DEVON ENERGY CORP/DE

Previous wording

Our financial condition, results of operations and the value of our properties are highly dependent on the general supply and demand for oil, gas and NGLs, which impact the prices we ultimately realize on our sales of these commodities. Historically, market prices and our realized prices have been volatile. For example, over the last five years, monthly NYMEX WTI oil and NYMEX Henry Hub gas prices ranged from highs of over $120 per Bbl and $9.50 per MMBtu, respectively, to lows of under $30 per Bbl and $1.50 per MMBtu, respectively. Such volatility is likely to continue in the future due to numerous factors beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

Current wording

Our financial condition, results of operations and the value of our properties are highly dependent on the general supply and demand for oil, gas and NGLs, which impact the prices we ultimately realize on our sales of these commodities. Historically, market prices and our realized prices have been volatile. For example, over the last five years, monthly NYMEX WTI oil and NYMEX Henry Hub gas prices ranged from highs of over $120 per Bbl and $9.50 per MMBtu, respectively, to lows of under $50 per Bbl and $1.60 per MMBtu, respectively. Such volatility is likely to continue in the future due to numerous factors beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

Previous wording

geopolitical risks, including the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza and Hezbollah conflicts and hostilities in Yemen and the Red Sea, as well as other hostilities or political and civil unrest in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and South America;

Current wording

geopolitical risks, including the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza and Hezbollah conflicts and hostilities in Yemen and the Red Sea, as well as other hostilities or political and civil unrest in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and South America, including Venezuela;

Previous wording

the overall economic environment, including inflationary pressures and fluctuations in interest rates;

Current wording

the overall economic environment, including inflationary pressures, fluctuations in interest rates, economic slowdowns or recessions;

Previous wording

market and geopolitical uncertainty as a result of shifts or potential further shifts in domestic and international policies following the 2024 U.S. presidential and congressional elections;

Current wording

market and geopolitical uncertainty as a result of shifts or potential further shifts in domestic and international policies;

Previous wording

changes in trade relations and policies, such as (i) the imposition of tariffs by the U.S., China or other countries, (ii) environmental performance standards or similar fossil fuel import restrictions in certain international markets, (iii) economic sanctions, including embargoes, on Russia or other producing countries or (iv) restrictions on oil, gas and NGL exports by the U.S.; and

Current wording

changes in trade relations and policies, such as (i) the imposition of new or increased tariffs or other trade protection measures by the U.S., China or other countries, (ii) environmental performance standards or similar fossil fuel import restrictions in certain international markets, (iii) economic sanctions, including embargoes, on Russia or other producing countries or (iv) restrictions on oil, gas and NGL exports by the U.S.; and

Previous wording

Certain of the properties and investments in which we have an interest are operated by other companies and may involve third-party working interest owners. We have limited influence and control over the operation or future development of such properties and investments, including compliance with EHS regulations or the amount and timing of required future capital expenditures. In addition, we conduct certain of our operations through joint ventures in which we may share control with third parties, and the other joint venture participants may have interests or goals that are inconsistent with those of the joint venture or us. These limitations and our dependence on such third parties could result in unexpected future costs or liabilities and unplanned changes in operations or future development, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, any bankruptcy involving, or any misconduct or other improper activities committed by, our business partners or other counterparties could negatively impact our own business or reputation.

Current wording

Certain of the properties and investments in which we have an interest are operated by other companies and may involve third-party working interest owners. We have limited influence and control over the operation or future development of such properties and investments, including compliance with EHS regulations or the amount and timing of required future capital expenditures. In addition, we conduct certain of our operations through joint ventures in which we may share control with third parties, and the other joint venture participants may have interests or goals that are inconsistent with those of the joint venture or us. These limitations and our dependence on such third parties could result in unexpected future costs or liabilities and unplanned changes in operations or future development, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, any bankruptcy involving, or any misconduct or other improper activities committed by, our business partners or other counterparties could negatively impact the value of our investments, as well as our own business or reputation.

