breakeven level, even with cost reductions, unless there is some form of activity recovery or sustained activity. Is that correct?

Well, I think what we're trying to communicate is that we did see a pickup from where it bottomed out, right? And if that holds for the rest of the quarter or a slight pickup, then we would say we're optimistic about hitting a breakeven EBIT. And if there's any falter in that, if it goes back down again, then it will be difficult.

Okay, that's very helpful. In the context of Reservoir Description, you mentioned that the cost savings started early in the second quarter, so there wasn't much benefit in the third quarter. Even though it's $9 million a quarter, that's not really an additional $9 million from this point. I'm trying to understand the dynamic here.

Yes, Kurt, that's correct. We nearly fully benefited from the cost reductions in Reservoir Description during the second quarter, as they were implemented quickly. However, the cost reductions needed to be more extensive in Production Enhancement, which took longer to fully implement throughout the quarter. Therefore, we expect to see more benefits in the third quarter compared to the second quarter for Production Enhancement, but not as much for Reservoir Description.

And one other...

And maybe yes. Yes, Larry?

To add to that, Kurt, we started off with cost reductions to respond promptly. We launched Phase 1, and all Phase 1 reductions and cost savings were finalized by the end of Q2. In Q2, we recognized the need for additional cost reductions, which we announced on June 23 during our press release. These have mostly been implemented and will be finalized by the end of the third quarter. Therefore, everything we've discussed regarding Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be completed by the end of Q3.

The next question is from George O'Leary of TPH & Company.

Just holding on to a few of the prior questions to make sure we're thinking about this correctly. With respect to the Production Enhancement segment, could you maybe frame how much better April was from a revenue standpoint versus May or June? That just may help us kind of calibrate how realistic it is that Q3 revenue could grow sequentially. I think the assumption is April is a better month than May and June in that Production Enhancement business in particular, given just the shape of completions throughout the quarter. But if that wasn't the case and April was just as bad, then I could understand how that will give you a lower bogey to clear, and you could see sequential revenue growth.

Yes, this is Chris. So no, April was definitely stronger than May, right? So we were coming down, things were winding down and it kind of bottomed in May, and then a slight improvement in sort of June. But you got to remember, we were pretty close to the bottom there. So if that holds, let's say that rate holds for the rest of the quarter, quarter-over-quarter would be down slightly, right? So I think there is some expectation there's going to be a slight improvement from where we're at by the time we get through the end of the quarter. And if that happens, it will be close for U.S. onshore, we're talking about U.S. onshore activities, it could reach similar levels that we saw in Q2. But it was definitely falling, bottomed out in May, came back a little bit. And it's holding right now. If it comes back up a little bit, then we should be close to sort of level.

And I'd add to that, let's not forget that we do have international exposure there, and that can be a stabilizing influence when you look at it and compare it to U.S. activity. But it can also be a complicating influence when we deal with travel disruptions and all that we're still encountering. So there's some uncertainty there on our ability week-to-week to get off the beach and onto the rig, so to speak, with some of the Production Enhancement projects internationally.

The next question is from Ian MacPherson of Simmons.

Larry, with the structural redefinition of the U.S. market, it's going to be harder for Production Enhancement to even cyclically regain the contribution that it's enjoyed during the last cycle. And I wonder if you're considering anything with respect to adding on to the product's specific portfolio to make it more robust, essentially acquiring more earnings that are symbiotic with that in order to round out that Production Enhancement offering? Or if Core Lab is best served really just focusing on operational streamlining and getting the best out of the margins based on what the business has under the tent today?

Yes, certainly, Ian, it's not a mystery to anybody. That's a challenging environment. I will say that the add-ons that we are focused on are our technology developments that we've had underway for a while, some of which we think are getting pretty close to getting to market, and things that no one else in the space is able to bring together. And so remember, our business in Production Enhancement is a combination of the diagnostic services and the perforating energetics. And so we've got some opportunities there. Like the story that I played out in our review today where we bring those two technologies into play for clients, and we've got some different ways of approaching that, that we think that organic growth is still possible there. The second part of that is we had started even before, call it, the faithful day in March, we had started a very strong drive to expand our service offerings internationally on the Production Enhancement side. So we're going to continue to lean on that long-term strategy. I think that's a real growth opportunity for us there. And I do think for, in the bigger scheme of things, our energetic performance is going to be the main driver for our products' performance in terms of market penetration, and we've got some twists on that, that stay tuned for.

Thanks, Larry. I appreciate that. Look forward to seeing what comes down the pipe next. Can I just ask a quick follow-up? Chris, with respect to the vestigial Phase 1 cost-outs and Phase 2, which was largely put in late in Q2. Can you quantify any restructuring or write-downs that we should be thinking about for Q3 at this point?

Yes. I think we feel like the plans that we've put in place get us where we need to be, unless things change from where they're at today. So I think we've done everything we think we need to do to rightsize the organization for the sort of the levels we're seeing today and some expected uptick here, let's say, later in this year into next year as COVID, this COVID pandemic sort of dissipates a little bit.

The next question is from Connor Lynagh of Morgan Stanley.

