PRIMEENERGY RESOURCES CORP

Previous wording

Our revenues, operating results, financial condition and ability to borrow funds or obtain additional capital depend substantially on prevailing prices for natural gas and oil. Lower commodity prices may reduce the amount of natural gas and oil that we can produce economically. Natural gas prices, based on the twelve-month average of the first of the month Henry Hub index price, were $2.637 per MMBTU in 2023 as compared to $6.358 per MMBTU in 2022, and have averaged $2.446 per MMBTU for the first three months of 2024. Oil prices, based on West Texas Intermediate(WTI) Light Sweet Crude first of the month prices, averaged $78.22 per barrel in 2023 as compared to $93.67 per barrel in 2022, and in the first three months of 2024, the first of the month price has averaged $77.48 per barrel.

Current wording

Our revenues, operating results, financial condition and ability to borrow funds or obtain additional capital depend substantially on prevailing prices for natural gas and oil. Lower commodity prices may reduce the amount of natural gas and oil that we can produce economically. Natural gas prices, based on the twelve-month average of the first of the month Henry Hub index price, were $2.13 per MMBTU in 2024 as compared to $2.637 per MMBTU in 2023, and have averaged $3.89 per MMBTU for the first three months of 2025. Oil prices, based on West Texas Intermediate(WTI) Light Sweet Crude first-of-the-month prices, averaged $75.48 per barrel in 2024 as compared to $78.22 per barrel in 2023, and in the first three months of 2025, the first-of-the-month price has averaged $69.67 per barrel.

Previous wording

The borrowing base under our revolving credit facility is currently $85 million, and lender commitments under our revolving credit facility are $300 million. The borrowing base is redetermined semi-annually under the terms of the revolving credit facility. In addition, either we or the lenders may request an interim redetermination twice a year or in conjunction with certain acquisitions or sales of oil and gas properties. Our borrowing base may decrease as a result of lower natural gas or oil prices, operating difficulties, declines in reserves, lending requirements or regulations, the issuance of new indebtedness or for other reasons set forth in our revolving credit agreement. In the event of a decrease in our borrowing base due to declines in commodity prices or otherwise, our ability to borrow under our revolving credit facility may be limited and we could be required to repay any indebtedness in excess of the redetermined borrowing base. In addition, we may be unable to access the equity or debt capital markets to meet our obligations, including any such debt repayment obligations.

Current wording

The borrowing base under our revolving credit facility is currently $115 million, and lender commitments under our revolving credit facility are $300 million. The borrowing base is redetermined semi-annually under the terms of the revolving credit facility. In addition, either we or the lenders may request an interim redetermination twice a year or in conjunction with certain acquisitions or sales of oil and gas properties. Our borrowing base may decrease as a result of lower natural gas or oil prices, operating difficulties, declines in reserves, lending requirements or regulations, the issuance of new indebtedness or for other reasons set forth in our revolving credit agreement. In the event of a decrease in our borrowing base due to declines in commodity prices or otherwise, our ability to borrow under our revolving credit facility may be limited and we could be required to repay any indebtedness in excess of the redetermined borrowing base. In addition, we may be unable to access the equity or debt capital markets to meet our obligations, including any such debt repayment obligations.

Previous wording

From time to time, the U.S. Congress has considered adopting legislation intended to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing and to require disclosure of the additives used in the hydraulic-fracturing process. In addition, certain states, including Texas where the Company operates, have adopted, and other states are considering adopting, regulations that could impose new or more stringent permitting, disclosure, disposal and well-construction requirements on hydraulic-fracturing operations. For example, in April 2019, Colorado passed legislation reforming exploration and production activities by the oil and gas industry in the state including, among other things, revising the mission of the state oil and gas agency from fostering energy development in the state to instead focusing on regulating the industry in a manner that is protective of public health and safety and the environment, as well as authorizing cities and counties to regulate oil and gas operations within their jurisdictions as they do other development. While the Company does not conduct operations in Colorado, passage or enactment of similar legislation in other states in which it does operate could significantly increase the Company’s operating costs and have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s ability to conduct operations. States could elect to prohibit hydraulic fracturing or high volume hydraulic fracturing altogether, following the approach taken by the states of Vermont, Maryland, Washington and New York. Also, local land use restrictions, such as city ordinances, may be adopted to restrict or prohibit drilling in general or hydraulic fracturing in particular. In Texas, legislation was adopted providing that the regulation of oil and gas operations in Texas is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and thus preempts local regulation of those operations. Nonetheless, municipalities and political subdivisions in Texas continue to have the right to enact “commercially reasonable” regulations for surface activities.

