United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, USL held 680 futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil traded on the NYMEX and did not hold any Oil Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, USL did not exceed the accountability levels imposed by the NYMEX or ICE Futures, however, the aggregated total of certain of the Related Public Funds did exceed the accountability levels. No action was taken by NYMEX and USL did not reduce the number of Oil Futures Contracts held as a result.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, USL held 665 futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil traded on the NYMEX and did not hold any Oil Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, USL did not exceed the accountability levels imposed by the NYMEX or ICE Futures, however, the aggregated total of certain of the Related Public Funds did exceed the accountability levels. No action was taken by NYMEX and USL did not reduce the number of Oil Futures Contracts held as a result.

Previous wording

Position limits differ from accountability levels in that they represent fixed limits on the maximum number of futures contracts that any person may hold and cannot allow such limits to be exceeded without express CFTC authority to do so. In addition to accountability levels and position limits that may apply at any time, the NYMEX and ICE Futures impose position limits on contracts held in the last few days of trading in the near month contract to expire. It is unlikely that USL will run up against such position limits because USL’s investment strategy is to close out its positions and “roll” from the near month contract to expire and the eleven following months to the next month contract to expire and the eleven following months during a one day each month. The foregoing accountability levels and position limits are subject to change. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, USL did not exceed any position limits.

Current wording

Position limits differ from accountability levels in that they represent fixed limits on the maximum number of futures contracts that any person may hold and cannot allow such limits to be exceeded without express CFTC authority to do so. In addition to accountability levels and position limits that may apply at any time, the NYMEX and ICE Futures impose position limits on contracts held in the last few days of trading in the near month contract to expire. It is unlikely that USL will run up against such position limits because USL’s investment strategy is to close out its positions and “roll” from the near month contract to expire and the eleven following months to the next month contract to expire and the eleven following months during a one day each month. The foregoing accountability levels and position limits are subject to change. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, USL did not exceed any position limits.

Previous wording

Interest rate risk is the risk that fixed income securities and other investments in USL’s portfolio will fluctuate in value because of a change in interest rates. Interest rate changes can be sudden and unpredictable, and USL may lose money because of movements in interest rates. When interest rates rise, the value of fixed income securities typically falls. In a rising interest rate environment, USL may not be able to fully invest at prevailing rates until any current investments in Treasuries mature in order to avoid selling those investments at a loss. Interest rate risk is generally lower for shorter term investments and higher for longer term investments. In addition, in rising interest rate environments, it is possible that the Treasuries held by USL will decline in value. When interest rates fall, USL may be required to reinvest the proceeds from the sale, redemption or early prepayment of Treasuries or a money market security at a lower interest rate.

Current wording

Interest rate risk is the risk that fixed income securities and other investments in USL’s portfolio will fluctuate in value because of a change in interest rates. Interest rate changes can be sudden and unpredictable, and USL may lose money because of movements in interest rates. When interest rates rise, the value of fixed income securities typically falls. In a rising interest rate environment, USL may not be able to fully invest at prevailing rates until any current investments in Treasuries mature in order to avoid selling those investments at a loss. Interest rate risk is generally lower for shorter term investments and higher for longer term investments. In addition, in rising interest rate environments, it is possible that the Treasuries held by USL will decline in value. When interest rates fall, USL may be required to reinvest the proceeds from the sale, redemption or early prepayment of Treasuries or money market security at a lower interest rate.

Previous wording

Crude oil futures prices were volatile during the six months ended June 30, 2025. The average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts started the period at $69.70 per barrel. The high of the period was on January 15, 2025 when the average price reached $73.51 per barrel. The low for the period was on May 5, 2025, which was $56.56 per barrel. The period ended with the average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts at $62.07 per barrel, a decrease of approximately (10.95)% over the period. USL’s per share NAV began the period at $38.01 and ended the period at $35.19 on June 30, 2025, a decrease of approximately (7.42)% over the period. The average Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts prices listed above began with the February 2025 to January 2026 contracts and ended with the August 2025 to July 2026 contracts. The decrease of approximately (10.95)% on the average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts listed above is a hypothetical return only and would not actually be realized by an investor holding Oil Futures Contracts. An investment in Oil Futures Contracts would need to be rolled forward during the time period described in order to simulate such a result. Furthermore, the change in the nominal price of these differing Oil Futures Contracts, measured from the start of the year to the end of the year, does not represent the actual benchmark results that USL seeks to track, which are more fully described below in the section titled*“Tracking USL’s Benchmark.”*