Previous wording

Strong competition exists in all sectors of the oil and gas industry. We compete with major integrated and independent oil and gas companies for the acquisition of oil and gas leases and properties. We also compete for the equipment, materials, services and personnel required to explore, develop and operate properties, such as drilling rigs, well materials and oilfield services. The rising costs and scarcity caused by this competitive pressure will generally increase during periods of higher commodity prices and can be further exacerbated by higher inflation rates and supply chain disruptions in the broader economy, including as a result of tariffs or changes in trade policy. For example, we experienced higher operating costs throughout 2023 due to steep cost inflation. Although cost inflation moderated somewhat in 2024, such inflationary pressures could continue or increase in 2025. Competition is also prevalent in the marketing of oil, gas and NGLs. Certain of our competitors have resources substantially greater than ours and may have established superior strategic long-term positions and relationships. As a consequence, we may be at a competitive disadvantage in bidding for assets or services and accessing capital and downstream markets. In addition, many of our larger competitors may have a competitive advantage when responding to factors that affect demand for oil and gas production, such as changing worldwide price and production levels, the cost and availability of alternative energy sources and the application of government regulations.

Current wording

Strong competition exists in all sectors of the oil and gas industry. We compete with major integrated and independent oil and gas companies for the acquisition of oil and gas leases and properties. We also compete for the equipment, materials, services and personnel required to explore, develop and operate properties, such as drilling rigs, well materials and oilfield services. The rising costs and scarcity caused by this competitive pressure will generally increase during periods of higher commodity prices and can be further exacerbated by higher inflation rates and supply chain disruptions in the broader economy, including as a result of tariffs or changes in trade policy. For example, we experienced some increase in operating costs throughout 2025 due to the economic uncertainty in global trade arising from geopolitical events and shifting trade policies. While we actively work to mitigate the impact of these potential risks through operational efficiencies gained from the scale of our operations as well as by leveraging long-standing relationships with our suppliers, the ultimate impacts remain uncertain. Competition is also prevalent in the marketing of oil, gas and NGLs. Certain of our competitors have resources substantially greater than ours and may have established superior strategic long-term positions and relationships. As a consequence, we may be at a competitive disadvantage in bidding for assets or services and accessing capital and downstream markets. In addition, many of our larger competitors may have a competitive advantage when responding to factors that affect demand for oil and gas production, such as changing worldwide price and production levels, the cost and availability of alternative energy sources and the application of government regulations.

Previous wording

Changes in public policy have affected, and in the future could further affect, our operations. For example, various policy makers have expressed support for, and have taken steps to implement, efforts to transition the economy away from fossil fuels and to promote stricter environmental regulations, and such proposals could impose new and more onerous burdens on our industry and business. The IRA, for instance, contains hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives for the development of renewable energy, clean fuels and carbon capture and sequestration, among other provisions, potentially further accelerating the transition toward lower-or zero-carbon emissions alternatives to fossil fuels. These and other regulatory and public policy developments could, among other things, restrict production levels, delay necessary permitting, impose price controls, change environmental protection requirements, impose restrictions on pipelines or other necessary infrastructure, raise taxes, royalties and other amounts payable to governments or governmental agencies and otherwise increase our operating costs. In addition, changes in public policy may indirectly impact our operations by, among other things, increasing the cost of supplies and equipment and fostering general economic uncertainty. Although we are unable to predict changes to existing laws and regulations, such changes could significantly impact our profitability, financial condition and liquidity, particularly changes related to the matters discussed in more detail below.

Current wording

Changes in public policy have affected, and in the future could further affect, our operations. For example, various policy makers have expressed support for, and have taken steps to implement, efforts to transition the economy away from fossil fuels and to promote stricter environmental regulations, and such proposals could impose new and more onerous burdens on our industry and business. The IRA, for instance, contains hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives for the development of renewable energy, clean fuels and carbon capture and sequestration, among other provisions, potentially further accelerating the transition toward lower-or zero-carbon emissions alternatives to fossil fuels. These and other regulatory and public policy developments could, among other things, restrict production levels, delay necessary permitting, impose price controls, change environmental protection requirements, impose restrictions on pipelines or other necessary infrastructure, raise taxes, royalties and other amounts payable to governments or governmental agencies and otherwise increase our operating costs. In addition, changes in public policy may indirectly impact our operations by, among other things, increasing the cost of supplies and equipment and fostering general economic uncertainty. While Congress and the current U.S. administration have taken various actions to slow or limit the availability of funding under the IRA, some of these efforts have been challenged and the ultimate effect of the IRA remains uncertain. For example, OBBB includes provisions that roll back certain aspects of the IRA, which could further restrict access to funding and incentives. Although we are unable to predict changes to existing laws and regulations, such changes could significantly impact our profitability, financial condition and liquidity, particularly changes related to the matters discussed in more detail below.