Current wording

From time to time, the U.S. Congress has considered adopting legislation intended to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing and to require disclosure of the additives used in the hydraulic-fracturing process. In addition, certain states, including Texas where the Company operates, have adopted, and other states are considering adopting, regulations that could impose new or more stringent permitting, disclosure, disposal and well-construction requirements on hydraulic-fracturing operations. For example, in April 2019, Colorado passed legislation reforming exploration and production activities by the oil and gas industry in the state including, among other things, revising the mission of the state oil and gas agency from fostering energy development in the state to instead focusing on regulating the industry in a manner that is protective of public health and safety and the environment, as well as authorizing cities and counties to regulate oil and gas operations within their jurisdictions as they do other development. While the Company does not conduct operations in Colorado, passage or enactment of similar legislation in other states in which it does operate could significantly increase the Company’s operating costs and have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s ability to conduct operations. In the absence of federal actions, states may elect to become more active in regulating or even could elect to prohibit hydraulic fracturing or high volume hydraulic fracturing altogether, following the approach taken by the states of Vermont, Maryland, Washington and New York. Also, local land use restrictions, such as city ordinances, may be adopted to restrict or prohibit drilling in general or hydraulic fracturing in particular. In Texas, legislation was adopted providing that the regulation of oil and gas operations in Texas is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and thus preempts local regulation of those operations. Nonetheless, municipalities and political subdivisions in Texas continue to have the right to enact “commercially reasonable” regulations for surface activities.

Previous wording

In connection with its operations, the Company must obtain and maintain numerous environmental and oil and gas-related permits, approvals and certificates from various federal, state and local governmental authorities, and may incur substantial costs in doing so. The need to obtain permits has the potential to delay, curtail or cease the development of oil and gas projects. The Company may in the future be charged royalties on gas emissions or required to incur certain capital expenditures for air pollution control equipment or other air emissions related issues. For example, in 2015, the EPA issued a final rule under the CAA lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion under standards to provide protection of public health and welfare. In subsequent years, the EPA has issued area designations with respect to ground-level ozone and final requirements that apply to state, local and tribal air agencies for implementing the 2015 NAAQS for ground-level ozone. State implementation of the revised NAAQS could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of the Company’s equipment, resulting in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increase the Company’s capital expenditures and operating costs. In another example, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) released a final rule in 2015 outlining federal jurisdictional reach under the CWA over waters of the U.S., including wetlands, which has since been subject to several revisions. In August 2023, the EPA finalized a rule amending the definition of “waters of the United States” to conform with the recent Supreme Court decision inSackett v. EPA. However, litigation challenging aspects of the January 2023 definition not addressed bySackett is ongoing. To the extent that future changes to the definition expand the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction in areas where the Company conducts operations, the Company could incur (i) delays, restrictions or prohibitions in the issuance of necessary permits, (ii) restrictions or cessations in the development or expansion of projects, or (iii) increases in the Company’s capital expenditures and operating expenses by, for example, requiring installation of new emission controls on some of the Company’s equipment, any one or more of which developments could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