Current wording

Crude oil futures prices were volatile during the nine months ended September 30, 2025. The average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts started the period at $69.70 per barrel. The high of the period was on January 15, 2025 when the average price reached $73.51 per barrel. The low for the period was on May 5, 2025, which was $56.56 per barrel. The period ended with the average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts at $61.41 per barrel, a decrease of approximately (11.89)% over the period. USL’s per share NAV began the period at $38.01 and ended the period at $35.50 on September 30, 2025, a decrease of approximately (6.60)% over the period. The average Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts prices listed above began with the February 2025 to January 2026 contracts and ended with the November 2025 to October 2026 contracts. The decrease of approximately (11.89)% on the average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts listed above is a hypothetical return only and would not actually be realized by an investor holding Oil Futures Contracts. An investment in Oil Futures Contracts would need to be rolled forward during the time period described in order to simulate such a result. Furthermore, the change in the nominal price of these differing Oil Futures Contracts, measured from the start of the year to the end of the year, does not represent the actual benchmark results that USL seeks to track, which are more fully described below in the section titled*“Tracking USL’s Benchmark.”*

Previous wording

During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the crude oil futures market experienced states of mild backwardation. On days when the market was in contango the price of the near month crude Oil Futures Contract is lower than the price of the next month crude Oil Futures Contract, or contracts further away from expiration. On days when the market is in backwardation, the price of the near month crude Oil Futures Contract is higher than the price of the next month crude Oil Futures Contract or contracts further away from expiration. For a discussion of the impact of backwardation and contango on total returns, see*“Term Structure of Crude Oil Prices and the Impact on Total Returns”* below.

Current wording

During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the crude oil futures market experienced states of mild backwardation. On days when the market was in contango the price of the near month crude Oil Futures Contract is lower than the price of the next month crude Oil Futures Contract, or contracts further away from expiration. On days when the market is in backwardation, the price of the near month crude Oil Futures Contract is higher than the price of the next month crude Oil Futures Contract or contracts further away from expiration. For a discussion of the impact of backwardation and contango on total returns, see*“Term Structure of Crude Oil Prices and the Impact on Total Returns”* below.

Previous wording

Results of Operations. As of June 30, 2025, USL had 1,200,000 shares outstanding. On April 28, 2023, the SEC declared effective a registration statement filed by USL that registered an unlimited number of shares. As a result, USL has an unlimited number of shares that can be issued in the form of Creation Baskets. More shares may have been issued by USL than are outstanding due to the redemption of shares.

Current wording

Results of Operations. As of September 30, 2025, USL had 1,150,000 shares outstanding. On April 28, 2023, the SEC declared effective a registration statement filed by USL that registered an unlimited number of shares. As a result, USL has an unlimited number of shares that can be issued in the form of Creation Baskets. More shares may have been issued by USL than are outstanding due to the redemption of shares.

Previous wording

Average interest rates earned on short-term investments held by USL, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were lower during the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2024. As a result, the amount of income earned by USL as a percentage of average daily total net assets was lower during the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2024. To the degree that the aggregate yield is lower, the net expense ratio, inclusive of income, will be higher.

Current wording

Average interest rates earned on short-term investments held by USL, including cash, cash equivalents and Treasuries, were lower during the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024. As a result, the amount of income earned by USL as a percentage of average daily total net assets was lower during the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024. To the degree that the aggregate yield is lower, the net expense ratio, inclusive of income, will be higher.

Previous wording

The decrease in total fees and other expenses excluding management fees for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2024, was due primarily to a decrease in professional fees and lower brokerage commissions.

Current wording

The decrease in total fees and other expenses excluding management fees for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024, was due primarily to a decrease in professional fees and lower brokerage commissions.

Previous wording

The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2024, was due primarily to a lower number of Oil Futures Contracts being held and traded.