Previous wording

Federal Lands – Federal policy makers have from time to time expressed support for, and have taken steps to implement, additional regulation of oil and gas leasing, permitting and development on federal lands. For example, the Department of the Interior adopted a final rule in April 2024 revising various terms for future federal leases and wells, including by enhancing bonding requirements and increasing royalty rates, rental rates and minimum bids. Moreover, non-governmental organizations, trade groups and other private parties have filed lawsuits challenging leasing, permitting and other regulatory decisions relating to our and other industry participants’ oil and gas development on federal lands, which, if successful, could further hinder development activities or otherwise adversely impact operations. While it is not possible at this time to predict the ultimate impact of these actions or any other future regulatory changes, including any potential actions by the Trump Administration, any additional restrictions or burdens on our ability to operate on federal lands could adversely impact our business in the Delaware and Powder River Basins, as well as other areas where we operate under federal leases.

Current wording

Federal Lands – Federal policy makers have from time to time expressed support for, and have taken steps to implement, additional regulation of oil and gas leasing, permitting and development on federal lands. For example, the Department of the Interior adopted a final rule in April 2024 revising various terms for future federal leases and wells, including by enhancing bonding requirements and increasing royalty rates, rental rates and minimum bids. Moreover, non-governmental organizations, trade groups and other private parties have filed lawsuits challenging leasing, permitting and other regulatory decisions relating to our and other industry participants’ oil and gas development on federal lands, which, if successful, could hinder or delay development activities or otherwise adversely impact operations. While it is not possible at this time to predict the ultimate impact of these actions or any other future regulatory changes, including any potential actions by the current U.S. administration, any additional restrictions or burdens on our ability to operate on federal lands could adversely impact our business in the Delaware and Powder River Basins, as well as other areas where we operate under federal leases.

Previous wording

Tax Matters – We are subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as income, capital and other taxes in various U.S. state and foreign jurisdictions, and our operating cash flow is sensitive to the amount of taxes we must pay. In the jurisdictions in which we or any of our subsidiaries operate or previously operated, income taxes are assessed on our earnings after consideration of all allowable deductions and credits. Changes in the types of earnings that are subject to income tax, the types of costs that are considered allowable deductions and the timing of such deductions, or the rates assessed on our taxable earnings could significantly increase our tax obligations, adversely impacting our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Additionally, more generally, a change in any U.S. federal, state or local or foreign tax law, treaty, policy, statute, rule, regulation or ordinance, or in the interpretation thereof, in any jurisdiction in which we or any of our subsidiaries operate, or in which we or any of our subsidiaries are organized, could result in us incurring a materially higher tax expense, which would also adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. For example, the IRA included a 15% CAMT on certain financial statement income, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has adopted a set of model international tax rules known as the “Pillar Two” framework, a central component of which is the imposition of a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% on certain multinational enterprises. While we are still assessing the potential impacts of the CAMT and the Pillar Two rules to our business, any incremental taxes attributable to CAMT, Pillar Two or any other tax law changes, or a change in our current interpretation thereof, could be significant and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, we are regularly audited by tax authorities. Although we believe our tax positions are reasonable and properly supported, if one or more of our tax positions are challenged by the IRS or other tax authorities (in a tax audit or otherwise), material cash payments or adjustments to tax expense may occur, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Current wording

Tax Matters – We are subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as income, capital and other taxes in various U.S. state and foreign jurisdictions, and our operating cash flow is sensitive to the amount of taxes we must pay. In the jurisdictions in which we or any of our subsidiaries operate or previously operated, income taxes are assessed on our earnings after consideration of all allowable deductions and credits. Changes in the types of earnings that are subject to income tax, the types of costs that are considered allowable deductions and the timing of such deductions, or the rates assessed on our taxable earnings could significantly increase our tax obligations, adversely impacting our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Additionally, more generally, a change in any U.S. federal, state or local or foreign tax law, treaty, policy, statute, rule, regulation or ordinance, or in the interpretation thereof, in any jurisdiction in which we or any of our subsidiaries operate, or in which we or any of our subsidiaries are organized, could result in us incurring a materially higher tax expense, which would also adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. For example, the IRA included a 15% CAMT on certain financial statement income. Any incremental taxes attributable to CAMT or any other tax law changes, or a change in our current interpretation thereof, could be significant and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, we are regularly audited by tax authorities. Although we believe our tax positions are reasonable and properly supported, if one or more of our tax positions are challenged by the IRS or other tax authorities (in a tax audit or otherwise), material cash payments or adjustments to tax expense may occur, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Previous wording