In connection with its operations, the Company must obtain and maintain numerous environmental and oil and gas-related permits, approvals and certificates from various federal, state and local governmental authorities, and may incur substantial costs in doing so. The need to obtain permits has the potential to delay, curtail or cease the development of oil and gas projects. The Company may in the future be charged royalties on gas emissions or required to incur certain capital expenditures for air pollution control equipment or other air emissions related issues. For example, in 2015, the EPA issued a final rule under the CAA lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion under standards to provide protection of public health and welfare. In subsequent years, the EPA has issued area designations with respect to ground-level ozone and final requirements that apply to state, local and tribal air agencies for implementing the 2015 NAAQS for ground-level ozone. State implementation of the revised NAAQS could, among other things, require installation of new emission controls on some of the Company’s equipment, resulting in longer permitting timelines, and significantly increase the Company’s capital expenditures and operating costs. In another example, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) released a final rule in 2015 outlining federal jurisdictional reach under the CWA over waters of the U.S., including wetlands, which has since been subject to several revisions. In August 2023, the EPA finalized a rule amending the definition of “waters of the United States” to conform with the recent Supreme Court decision inSackett v. EPA. However, litigation challenging the EPA rulemaking and aspects of the January 2023 definition not addressed bySackett is ongoing. To the extent that future changes to the definition expand the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction in areas where the Company conducts operations, the Company could incur (i) delays, restrictions or prohibitions in the issuance of necessary permits, (ii) restrictions or cessations in the development or expansion of projects, or (iii) increases in the Company’s capital expenditures and operating expenses by, for example, requiring installation of new emission controls on some of the Company’s equipment, any one or more of which developments could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

The Company’s operations are subject to a number of risks arising out of concerns regarding the threat of climate change, including regulatory, political, litigation and financial risks, that could result in increased operating costs and costs of compliance, limit the areas in which oil and gas production may occur, reduce demand for the oil and gas the Company produces, and expose the Company to the risk of increased activism and decreased funding for the industry, while the potential physical effects of climate change could disrupt the Company’s production and cause it to incur significant costs in preparing for or responding to those effects.

Current wording

The Company’s operations are subject to a number of risks arising out of concerns regarding the threat of climate change, including regulatory and litigation risks, that could, among other things, result in increased operating costs and costs of compliance, limit the areas in which oil and gas production may occur, expose the Company to the risk of increased activism or reduce demand for the oil and gas the Company produces.

Previous wording

In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court finding that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA has adopted regulations that, among other things, (i) establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, (ii) require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and gas system sources in the United States, (iii) implement CAA emission standards directing the reduction of methane from certain new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in the oil and gas sector, and (iv) together with the DOT, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. For example, in December 2023, the EPA finalized NSPS Subpart OOOOb, which seeks to reduce methane and volatile organic compound emissions from the oil and natural gas source category and NSPS Subpart OOOOc, which create, for the first-time, emission guidelines for existing oil and natural gas sources that would be included in individual states’ implementation plans. These standards expand upon previously issued NSPS Subparts OOOO and OOOOa published by the EPA in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Additionally, various states, groups of states, and other countries have adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on such areas as GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and restriction of emissions. At the international level, there is a non-binding agreement, the United Nations sponsored “Paris Agreement,” for nations to limit their GHG emissions through individually-determined reduction goals every five years after 2020. The United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement in November 2020 but reentered the agreement in February 2021. In April 2021, the Biden administration announced a new goal to reduce GHG emissions by 50% to 52% economy-wide by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. In August 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act, which created a methane emissions reduction program, provided significant funding to reduce emissions of methane from the oil and gas sector, and requires the EPA to impose a charge on certain oil and gas sources.

Current wording

In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court finding that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA has adopted regulations that, among other things, (i) establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, (ii) require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and gas system sources in the United States, (iii) implement CAA emission standards directing the reduction of methane from certain new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in the oil and gas sector, and (iv) together with the DOT, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. For example, in December 2023, the EPA finalized NSPS Subpart OOOOb, which seeks to reduce methane and volatile organic compound emissions from the oil and natural gas source category and NSPS Subpart OOOOc, which create, for the first-time, emission guidelines for existing oil and natural gas sources that would be included in individual states’ implementation plans. These standards expand upon previously issued NSPS Subparts OOOO and OOOOa published by the EPA in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Additionally, various states, groups of states, and other countries have adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on such areas as GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and restriction of emissions. At the international level, there is a non-binding agreement, the United Nations sponsored “Paris Agreement,” for nations to limit their GHG emissions through individually-determined reduction goals every five years after 2020. In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. While the current U.S. administration may diverge from the prior administration’s positions and could withdraw from or otherwise roll back existing GHG emissions regulations, it is not possible at this time to predict exactly which and to what extent such regulations will be modified, and how any such actions may impact our business. Further, such actions could prompt more activity from state and local legislative bodies and administrative agencies to pass stricter GHG emissions laws, regulations, and other binding commitments.