I'm wondering, your comments around the return to normal incremental margins in Reservoir Description suggest that there's been some pretty significant structural changes if a lot of these costs don't come back. So I was wondering if you could just elaborate on what's really changed within the organization that the fixed cost level now is sustainable for the future? And is there a way we can think about what revenue level would require you to add back some of those costs or anything along those lines for thinking about the longer-term here?

Yes. First, it's important to remember that if you review the performance of Reservoir Description over time, the potential for incremental margins has been consistently high. For instance, last year's second-quarter incremental margins were around 138%. However, I want to caution against expecting those levels to continue. In the third quarter that followed, margins were still above 60% or 65%. There's a significant opportunity for incremental margins. Unfortunately, many of the cost reductions have come from cutting personnel, which is our primary expense. When considering cost reductions, this often means reducing our workforce. One way we aim to manage this is by controlling the pipeline of the technology we create ourselves in our instruments division. We not only utilize this technology internally but also sell it to labs of national oil companies and international oil corporations. We have a strong technology pipeline that enables us to manufacture the tools we need for our testing processes. If you've been following our progress, you would know we've been focusing on increasing lab automation for several years, long before the current challenges in the industry arose. We identified this as a strategic direction essential for improving margins. We will continue to implement lab automation to enhance productivity without increasing our workforce. This will be a key factor in our operational strategy.

Great. That's helpful color. Just given the focus on some of the products, businesses in your portfolio over the past few quarters here. I was wondering if you could just clarify the inventory write-down. Is that related to any significant new technologies? Is that largely legacy technologies? What's sort of the driver there?

Yes, this is Chris. So it's a little bit of both, but I would say it's mostly some of the legacy stuff where it just looks like we have excess. And then, a portion of that is also, not to get too detailed, but when you're building equipment like that, you use a costing methodology. And with the slowdown right now, so that caused also a revaluation on how we standardize the cost.

Okay. Understood. So no major specific product that was affected or anything like that?

No. That was across the board, just a review, given the sharp decline in kind of sort of outlook based on where we're at today with the activity levels in the U.S. market is really the primary sort of market for those products.

And Connor, I'd add to that sort of a broader statement. There have been no technology initiatives that we have derailed in Core Lab. It's the foundation of where we go as a company, and we're sticking to that.

The next question is from Blake Gendron of Wolfe Research.

I'm going to take another stab at Reservoir Description. I know you break out roughly 60% fluids, 40% rock fluids are accretive on the margin there. I don't know if you've broken it out before, but if you could just remind us roughly how much is tethered to just global oil volumes, so oil demand? And then within that, if we have our own forecast as to how oil demand recovers from here, how does that portion of Reservoir Description track, I guess, global oil demand? And then for the drilling and completion portion of the business, Larry, in the no-go situation, you stay on the beach completely. Are these activity levels that are materially lower than the Q2 level? Or is it roughly flat?

Yes, let's discuss Reservoir Description. During the last Phase 1 of the downturn in recent years, global oil usage was about 100 million barrels per day, and the revenue for Reservoir Description was around $100 million. These figures are somewhat related, but we can't directly link barrel usage to revenue within Core Lab. Generally, increased oil production is beneficial for our business. There isn't a specific level of oil consumption that we would associate with a certain revenue expectation in Reservoir Description, but they tend to move in the same direction. We need to consider that there might be some short-term fluctuations in the second quarter and possibly into the third quarter. Hopefully, we are past the operational disruptions, allowing projects to ramp up again, and Reservoir Description will naturally follow that trend. We need the rigs to resume operations to create opportunities for us. I don't see right now a shift, moving on to the beach statement; I don't see commentary from clients yet that there's a big change in direction on the projects that they said they're ready to go forward on. It seems to be largely tied to transitory operational disruptions. And so we haven't yet had a case where we were put on call to go that eventually turned into a cancellation. We have had a few projects canceled here and there. But as I said earlier, the preponderance of those are of the conversations from clients have been about delays and not cancellations. And underlying that is a very important concept, and that is that physical measurement of the reservoir properties is something that always has to be done to validate reserves and true-up your economic picture. And so as long as there are people that are developing reservoirs, there's going to be strong demand for what Core Lab provides. It's a vital service. I think we're nearing the end of our call. Hayley, if you're ready, we'll proceed to our wrap-up. In summary, Core's operations are well-positioned for the expected activity levels in the second half of 2020 and for future opportunities. We are at our best in terms of operations and technology to assist our clients in maintaining and expanding their production base. Our focus remains on being the most advanced, client-centered reservoir optimization company in the oilfield service sector. The company is dedicated to achieving industry-leading free cash conversion and returns on invested capital. We will create value for our shareholders through growth opportunities, dividends, and future share repurchases as free cash flow increases. In the short term, Core will utilize free cash to further reduce debt. In closing, we want to thank and appreciate all our shareholders and the analysts who follow Core. The executive management team and the Board of Core Laboratories extend a special thanks to our worldwide employees who have made these results possible. We are proud of their ongoing achievements. Thank you for joining us, and we look forward to our next update. Goodbye for now.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.