Continuing and increasing political and social attention to the issue of climate change has resulted in legislative, regulatory and other initiatives, including international agreements, to reduce GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane. Policy makers and regulators at both the U.S. federal and state levels have from time to time imposed, or stated intentions to impose, laws and regulations designed to quantify and limit the emission of GHG. For example, in December 2023, the EPA finalized more stringent methane rules for new, modified and reconstructed facilities, known as OOOOb, as well as standards for existing sources for the first time ever, known as OOOOc. The final rule includes, among other things, enhanced leak detection survey requirements using optical gas imaging and other advanced monitoring, zero-emission requirements for certain devices, and reduction of emissions by 95% through capture and control systems. The final rule also establishes a “super emitter” response program that allows third parties to make reports to the EPA of large methane emissions events, triggering certain investigation and repair requirements. Fines and penalties for violations of these rules can be substantial. The rules have been subject to legal challenge, although OOOOb is already in effect. Relatedly, the IRA imposed a new charge or fee with respect to excess methane emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas facilities starting in 2024 and annually increasing through 2026, and we cannot predict whether or how the Trump Administration may seek to revise or repeal these rules or the timing of any such actions. In addition to these federal efforts, the states where we operate have already imposed, or stated intentions to impose, laws or regulations designed to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas exploration and production activities, including by mandating new leak detection and retrofitting requirements.

Current wording

Continuing and increasing political and social attention to the issue of climate change has resulted in legislative, regulatory and other initiatives, including international agreements, to reduce GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane. Policy makers and regulators at both the U.S. federal and state levels have from time to time imposed, or stated intentions to impose, laws and regulations designed to quantify and limit the emission of GHG. For example, in December 2023, the EPA finalized more stringent methane rules for new, modified and reconstructed facilities, known as OOOOb, as well as standards for existing sources for the first time ever, known as OOOOc. The final rule includes, among other things, enhanced leak detection survey requirements using optical gas imaging and other advanced monitoring, zero-emission requirements for certain devices, and reduction of emissions by 95% through capture and control systems. The final rule also establishes a “super emitter” response program that allows third parties to make reports to the EPA of large methane emissions events, triggering certain investigation and repair requirements. Fines and penalties for violations of these rules can be substantial. The rules have been subject to legal challenge, although OOOOb is already in effect. Relatedly, the IRA imposed a new charge or fee with respect to excess methane emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas facilities starting in 2024 and annually increasing through 2026. Although the current U.S. administration delayed the imposition of the fee until 2034, we cannot predict whether this or any future administration may seek to revise or repeal this delay or the timing of any such actions. In addition to these federal efforts, the states where we operate have already imposed, or stated intentions to impose, laws or regulations designed to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas exploration and production activities, including by mandating new leak detection and retrofitting requirements.

Previous wording

Policy makers have also advocated for expanding existing, or creating new, reporting and disclosure requirements regarding GHG emissions and other climate-related matters. For example, the EPA adopted amendments in May 2024 to its GHG Reporting Program, which, among other things, added well blowouts and other abnormal events as new categories of sources for GHG emissions reporting. In addition, the SEC finalized rules in March 2024 that require public companies to include extensive climate-related disclosures in their SEC filings, such as new disclosures on (i) material Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, including an independent assurance report, and (ii) financial statement information regarding the effects of severe weather events and other natural conditions. In April 2024, the SEC stayed the effectiveness of these rules pending the completion of a judicial review of certain legal challenges. Similarly, California enacted legislation in October 2023 requiring extensive climate-related disclosures for companies deemed to be doing business in California, and other states are considering similar laws. The European Union has also recently adopted a set of policy initiatives, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which impose expansive sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements for both European Union and certain non-European Union companies. While we are still assessing the applicability of the European Union directives and California legislation and are awaiting resolution of the review of the SEC climate change rules, we would expect to incur substantial additional compliance costs to the extent these or similar disclosure requirements apply to us. We further anticipate the costs and other risks associated with any such disclosure requirements to be particularly heightened, given that reporting frameworks on GHG emissions and other climate-related metrics are still maturing and often require the use of numerous assumptions and judgments.