Current wording

The decrease in total commissions accrued to brokers for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2024, was due primarily to a lower number of Oil Futures Contracts being held and traded.

Previous wording

For the 30-valuation days ended June 30, 2025, the average daily change in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts was 0.140%, while the average daily change in the per share NAV of USL over the same time period was 0.154%. The average daily difference was 0.014% (or 1.4% basis points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%), meaning that over this time period USL’s NAV performed within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking goal.

Current wording

For the 30-valuation days ended September 30, 2025, the average daily change in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts was (0.001)%, while the average daily change in the per share NAV of USL over the same time period was 0.011%. The average daily difference was 0.012% (or 1.2 basis points, where 1 basis point equals 1/100 of 1%), meaning that over this time period USL’s NAV performed within the plus or minus 10% range established as its benchmark tracking goal.

Previous wording

The following two charts demonstrate the correlation between the changes in USL’s NAV and the changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts. The first chart below shows the daily movement of USL’s per share NAV versus the daily movement of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts for the 30 valuation day period ended June 30, 2025, the last trading day in June. The second chart below shows the monthly total returns of USL as compared to the monthly value of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts for the five years ended June 30, 2025.

Current wording

The following two charts demonstrate the correlation between the changes in USL’s NAV and the changes in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts. The first chart below shows the daily movement of USL’s per share NAV versus the daily movement of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts for the 30 valuation day period ended September 30th, 2025, the last trading day in September. The second chart below shows the monthly total returns of USL as compared to the monthly value of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts for the five years ended September 30, 2025.

Previous wording

For the six months ended June 30, 2025, the actual total return of USL as measured by changes in its per share NAV was (7.42)%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $38.01 as of December 31, 2024 and an ending per share NAV as of June 30, 2025 of $35.19. During this time period, USL made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if USL’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts, USL would have had an estimated per share NAV of $34.65 as of June 30, 2025, for a total return over the relevant time period of (8.85)%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of USL of (7.42)% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts of (8.85)% was a difference over the time period of 1.43%, which is to say that USL’s actual total return outperformed its benchmark by that percentage. USL incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses, offset by interest and dividend income, and net of positive or negative execution, tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of USL to track slightly lower or higher than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts.

Current wording

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the actual total return of USL as measured by changes in its per share NAV was (6.60)%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $38.01 as of December 31, 2024 and an ending per share NAV as of September 30, 2025 of $35.50. During this time period, USL made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if USL’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts, USL would have had an estimated per share NAV of $34.68 as of September 30, 2025, for a total return over the relevant time period of (8.76)%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of USL of 2.16% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts of (8.76)% was a difference over the time period of 2.16%, which is to say that USL’s actual total return outperformed its benchmark by that percentage. USL incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses, offset by interest and dividend income, and net of positive or negative execution, tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of USL to track slightly lower or higher than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts.

Previous wording

By comparison, for the six months ended June 30, 2024, the actual total return of USL as measured by changes in its per share NAV was 15.07%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $35.23 as of December 31, 2023 and an ending per share NAV as of June 30, 2024 of $40.54. During this time period, USL made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if USL’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts, USL would have had an estimated per share NAV of $39.74 as of June 30, 2024, for a total return over the relevant time period of 12.80%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of USL of 15.07% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts of 12.80% was a difference over the time period of 2.27%, which is to say that USL’s actual total return outperformed its benchmark by that percentage. USL incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses, offset by interest and dividend income, and net of positive or negative execution, tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of USL to track slightly lower or higher than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts.

Current wording

By comparison, for the nine months ended September 30, 2024, the actual total return of USL as measured by changes in its per share NAV was 1.93%. This is based on an initial per share NAV of $35.23 as of December 31, 2023 and an ending per share NAV as of September 30, 2024 of $35.91. During this time period, USL made no distributions to its shareholders. However, if USL’s daily changes in its per share NAV had instead exactly tracked the changes in the daily total return of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts, USL would have had an estimated per share NAV of $34.87 as of September 30, 2024, for a total return over the relevant time period of (1.02)%. The difference between the actual per share NAV total return of USL of 1.93% and the expected total return based on the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts of (1.02)% was a difference over the time period of 2.95%, which is to say that USL’s actual total return outperformed its benchmark by that percentage. USL incurs expenses primarily composed of the management fee, brokerage commissions for the buying and selling of futures contracts, and other expenses. The impact of these expenses, offset by interest and dividend income, and net of positive or negative execution, tends to cause daily changes in the per share NAV of USL to track slightly lower or higher than daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts.