Previous wording

Governmental, scientific, and public concern over the threat of climate change arising from GHG emissions has resulted in increasing political risks in the United States. President Biden and the Democratic Party have identified climate change as a priority, and it is possible that additional executive orders and/or regulatory action targeting GHG emissions, or prohibiting or restricting oil and gas development activities in certain areas, will be proposed and/or promulgated during the Biden Administration. Litigation risks are also increasing, as a number of cities, local governments or other persons have sought to bring suit against oil and gas exploration and production companies in state or federal court, alleging, among other things, that such companies created public nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to global warming effects, such as rising sea levels, and therefore are responsible for roadway and infrastructure damages, or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors by failing to adequately disclose those impacts.

Current wording

Litigation risks relating to GHG emissions and climate change are increasing, as a number of cities, local governments or other persons have sought to bring suit against oil and gas exploration and production companies in state or federal court, alleging, among other things, that such companies created public nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to global warming effects, such as rising sea levels, and therefore are responsible for roadway and infrastructure damages, or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors by failing to adequately disclose those impacts.

Previous wording

Companies across all industries are facing increasing scrutiny relating to their ESG policies. Investor advocacy groups, certain institutional investors, investment funds, lenders and other market participants are increasingly focused on ESG practices and in recent years have placed increasing importance on the implications and social cost of their investments. The increased focus and activism related to ESG and similar matters may hinder access to capital, as investors and lenders may decide to reallocate capital or not to commit capital as a result of their assessment of a company’s ESG practices. Companies that do not adapt to or comply with investor, lender or other industry shareholder expectations and standards, which are evolving, or which are perceived to have not responded appropriately to the growing concern for ESG issues, regardless of whether there is a legal requirement to do so, may suffer from reputational damage and the business, financial condition or stock price of such a company could be materially and adversely affected.

Current wording

Companies across all industries continue to face scrutiny relating to their ESG policies. Investor advocacy groups, certain institutional investors, investment funds, lenders and other market participants, often focus on ESG practices and in recent years have placed increasing importance on the implications and social cost of their investments. At the same time, some stakeholders and regulators have increasingly expressed or pursued opposing views, legislation, and investment expectations with respect to ESG, including the enactment or proposal of “anti-ESG” legislation or policies. Our ESG practices and related disclosures may be subject to increased scrutiny and may not satisfy the requirements of all stakeholders or their requirements may not be made known to us. The increased focus and activism related to ESG and similar matters may hinder access to capital, as investors and lenders may decide to reallocate capital or not to commit capital as a result of their assessment of a company’s ESG practices. Companies that do not adapt to or comply with investor, lender or other industry shareholder expectations and standards, which are evolving and may be conflicting, or which are perceived to have not responded appropriately to such stakeholder’s concern, regardless of whether there is a legal requirement to do so, may suffer from reputational damage and the business, financial condition or stock price of such a company could be materially and adversely affected.

Previous wording

Additionally, certain investors and lenders have and may continue to exclude companies engaged in exploration and production activity, such as us, from their investing portfolios altogether due to ESG factors. These limitations in both the debt and equity capital markets may affect our ability to grow as our plans for growth may include accessing those markets. If those markets are unavailable, or if we are unable to access alternative means of financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be unable to implement our business strategy, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and impair our ability to service our indebtedness. At the same time, some stakeholders and regulators have increasingly expressed or pursued opposing views, legislation, and investment expectations with respect to ESG, including the enactment or proposal of “anti-ESG” legislation or policies.

Current wording

Additionally, certain investors and lenders have and may continue to exclude companies engaged in exploration and production activity, such as us, from their investing portfolios altogether due to ESG factors. These limitations in both the debt and equity capital markets may affect our ability to grow as our plans for growth may include accessing those markets. If those markets are unavailable, or if we are unable to access alternative means of financing on acceptable terms, or at all, we may be unable to implement our business strategy, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and impair our ability to service our indebtedness.

Previous wording

Further, it is likely that we will incur additional costs and require additional resources to monitor, report and comply with wide ranging ESG requirements, including the SEC climate change disclosure rules. Similarly, these policies may negatively impact the ability of our customers to access debt and capital markets. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Current wording

Further, we may incur additional costs and require additional resources to monitor, report and comply with ESG requirements that may be adopted. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.