Current wording

Policy makers have also advocated for expanding existing, or creating new, reporting and disclosure requirements regarding GHG emissions and other climate-related matters. For example, the EPA adopted amendments in May 2024 to its GHG Reporting Program, which, among other things, added well blowouts and other abnormal events as new categories of sources for GHG emissions reporting. In addition, the SEC finalized rules in March 2024 that would have required public companies to include extensive climate-related disclosures in their SEC filings. In April 2024, the SEC stayed the effectiveness of these rules pending the completion of a judicial review of certain legal challenges, and the current U.S. administration has declined to defend the rules in the legal challenges, which has resulted in a stay of the challenges that will remain in effect until the rules are withdrawn or the government resumes its defense of the rules. Similarly, California enacted legislation in October 2023 requiring extensive climate-related disclosures for companies deemed to be doing business in California, and other states are considering similar laws. The European Union has also adopted a set of policy initiatives, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which impose expansive sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements for both European Union and certain non-European Union companies. While we are still assessing the applicability of the European Union directives, we would expect to incur substantial additional compliance costs to the extent these or similar disclosure requirements apply to us. We further anticipate the costs and other risks associated with any such disclosure requirements to be particularly heightened, given that reporting frameworks on GHG emissions and other climate-related metrics are still maturing and often require the use of numerous assumptions and judgments.

Previous wording

With respect to more comprehensive regulation, policy makers and political leaders have made, or expressed support for, a variety of proposals, such as the development of cap-and-trade or carbon tax programs. At the international level, over 190 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, which requires member nations to submit non-binding GHG emissions reduction goals every five years. Subsequent United Nations climate conferences have called for additional action to transition away from fossil fuels or otherwise reduce GHG emissions. The Trump Administration re-withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement in January 2025, and the United States’ participation in future United Nations climate-related efforts is unclear. At the state level, there have been attempts to introduce legislation whereby certain entities found responsible for contributing toward climate change over a period of time are required to pay into a fund used for climate-related projects. For example, in December 2024, New York passed its “Climate Superfund Law,” which provides for the assessment of a fee for emitters that have a sufficient nexus to the state and are found to have released more than one billion tons of carbon dioxide during 2000 through 2018. Vermont passed a similar law in May 2024, and similar legislation has been proposed in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. We have been identified by New York as a potentially responsible party under the law; however, to date, we have not received any cost recovery demand. These and other initiatives could negatively impact our business through restrictions or cancellations of oil and natural gas activities, greater costs of compliance or consumption (thereby reducing demand for our products) or an impairment in our ability to continue our operations in an economic manner.

Current wording

With respect to more comprehensive regulation, policy makers and political leaders have made, or expressed support for, a variety of proposals, such as the development of cap-and-trade or carbon tax programs. At the international level, over 190 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, which requires member nations to submit non-binding GHG emissions reduction goals every five years. Subsequent United Nations climate conferences have called for additional action to transition away from fossil fuels or otherwise reduce GHG emissions. The current U.S. administration re-withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement in January 2025, and, in January 2026, the current U.S. administration announced that the United States was withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the various climate-related programs under this Framework. As a result, the United States’ participation in future United Nations climate-related efforts is unclear. At the state level, there have been attempts to introduce legislation whereby certain entities found responsible for contributing toward climate change over a period of time are required to pay into a fund used for climate-related projects. For example, in December 2024, New York passed its “Climate Superfund Law,” which provides for the assessment of a fee for emitters that have a sufficient nexus to the state and are found to have released more than one billion tons of carbon dioxide during 2000 through 2018. Vermont passed a similar law in May 2024, and similar legislation has been proposed in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. We have been identified by New York as a potentially responsible party under the law; however, to date, we have not received any cost recovery demand. These and other initiatives could negatively impact our business through restrictions or cancellations of oil and natural gas activities, a requirement to pay damages, greater costs of compliance or consumption (thereby reducing demand for our products) or an impairment in our ability to continue our operations in an economic manner.