Previous wording

First, USL may buy or sell its holdings in the then current Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts at a price other than the closing settlement price of that contract on the day during which USL executes the trade. In that case, USL may pay a price that is higher, or lower, than the closing settlement price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts, which could cause the changes in the daily per share NAV of USL to either be high or low relative to the daily changes in the average of the prices of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, USCF attempted to minimize the effect of these transactions by seeking to execute its purchase or sale of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts at, or as close as possible to, the end of the day settlement price. However, it may not always be possible for USL to obtain the settlement price and there is no assurance that failure to obtain the closing settlement price in the future will not adversely impact USL’s attempt to track the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts.

Current wording

First, USL may buy or sell its holdings in the then current Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts at a price other than the closing settlement price of that contract on the day during which USL executes the trade. In that case, USL may pay a price that is higher, or lower, than the closing settlement price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts, which could cause the changes in the daily per share NAV of USL to either be high or low relative to the daily changes in the average of the prices of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, USCF attempted to minimize the effect of these transactions by seeking to execute its purchase or sale of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts at, or as close as possible to, the end of the day settlement price. However, it may not always be possible for USL to obtain the settlement price and there is no assurance that failure to obtain the closing settlement price in the future will not adversely impact USL’s attempt to track the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts.

Previous wording

Historically, the crude oil futures markets have experienced periods of contango and backwardation, with backwardation being in place somewhat less often than contango since oil futures trading started in 1983. Following the global financial crisis in the fourth quarter of 2008, the crude oil market moved into contango and remained primarily in contango until 2013. In late 2014, global crude oil inventories grew rapidly after OPEC voted to defend its market share against U.S. shale-oil producers, resulting in another multi-year period during which the crude oil market remained primarily in contango. In March 2020, contango dramatically increased and reached historic levels during the economic crisis arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, related supply chain disruptions and disputes among oil producing countries over the potential limits on the production of crude oil, and a corresponding collapse in demand for crude oil and a lack of on-land storage for crude oil. This level of contango was due to significant market volatility that occurred in crude oil markets as well as oil futures markets. Crude oil prices collapsed in the wake of the COVID-19 demand shock, which reduced global petroleum consumption, and the price war launched by Saudi Arabia at the beginning of March 2020 in response to Russia’s unwillingness to participate in extending previously agreed upon supply cuts. An estimated twenty million barrels a day of crude demand evaporated as a result of quarantines and massive drops in industrial and manufacturing activity. Eventually, the United States, OPEC, Russia, and other oil producers around the world agreed to a historic 9.7 million barrel per day cut to crude supply. The supply cut along with the partial reopening of economies during the third quarter of 2020 reduced some of the unprecedented volatility that oil markets experienced in the Spring of 2020. Likewise, contango returned to moderate levels in May of 2020. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, crude oil futures were in a state of contango as measured by the difference between the front month and the second month contract.