Previous wording

Our Environmental Performance Targets and Other ESG Initiatives May Expose Us to Risks

Current wording

Our Environmental Performance Targets and Other Sustainability Initiatives May Expose Us to Risks

Previous wording

We have developed, and may continue to develop, voluntary targets related to our ESG initiatives, including our environmental performance targets and strategy. Any public statements related to these initiatives reflect our current plans and expectations and are not a guarantee the targets will be achieved or achieved on the currently anticipated timeline. Additionally, such statements are often based on assumptions or hypothetical scenarios which are necessarily uncertain. Our ability to achieve any targets is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, including market factors, unanticipated changes in societal behavior, capital constraints, the pace of technological advancement and governmental policies or priorities. Moreover, as emission measurement protocols mature and related technologies continue to develop, we may be required to revise our emissions estimates and reduction goals or otherwise revise the strategies outlined in our ESG initiatives. If our ESG initiatives do not meet our investors’ or other stakeholders’ evolving expectations and standards, investment in us may be viewed as less attractive and our reputation and business may be adversely impacted.

Current wording

We have developed, and may continue to develop, voluntary targets related to our sustainability initiatives, including our environmental performance targets and strategy. Any public statements related to these initiatives reflect our current plans and expectations and are not a guarantee the targets will be achieved or achieved on the currently anticipated timeline. Additionally, such statements are often based on assumptions or hypothetical scenarios which are necessarily uncertain. Our ability to achieve any targets is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, including market factors, unanticipated changes in societal behavior, capital constraints, the pace of technological advancement and governmental policies or priorities. Moreover, as emission measurement protocols mature and related technologies continue to develop, we may be required to revise our emissions estimates and reduction goals or otherwise revise the strategies outlined in our sustainability initiatives. If our sustainability initiatives do not meet our investors’ or other stakeholders’ evolving expectations and standards (including those in support of or in opposition to ESG principles), investment in us may be viewed as less attractive and our reputation and business may be adversely impacted.

Previous wording

Additionally, public statements with respect to environmental targets or other ESG-related goals are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, with respect to the risk of potential “greenwashing,” i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits. Certain regulators, such as the SEC and various state agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and other private actors have filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG statements were misleading, false or otherwise deceptive. Conversely, “anti-ESG” sentiment has gained momentum among some governmental and private actors, and various federal and state policy makers have enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies, legislation and other initiatives, including efforts targeting certain practices and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. As a result, we may also face heightened scrutiny, reputational risk, lawsuits or market access restrictions from these parties regarding our ESG initiatives.

Current wording

Additionally, public statements with respect to environmental targets or other ESG-related goals are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, with respect to the risk of potential “greenwashing,” i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits. Certain regulators, such as the SEC and various state agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and other private actors have filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG statements were misleading, false or otherwise deceptive. Conversely, “anti-ESG” sentiment has gained momentum among some governmental and private actors, and various federal and state policy makers have enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies, legislation and other initiatives, including efforts targeting certain practices and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. As a result, we may also face heightened scrutiny, reputational risk, lawsuits or market access restrictions from these parties regarding our sustainability initiatives.

Previous wording

Domestic and foreign governmental bodies have from time to time intervened in energy markets by imposing price controls, restricting exports, limiting production or otherwise taking actions to impact the availability and price of oil, natural gas and NGLs. For instance, members of the European Union agreed to a price-cap framework in December 2022 for the trading of natural gas in response to rising energy costs in Europe. Similarly, during 2021 and 2022, President Biden authorized several releases from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to lower domestic energy prices. More recently, in May 2024, the European Union approved new regulations imposing fossil fuel import standards, which include disclosure, emission mitigation work practices and methane intensity threshold requirements, which could impact our ability to sell production in European markets. Governments may take similar actions in the future, particularly in the event of disruption in energy markets or national emergency. Any such interventions could adversely impact our business, including by depressing the price of our production and generally introducing greater uncertainty to our operations.

Current wording

Domestic and foreign governmental bodies have from time to time intervened in energy markets by imposing price controls, restricting exports, limiting production or otherwise taking actions to impact the availability and price of oil, natural gas and NGLs. For instance, members of the European Union agreed to a price-cap framework in December 2022 for the trading of natural gas in response to rising energy costs in Europe. Similarly, during 2021 and 2022, former President Biden authorized several releases from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to lower domestic energy prices. More recently, in May 2024, the European Union approved new regulations imposing fossil fuel import standards, which include disclosure, emission mitigation work practices and methane intensity threshold requirements, which could impact our ability to sell production in European markets. Governments may take similar actions in the future, particularly in the event of disruption in energy markets or national emergency. Any such interventions could adversely impact our business, including by depressing the price of our production and generally introducing greater uncertainty to our operations.

Previous wording

We enter into a variety of transactions that expose us to counterparty credit risk. For example, we have exposure to financial institutions and insurance companies through our hedging arrangements, our 2023 Senior Credit Facility and our insurance policies. Disruptions in the financial markets or otherwise may impact these counterparties and affect their ability to fulfill their existing obligations and their willingness to enter into future transactions with us.

Current wording

We enter into a variety of transactions that expose us to counterparty credit risk. For example, we have exposure to financial institutions and insurance companies through our hedging arrangements, our Senior Credit Facility and our insurance policies. Disruptions in the financial markets or otherwise may impact these counterparties and affect their ability to fulfill their existing obligations and their willingness to enter into future transactions with us.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, we had total indebtedness of $8.9 billion. Our indebtedness and other financial commitments have important consequences to our business, including, but not limited to:

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, we had total indebtedness of $8.4 billion. Our indebtedness and other financial commitments have important consequences to our business, including, but not limited to:

Previous wording

In addition, we receive credit ratings from rating agencies in the U.S. with respect to our debt. Factors that may impact our credit ratings include, among others, debt levels, planned asset sales and purchases, liquidity, size and scale of our production and commodity prices. Certain of our contractual obligations require us to provide letters of credit or other assurances. Any credit downgrades could adversely impact our ability to access financing and trade credit, require us to provide additional letters of credit or other assurances under contractual arrangements and increase our interest rate under the 2023 Senior Credit Facility and the Term Loan, as well as the cost of any other future debt.

Current wording

In addition, we receive credit ratings from rating agencies in the U.S. with respect to our debt. Factors that may impact our credit ratings include, among others, debt levels, planned asset sales and purchases, liquidity, size and scale of our production and commodity prices. Certain of our contractual obligations require us to provide letters of credit or other assurances. Any credit downgrades could adversely impact our ability to access financing and trade credit, require us to provide additional letters of credit or other assurances under contractual arrangements and increase our interest rate under the Senior Credit Facility and the Term Loan, as well as the cost of any other future debt.

Previous wording

We rely heavily on information systems, operational technologies and other digital technologies to conduct our business, and we anticipate expanding the use of and reliance on these systems and technologies, including through artificial intelligence, process automation and data analytics. Concurrent with the growing dependence on technology is a greater sensitivity to cyberattacks and other cyber-related incidents, which have increasingly targeted our industry. Perpetrators of cyberattacks often attempt to gain unauthorized access to digital systems for purposes of misappropriating confidential, proprietary or personal information, intellectual property or financial assets, corrupting data or causing operational disruptions, as well as preventing users from accessing systems or information for the purpose of demanding payment in order for users to regain access. A wide variety of individuals or groups may perpetuate cyberattacks, ranging from highly sophisticated criminal organizations and state-sponsored actors to disgruntled employees, and the nature of, and methods used in, cyberattacks are similarly diverse and constantly evolving, with examples including phishing attempts, distributed denial of service attacks or ransomware. In addition, our vendors (including third-party cloud and IT service providers), midstream providers and other business partners may separately suffer disruptions or breaches from cyberattacks or other cyber-related incidents, which, in turn, could adversely impact our operations and compromise our information. Moreover, we and other upstream companies rely on extensive oil and gas infrastructure and distribution systems to deliver our production to market, which, in turn, depend upon digital technologies; we also rely on other critical infrastructure to operate our business, such as communication networks and power grids. Any cyberattack directed at such infrastructure or systems could adversely impact our business and operations, including by limiting our ability to transport and market our production. Furthermore, human error by our employees, contractors or third-party business partners may also cause or exacerbate a cybersecurity incident, and geopolitical instability may heighten the risk of cyberattacks against us or the infrastructure we rely upon.