Current wording

Historically, the crude oil futures markets have experienced periods of contango and backwardation, with backwardation being in place somewhat less often than contango since oil futures trading started in 1983. Following the global financial crisis in the fourth quarter of 2008, the crude oil market moved into contango and remained primarily in contango until 2013. In late 2014, global crude oil inventories grew rapidly after OPEC voted to defend its market share against U.S. shale-oil producers, resulting in another multi-year period during which the crude oil market remained primarily in contango. In March 2020, contango dramatically increased and reached historic levels during the economic crisis arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, related supply chain disruptions and disputes among oil producing countries over the potential limits on the production of crude oil, and a corresponding collapse in demand for crude oil and a lack of on-land storage for crude oil. This level of contango was due to significant market volatility that occurred in crude oil markets as well as oil futures markets. Crude oil prices collapsed in the wake of the COVID-19 demand shock, which reduced global petroleum consumption, and the price war launched by Saudi Arabia at the beginning of March 2020 in response to Russia’s unwillingness to participate in extending previously agreed upon supply cuts. An estimated twenty million barrels a day of crude demand evaporated as a result of quarantines and massive drops in industrial and manufacturing activity. Eventually, the United States, OPEC, Russia, and other oil producers around the world agreed to a historic 9.7 million barrel per day cut to crude supply. The supply cut along with the partial reopening of economies during the third quarter of 2020 reduced some of the unprecedented volatility that oil markets experienced in the Spring of 2020. Likewise, contango returned to moderate levels in May of 2020. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, crude oil futures were in a state of contango as measured by the difference between the front month and the second month contract.

Previous wording

USCF believes that holding futures contracts whose expiration dates are spread out over a 12 month period of time will cause the total return of such a portfolio to vary compared to a portfolio that holds only a single month’s contract (such as the near month contract). In particular, USCF believes that the total return of a portfolio holding contracts with a range of expiration months will be impacted differently by the price relationship between different contract months of the same commodity future compared to the total return of a portfolio consisting of the near month contract. USCF believes that based on historical evidence a portfolio that held futures contracts with a range of expiration dates spread out over a 12 month period of time would typically be impacted less by the positive effect of backwardation, and less by the negative effect of contango, compared to a portfolio that held contracts of a single near month. As a result, absent the impact of any other factors, a portfolio of 12 different monthly contracts would tend to have a lower total return than a near month only portfolio in a backwardation market and a higher total return in a contango market. However, there can be no assurance that such historical relationships would provide the same or similar results in the future.

Current wording

differently by the price relationship between different contract months of the same commodity future compared to the total return of a portfolio consisting of the near month contract. USCF believes that based on historical evidence a portfolio that held futures contracts with a range of expiration dates spread out over a 12 month period of time would typically be impacted less by the positive effect of backwardation, and less by the negative effect of contango, compared to a portfolio that held contracts of a single near month. As a result, absent the impact of any other factors, a portfolio of 12 different monthly contracts would tend to have a lower total return than a near month only portfolio in a backwardation market and a higher total return in a contango market. However, there can be no assurance that such historical relationships would provide the same or similar results in the future.

Previous wording

Crude Oil Market. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts traded in a range between $56.56 to $73.51. The average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts decreased (10.95)% from the end of 2024 through June 30, 2025 finishing the quarter at $62.07.

Current wording

Crude Oil Market. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts traded in a range between $56.56 to $73.51. The average price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts decreased (11.89)% from the end of 2024 through September 30, 2025 finishing the quarter at $61.41.

Previous wording

In the second quarter of 2025, U.S. crude oil production averaged 13.4 mbd. U.S. production rose significantly over the last five years but is down year-to-date. OPEC crude production declined from late 2022 through the third quarter of 2024 as the cartel supported prices with overall quotas and voluntary output cuts by certain countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. OPEC output rose during the six months ending June 30, 2025, but remained below pre- and post-pandemic highs. OPEC fiercely supported prices with voluntary cuts and production quotas over the last several years. The cartel announced plans to begin unwinding voluntary cuts and increasing quotas in 2024 and has begun to do so after delaying and adjusting these plans several times. OPEC reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining oil market stability and retains the flexibility to change plans as market conditions warrant. Nevertheless, the long-expected and repeatedly delayed reduction of quotas and voluntary cuts is finally underway. While not a complete policy reversal, the “OPEC put” which kept a floor on prices over the last several years has likely moved lower at a time when demand could also decline, increasing the potential for downward pressure on prices. Russia and OPEC have still not returned to pre-pandemic production levels, while the U.S. has become the world’s largest crude oil producing nation and other oil producing nations have also increased their output. In the U.S., the Trump administration has aggressively called for increased domestic production and its actions have and will make more drilling possible. However, U.S. drillers have shown restraint in recent years, and production is down from 2024 records. Technology, geology, and economics tend to be larger determinants of U.S. production levels than political policy.

Current wording

In the third quarter of 2025, U.S. crude oil production averaged 13.4 mbd. U.S. production rose significantly over the last five years. OPEC crude production declined from late 2022 through the third quarter of 2024 as the cartel supported prices with overall quotas and voluntary output cuts by certain countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. OPEC output rose during the nine months ending September 30, 2025, but remained below pre- and post-pandemic highs. OPEC fiercely supported prices with voluntary cuts and production quotas from mid-2022 to late 2024. The cartel announced plans to begin unwinding voluntary cuts and increasing quotas in 2024 and has begun to do so after delaying and adjusting these plans several times. While OPEC has steadily increased output several times in 2025, it has also reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining oil market stability and retains the flexibility to change plans as market conditions warrant. Nevertheless, the long-expected and repeatedly delayed reduction of quotas and voluntary cuts is finally underway. While not a complete policy reversal, the “OPEC put” which kept a floor on prices over the last several years has likely moved lower. Russia and OPEC have still not returned to pre-pandemic production levels, while the U.S. has become the world’s largest crude oil producing nation and other oil producing nations have also increased their output. In the U.S., the Trump administration has aggressively called for increased domestic production and its actions have and will make more drilling possible. However, U.S. drillers have shown restraint in recent years, and production may not rise as much in the future as it has in the recent past. Technology, geology, and economics tend to be larger determinants of U.S. production levels than political policy.

Previous wording

In April of 2025, the Trump administration announced large and widespread tariffs on trading partners. While no tariffs on crude oil itself were announced, and the administration later paused tariff implementation and announced changing tariff levels on a country-by-country basis, the overall impact of the administration’s actions has materially increased the risk of a global economic slowdown or recession, which would reduce demand for crude oil. As negotiations with trading partners continue, final trade policy remains elusive and crude oil prices may be volatile as a result.

Current wording

In April of 2025, the Trump administration announced large and widespread tariffs on trading partners. While no tariffs on crude oil itself were announced, and the administration later paused tariff implementation and announced changing tariff levels on a country-by-country basis, the overall impact of the administration’s actions may increase the risk of a global economic slowdown or recession,

Previous wording

The current geopolitical situation adds complexity to the supply-demand equation. In June of 2025, Israel and the United States attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, raising speculation that Iran might attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. As approximately 20% of global petroleum consumption transits the Strait daily, this could have a significant effect on prices. As it stands, Iran did not close the Strait, and prices fell back to the mid-$65 range after briefly topping $75. Tensions in the Middle East and other regions remain a flash point for risk to crude oil supply, which could raise prices. Conversely, any resolution of geopolitical conflicts could ease supply disruptions, sanctions, and price volatility, which could lower prices.

Current wording

The current geopolitical situation adds complexity to the supply-demand equation. In June of 2025, Israel and the United States attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, raising speculation that Iran might attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. As approximately 20% of global petroleum consumption transits the Strait daily, this could have a significant effect on prices. As it stands, Iran did not close the Strait, and prices fell back to the mid-$65 range after briefly topping $75. Global tensions, with existing and potential conflicts in various regions, remain a flash point for risk to crude oil supply, which could raise prices. Conversely, any resolution of geopolitical conflicts could ease supply disruptions, sanctions, and price volatility, which could lower prices.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, USL held cash deposits and short-term investments in the amount of $44,645,356 with the custodian and FCMs. Some or all of these amounts held by a custodian or an FCM, as applicable, may be subject to loss should USL’s custodian or FCMs, as applicable, cease operations.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, USL held cash deposits and short-term investments in the amount of $42,430,813 with the custodian and FCMs. Some or all of these amounts held by a custodian or an FCM, as applicable, may be subject to loss should USL’s custodian or FCMs, as applicable, cease operations.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, USL’s portfolio held 680 Crude Oil Futures CL Contracts traded on the NYMEX. As of June 30, 2025, USL did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures. For a list of USL’s current holdings, please see USL’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, USL’s portfolio held 665 Crude Oil Futures CL Contracts traded on the NYMEX. As of September 30, 2025, USL did not hold any Futures Contracts traded on the ICE Futures. For a list of USL’s current holdings, please see USL’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com.