Current wording

We rely heavily on information systems, operational technologies and other digital technologies to conduct our business, and we are expanding the use of and reliance on these systems and technologies, including through artificial intelligence, process automation and data analytics. Concurrent with the growing dependence on technology is a greater sensitivity to cyberattacks and other cyber-related incidents, which have increasingly targeted our industry. Perpetrators of cyberattacks often attempt to gain unauthorized access to digital systems for purposes of misappropriating confidential, proprietary or personal information, intellectual property or financial assets, corrupting data or causing operational disruptions, as well as preventing users from accessing systems or information for the purpose of demanding payment in order for users to regain access. A wide variety of individuals or groups may perpetuate cyberattacks, ranging from highly sophisticated criminal organizations and state-sponsored actors to disgruntled employees, and the nature of, and methods used in, cyberattacks are similarly diverse and constantly evolving, with examples including phishing attempts, distributed denial of service attacks or ransomware, which could be enhanced or facilitated by artificial intelligence. In addition, our vendors (including third-party cloud and IT service providers), midstream providers and other business partners may separately suffer disruptions or breaches from cyberattacks or other cyber-related incidents, which, in turn, could adversely impact our operations and compromise our information. Moreover, we and other upstream companies rely on extensive oil and gas infrastructure and distribution systems to deliver our production to market, which, in turn, depend upon digital technologies; we also rely on other critical infrastructure to operate our business, such as communication networks and power grids. Any cyberattack directed at such infrastructure or systems could adversely impact our business and operations, including by limiting our ability to transport and market our production. Furthermore, human error by our employees, contractors or third-party business partners may also cause or exacerbate a cybersecurity incident, and geopolitical instability may heighten the risk of cyberattacks against us or the infrastructure we rely upon.

Previous wording

In recent years, proxy contests and other forms of shareholder activism have been directed against numerous public companies. Investors may from time to time seek to involve themselves in the governance, strategic direction and operations of the Company, whether by stockholder proposals, public campaigns, proxy solicitations or otherwise. These actions may be prompted or exacerbated by unfavorable recommendations or ratings from proxy advisory firms or other third parties, including with respect to our performance (or the perception of our performance) under ESG metrics. Such actions could adversely impact our business by distracting our Board of Directors and employees from our long-term strategy, requiring us to incur increased advisory fees and related costs, interfering with our ability to successfully execute on core business operations and strategic transactions or plans and provoking perceived uncertainty about the future direction of our business. Such perceived uncertainty may, in turn, make it more difficult to retain employees and could result in significant fluctuation in the market price of our common stock.

Current wording

Publicly traded companies are increasingly subject to campaigns by activist shareholders advocating corporate actions, such as operational, governance or management changes, sales of assets or entire business units or business combination transactions. Activist shareholders could seek to engage in proxy solicitations, advance shareholder proposals or otherwise attempt to assert influence on our Board of Directors and management. These actions may be prompted or exacerbated by unfavorable recommendations or ratings from proxy advisory firms or other third parties. Such actions could adversely impact our business by distracting our Board of Directors and employees from our long-term strategy, requiring us to incur increased advisory fees and related costs, interfering with our ability to successfully execute on business operations and strategic transactions or plans and provoking perceived uncertainty about the future direction of our business. Such perceived uncertainty may, in turn, make it more difficult to retain employees and could result in significant fluctuation in the market price of our common stock.

Previous wording

Our business depends, in part, on making acquisitions, including by merger and other similar transactions, that complement or expand our current business and successfully integrating any acquired assets or businesses. We cannot ensure that any acquisitions we attempt will be completed on the terms announced, or at all. If we are unable to make attractive acquisitions, our future growth could be limited. Furthermore, even if we do make acquisitions, such as the recently completed Grayson Mill acquisition, they may not result in an increase in our cash flow from operations or otherwise result in the benefits anticipated due to various risks, including, but not limited to:

Current wording

Our business depends, in part, on making acquisitions, including by merger and other similar transactions, that complement or expand our current business and successfully integrating any acquired assets or businesses. We cannot ensure that any acquisitions we attempt will be completed on the terms announced, or at all. If we are unable to make attractive acquisitions, our future growth could be limited. Furthermore, even if we do make acquisitions, they may not result in an increase in our cash flow from operations or otherwise result in the benefits anticipated due to various risks, including, but not limited to: