Trio Petroleum Corp

Overview

We are a California-focused oil and gas exploration and development company headquartered in Bakersfield, California, with operations in Monterey County, California, and Uintah County, Utah. The Company was incorporated on July 19, 2021, under the laws of Delaware to acquire, fund, and operate oil exploration and production from assets in California. We have no revenue-generating operations as of the date of this Annual Report. The Company was formed to acquire an approximate 82.75% (which was subsequently increased to approximately an 85.75% working interest) working interest in the large, approximately 9,300-acre South Salinas Project located in Monterey, California (the “South Salinas Project”), and subsequently partner with certain members of Trio LLC’s management team to develop and operate those assets. Trio LLC holds an approximate 3.8% working interest in the South Salinas Project. We hold an approximate 68.6% interest after the application of royalties (“net revenue interest”) in the South Salinas Project. California is a significant part of our geographic focus currently and we recently acquired an interest in the McCool Ranch Oil Field in Monterey County, California, whereas recently we expanded our focus by acquiring an interest in the Asphalt Ridge Project in Utah. We may acquire additional assets both inside and outside of California.

Trio LLC is a licensed Operator in California and operates the South Salinas Project and the McCool Ranch Oil Field on behalf of us and of the other working interest partners pursuant to Joint Operating Agreements. Trio LLC operates the South Salinas Project pursuant to a Joint Operating Agreement dated February 1, 2004, by and among Trio Petroleum Inc. (the predecessor corporation to Trio LLC), as Operator, and the other working interest parties (the “JOA”). The parties to the JOA are partial owners of the oil and gas leases and/or oil and gas interests in the South Salinas Project and the parties agreed to have the Operator explore and develop these leases and/or interests for the production of oil and gas as provided therein. Trio LLC, as Operator, generally conducts and has full control of the operations and acts in the capacity of an independent contractor. Trio LLC is obligated to conduct its activities under the JOA as a reasonable prudent operator, in good workmanlike manner, with due diligence and dispatch, in accordance with good oilfield practices, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Recent Business Developments

McCool Ranch Oil Field

On October 16, 2023, we entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of an Undivided Interest (the “McCool Ranch Purchase Agreement”) in the McCool Ranch Oil Field (the “McCool Ranch Oil Field”) with Trio LLC. Pursuant to the McCool Ranch Purchase Agreement, effective October 1, 2023, we acquired an approximate 22% working interest in and to certain oil and gas assets at the McCool Ranch Oil Field, which is located in Monterey County, California, just seven miles from our flagship South Salinas Project. The Assets are situated in what is known as the “Hangman Hollow Area” of the McCool Ranch Field. The acquired property is a relatively new oil field developed with six oil wells, one water-disposal well, steam generator, boiler, three 5,000 barrel tanks, 250 barrel test tank, water softener, two freshwater tanks, two soft water tanks, in-field steam pipelines, oil pipelines and other facilities. The property is fully and properly permitted for oil and gas production, cyclic-steam injection and water disposal and is currently idle (i.e., not producing), although operations to restart production have begun. We are acquiring the working interests at the McCool Ranch Oil Field through primarily work commitment expenditures that will be allocated to restart production at the field and establish cash flow for us, with upside potential given the numerous undrilled infill and development well locations.

The McCool Ranch Purchase Agreement provided for an initial payment of $100,000 to Trio LLC (the “Stage 1 Purchase Price”) by the Company, which payment was accomplished. Subsequently, refurbishment operations (“Refurbishment’) were to commence at the San Ardo WD-1 water disposal well (the “WD-1”) to determine if the well is capable of reasonably serving the produced water needs for the Assets (as such term is defined in the McCool Ranch Purchase Agreement). The Company had the option to be refunded the Stage 1 Purchase price in the event the Refurbishment was unsuccessful, and thereby terminate the acquisition. Alternatively, in the event the Refurbishment was successful, the Company was to commit to an additional payment to Trio LLC of $400,000 (the “Stage 2 Purchase Price”) of work-commitment funds to be used by Trio LLC in restarting production operations. The Refurbishment was deemed successful and the Company is paying to Trio LLC the Stage 2 Purchase Price, which may be paid in tranches as needed for operations. Funds paid for the Refurbishment by Trio LLC out of its own account were reimbursed to it from the Stage 2 Purchase Price funds.

Oil production from the restart of operations at McCool Ranch is expected to resume in Q1, 2024. Once oil production is realized from the restart of operations, the revenue stream from oil sales, after royalties and over and above operating costs, collectively attributable to the Company and Trio LLC before payout of the Stage 1 Purchase and Stage 2 Purchase Price of $500,000.00 (the “Total Purchase Price”), shall be apportioned 80% to the Company and 20% to Trio LLC. Upon payout to the Company of the Total Purchase Price, such revenue stream shall be apportioned 40% to the Company and 60% to Trio LLC until Trio LLC has been reimbursed for the working interest indebtedness (“WI Indebtedness”) of third-party working interest owners, which WI Indebtedness at the execution of the McCool Ranch Purchase Agreement was approximately $870,000.00. Trio LLC shall be reimbursed no more than the total amount of the WI Indebtedness; however, regardless of the source of its reimbursement of same, upon payout of the WI Indebtedness, the Company and Trio LLC will revert to their proportionate 50/50 working interest shares.

Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement

On November 10, 2023, the Company entered into a Leasehold Acquisition and Development Option Agreement (the “Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement”) with Heavy Sweet Oil LLC (“Heavy Sweet”). Pursuant to the Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement, the Company acquired an option to purchase up to a 20% production share in certain leases at a long-recognized, major oil accumulation in eastern Utah, southwest of Vernal, Utah, totaling 960 acres. Heavy Sweet holds the right to such leases below 500 ft depth from surface (the “Asphalt Ridge Leases”) and the Company acquired the option to participate in Heavy Sweet’s initial 960 acre drilling and production program on such Asphalt Ridge Leases (the “Asphalt Ridge Option”).

The Asphalt Ridge Option has a term of nine months, through August 10, 2024. Pursuant to the Asphalt Ridge Option, the Company has the exclusive right, but not the obligation, to acquire up to a 20% interest in the Asphalt Ridge Leases for $2,000,000 (the “Purchase Price”), which may be invested in tranches, provided that the initial tranche closing occurs during the Asphalt Ridge Option period and subsequent tranches occurring as soon thereafter as practical within the Asphalt Ridge Option period, with each tranche providing the Company a portion of the ownership of the Asphalt Ridge Leases equal to 20% multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the total consideration paid by the Company, and denominator of which is $2,000,000. Upon receipt of any funding from the Company pursuant to the Asphalt Ridge Option, Heavy Sweet is required to pay that amount to the named operator of the properties, to pay for engineering, procurement, operations, sales, and logistics activities on the properties. The Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement provides that additional development capital is expected to be secured by Heavy Sweet, and made available for the Company’s participation, by way of a reserve base lending facility (RBL), provided that if such RBL cannot be obtained or does not cover all subsequent capital costs, Heavy Sweet agreed to fund a maximum of $5,000,000 of the first funding required for the development program, with the parties splitting any costs thereafter according to their ownership interests. The initial target is three wells, with an estimated cost of $5,000,000 for roads, pads, drilling, and above ground steam and storage facilities, and thereafter the parties anticipate working together to fund further well development based on their proportionate ownership thereof.

On or around the date the parties entered into the Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement, Heavy Sweet entered into a Leasehold Acquisition and Development Option Agreement with Lafayette Energy Corp (“LEC”), of which Michael Peterson, the Chief Executive Officer and director of the Company, is also the Chief Executive Officer and director, and Frank C. Ingriselli, the Company’s Vice Chairman, is also a director (the “LEC Option”). The LEC Option has similar terms as the Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement, except that it allows LEC to obtain a 30% interest in the Asphalt Ridge Leases and requires LEC to pay certain equity compensation to Heavy Sweet.

The Company and Heavy Sweet further agreed that, to the extent LEC does not fully exercise the LEC Option, the Company has the right to acquire up to all 30% of the rights set forth in the LEC Option (or such lesser amount which LEC has not exercised), from Heavy Sweet, for $3,000,000 cash.

The exercise of the Asphalt Ridge Option is contingent, unless waived by the Company, upon the following: (a) Heavy Sweet providing the Company the statements of revenues and direct operating expenses for the prior two years for the asset and the unaudited stub period for 2023, through the date of closing; (b) satisfactory due diligence review by the Company of Heavy Sweet, the leases, the property and other information; (c) the negotiating of a mutually-acceptable joint operations agreement or other development and operations agreement(s) as agreed by the parties; and (d) Heavy Sweet providing the Company an updated independent reserves report including proved undeveloped reserves (PUDs) and an estimate of gross valuation and discounted net present values, and indicating best estimate original oil-in-place (OOIP) volumes and gross (100%) contingent oil resources, as of a date no earlier than August 31, 2023, for discoveries located in Northwest Asphalt Ridge, Uinta Basin, Utah.

On December 29, 2023, the Company and Heavy Sweet entered into an Amendment to Leasehold Acquisition and Development Agreement (the “Amendment”), pursuant to which the Company and Heavy Sweet amended the Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement to provide that, within three (3) business days of the effective date of the Amendment, the Company would fund $200,000 of the $2,000,000 total Purchase Price in advance of Heavy Sweet satisfying the closing conditions set forth in the Asphalt Ridge Option Agreement, in exchange for the Company receiving an immediate 2% interest in the Asphalt Ridge Leases, which advanced funds would be used solely for the building of roads and related infrastructure in furtherance of the development plan.

On December 29, 2023, the Company paid the $200,000 advance of the total $2,000,000 Purchase Price to Heavy Sweet as required pursuant to the Amendment, and Heavy Sweet immediately assigned a 2% interest in the Asphalt Ridge Leases to the Company.

Competition

There are many large, medium, and small-sized oil and gas companies and third-parties that are our competitors. Some of these competitors have extensive operational histories, experienced oil and gas industry management, profitable operations, and significant reserves and funding resources. Our efforts to acquire additional oil/gas properties in California and elsewhere may be met with competition.

Government Regulation

We are subject to a number of federal, state, county and local laws, regulations and other requirements relating to oil and natural gas operations. The laws and regulations that affect the oil and natural gas industry are under constant review for amendment or expansion. Some of these laws, regulations and requirements result in challenges, delays and/or obstacles in obtaining permits, and some carry substantial penalties for failure to comply. The regulatory burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases our cost of doing business, can affect and even obstruct our operations and, consequently, can affect our profitability.

Various permits for exploratory drilling and production-testing are in-hand for the South Salinas Project, whereas permits for long-term production, conditional use permits, water disposal and other matters have not yet been obtained. There are challenges and uncertainties in obtaining permits, which may result in delays and/or obstacles to developing our oil/gas assets. California and Colorado are two States that are considered to have challenging regulatory environments, and Monterey County in California also has this reputation. We may experience delays and/or obstacles to exploiting our assets, and also may be required to make large expenditures to comply with governmental laws and regulations and to obtain permits, particularly in respect of the following matters:

Regulation of Drilling and Production

The drilling, completion and monitoring of wells and the production of oil and natural gas are subject to regulation under a wide range of local, county, state and federal statutes, rules, orders and regulations. Federal, state, county and local statutes and regulations require permits for drilling operations, drilling bonds and reports concerning operations. The trend in oil and natural gas regulation has been to increase regulatory restrictions and limitations on such activities. Any changes in, or more stringent enforcement of, these laws and regulations may result in delays or restrictions in permitting or development of projects or more stringent or costly construction, drilling, water management or completion activities or waste handling, storage, transport, remediation, or disposal emission or discharge requirements which could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Currently, a significant portion of our properties and operations are in California, which has regulations governing conservation matters, such as the California Environmental Quality Act, such as protecting air and water quality, such as minimizing visual and noise impacts of operations, such as regulating the disposal of produced water and more-specifically on regulating Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) water-disposal projects, such as limitations on hydraulic-fracking and on acid-matrix stimulation, such as the unitization or pooling of oil and natural gas properties, such as establishing maximum allowable rates of production from oil and natural gas wells, such as the regulation of well spacing, such as requirements for the plugging and abandonment of wells, and other similar matters. Regulatory agencies that are probably most-pertinent to the South Salinas Project include Monterey County, the California Geologic Energy Management Division of the Department of Conservation (“CalGEM”), California Water Boards, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, although there are many others. Negative effects of these regulations may include delaying or even blocking projects and increasing project costs. Trio Petroleum has considerable expertise and experience in successfully navigating through California’s regulatory environment, which will be utilized in Trio Petroleum’s efforts to successfully develop the South Salinas Project. Our competitors in the oil and natural gas industry are subject to the same regulatory requirements and restrictions that affect our operations.

Regulation of Transportation of Oil

Sales of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids are not currently regulated and are made at negotiated prices; however, Congress could reenact price controls in the future. Our sales of crude oil are affected by the availability, terms, and cost of transportation.

We anticipate that oil produced from the South Salinas Project will initially be trucked to market, and that it may be trucked to market over the long-term. Similarly, most if not all of the oil produced from the nearby San Ardo Oilfield (approximately cumulative 500 million barrels of produced oil), which has been in operations for about 70 years, is trucked to market. Nevertheless, there are two idle oil pipelines at the South Salinas Project that we may at some time in the future, but not initially, be able to utilize to move oil to market.

The transportation of oil in common carrier pipelines is also subject to rate regulation. The Federal Energy Regulation Commission (“FERC”) regulates interstate oil pipeline transportation rates under the Interstate Commerce Act. Intrastate oil pipeline transportation rates are subject to regulation by state regulatory commissions. The basis for intrastate oil pipeline regulation, and the degree of regulatory oversight and scrutiny given to intrastate oil pipeline rates, varies from state to state. Insofar as effective interstate and intrastate rates are equally applicable to all comparable shippers, we believe that the regulation of oil transportation rates will not affect our operations in any way that is of material difference from those of our competitors. Further, interstate, and intrastate common carrier oil pipelines must provide service on a non-discriminatory basis. Under this open access standard, common carriers must offer service to all shippers requesting service on the same terms and under the same rates. When oil pipelines operate at full capacity, access is governed by pro-rationing provisions set forth in the pipelines’ published tariffs. Accordingly, we believe that access to oil pipeline transportation services generally will be available to us to the same extent as to our competitors.

Regulation of Transportation and Sale of Natural Gas

Historically, the transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce have been regulated pursuant to the Natural Gas Act of 1938, the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and regulations issued under those Acts by the FERC. In the past, the federal government has regulated the prices at which natural gas could be sold. While sales by producers of natural gas can currently be made at uncontrolled market prices, Congress could reenact price controls in the future.

Since 1985, the FERC has endeavored to make natural gas transportation more accessible to natural gas buyers and sellers on an open and non-discriminatory basis. The FERC has stated that open access policies are necessary to improve the competitive structure of the interstate natural gas pipeline industry and to create a regulatory framework that will put natural gas sellers into more direct contractual relations with natural gas buyers by, among other things, unbundling the sale of natural gas from the sale of transportation and storage services. Although the FERC’s orders do not directly regulate natural gas producers, they are intended to foster increased competition within all phases of the natural gas industry. We cannot accurately predict whether the FERC’s actions will achieve the goal of increasing competition in markets in which our natural gas is sold. Therefore, we cannot provide any assurance that the less stringent regulatory approach established by the FERC will continue. However, we do not believe that any action taken will affect us in a way that materially differs from the way it affects other natural gas producers.

Intrastate natural gas transportation is subject to regulation by state regulatory agencies. The basis for intrastate regulation of natural gas transportation and the degree of regulatory oversight and scrutiny given to intrastate natural gas pipeline rates and services varies from state to state. Insofar as such regulation within a particular state will generally affect all intrastate natural gas shippers within the state on a comparable basis, we believe that the regulation of similarly situated intrastate natural gas transportation in any states in which we operate and ship natural gas on an intrastate basis will not affect our operations in any way that is of material difference from those of our competitors.

South Salinas Project Oil Rights

We have an approximate 85.75% working interest in the South Salinas Project, and a mineral-leasehold of approximately 9,300 gross mineral acres in one largely contiguous land package. There are six existing idle wells and one active well (i.e., the HV-1 well) in the South Salinas Project, and permits are approved by Monterey County for the drilling and testing of two additional wells (i.e., the HV-2 and HV-4 wells) at the project.

Description of South Salinas Property and Current Operations

We initiated operations with the acquisition from Trio LLC of 82.75% working interest in the South Salinas Project under the terms of a Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “South Salinas Purchase Agreement”) dated September 14, 2021. Our working interest was later increased by 3.026471% and we currently hold an approximate 85.75% working interest and an approximate 68.6% net revenue interest (after all royalties) in the South Salinas Project. The working interest we own includes leases, wells, inventory and 3D seismic data.

Trio LLC and its management team are part owners of the Company and will continue as Operator of the South Salinas Project on behalf of the Company and of the other working interest partners.

There are two contiguous areas of notable oil/gas accumulations in the South Salinas Project, being the Humpback Area (“Humpback Oil Field”) that occurs in the northern part of the project, and the Presidents Area (“Presidents Oil Field”) that occurs in the southern part of the project. Discovery wells have been drilled and completed at both Humpback Oil Field and Presidents Oil Field. The HV-3A well is the first well drilled at the Presidents Oil Field and is its discovery well. About five wells have been drilled at the Humpback Oil Field and of these we consider the BM 2-2 well as its discovery well.

The Company has determined that production testingmay resume at the HV-3A discovery well at Presidents Field. Operations are in-progress to put the HV-3A well back on pump. Testing on pump at this well is expected to resume in Q1, 2024.

We believe the South Salinas Project has the potential to be significant, with an estimated 39.0 million barrels of oil (“MMBO”) plus 40.0 billion cubic feet of gas (“BCFG”), or 45.7 million barrels of oil equivalent (“BOE”), in Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and an approximate 92.4 MMBO plus 148.8 BCFG, or 117.2 million BOE, in Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves. Note that the conversion rate used is 6.0 Mcf per 1 BOE.

We own approximately 30 square miles of three dimensional seismic data (“3D seismic”) at the project. An integrated interpretation of the 3D seismic data and of well data indicates that Presidents Oil Field is a large anticlinal feature covering an area of approximately 1,300 acres, with a major structural, anticlinal high at the location of the HV-3A discovery well, and with two separate, four-way closed anticlines at the northwest, down-plunge-end of the feature. The structural feature at Presidents Oil Field is best characterized as a positive flower structure resulting from transpressional deformation along strike slip faults including the major Rinconada Fault.

One of our objectives was to drill the HV-1 confirmation well at the President Oil Field immediately after the consummation of our IPO. This objective has been accomplished. The HV-1 well spud on about May 5, 2023, and was completed at its total depth (“TD”) of about 6,641feet (measured depth) on about May 15, 2023.

The HV-1 well is located at Presidents Oil Field about two miles northwest of the HV-3A discovery well and for this reason it is considered a “confirmation well” intended to help confirm the size of lateral extent of the field. The HV-1 surface hole location (“SHL”) is located in about the center of T24S-R10E-Section 14. The well was directionally drilled approximately 2,600 feet toward the southeast and its bottom hole location (“BHL”) is located in T24S-R10E-Section 13.

The HV-1 confirmation well is located on the larger of the aforementioned two down-plunge, four-way closed anticlines. The down-plunge anticline at the HV-1 well covers about 160 acres, or about 12% of Presidents Oil Field. Establishing commercial oil/gas production at the HV-1 well would help confirm that there are about 1,300 oil/gas productive acres at Presidents, whereas noncommercial oil/gas production at the HV-1 well might be considered to reduce the potential productive area of the Yellow Zone at Presidents by about 12% to about 1,140 acres, whereas potentially productive deeper targets would remain under the larger 1,300 acre area.

There were primarily three reservoir objectives in the HV-1 well, being the Yellow Zone (aka Yellow Chert), the underlying Brown Zone (aka Brown Chert) and the underlying Mid-Monterey Clay, all of which are stratigraphic subunits of the Miocene-age Monterey Formation. The Yellow and Brown zones are both attributed oil and gas reserves at Presidents in the Company’s reserve report as filed with the SEC. The Mid-Monterey Clay is nowhere assigned reserves in the Company’s reserve report, although it did have significant oil/gas shows in the HV-3A discovery well and periodically may have contributed to the flow of oil and gas to surface at said well.

The 3D seismic data indicate that the Yellow and Brown zones have four-way closure (i.e., anticlinal rollover in one of the subsidiary, down-plunge anticlines) at the location of the HV-1 well, whereas at this location the Mid-Monterey Clay may have fault closure (within the positive flower structure) but lacks rollover. The directional drilling plan for the HV-1 well was designed such that the well would penetrate the Yellow and Brown zones near the tops of their anticlinal closures and to continue downward into the Mid-Monterey Clay where anticlinal closure apparently does not occur.

The Yellow Zone, Brown Zone and Mid-Monterey Clay were encountered in the HV-1 well largely as predicted including with respect to depth, thickness, lithology, wireline-log characteristics and oil and gas shows including free oil in cuttings and in the mud pit. The Company believes that the HV-1 well has confirmed that there is a major oil and gas accumulation in the Presidents Oil Field, as the Company announced in a press release on May 16, 2023.

Confirmation of a major oil and gas accumulation by itself does not confirm whether economic oil/gas production can be established. The HV-1 well has undergone production testing to evaluate commerciality. Production testing at the HV-1 well was initially carried-out from the bottom up (i.e., by testing the deeper Mid-Monterey Clay zone first and working upward to the shallower Brown and Yellow zones), and the Brown and Mid-Monterey Clay zones were subsequently retested. The Mid-Monterey Clay, Brown Zone and Yellow Zone all underwent production testing. Oil and gas were recovered but commercial oil/gas production has not been established. Operations continue at the HV-1 well but it may soon be idle.

The primary oil and gas objectives in the South Salinas Project are classic fractured Monterey Formation reservoirs (i.e., zones with abundant brittle/fractured intervals of chert, dolomite, limestone and porcelanite) and the Vaqueros Sand. Fractured Monterey Formation is one of the most important and prolific oil/gas reservoirs in California. The primary oil and gas reservoirs occur at approximately 4,000-8,000’ depth. The oil is mid- to high-gravity (18-40° API). The oil and gas targets are in structural traps - this is not a resource play. The structural traps are imaged in 30 square miles of 3D seismic data that is owned by the Company. Importantly, the 3D seismic was acquired after the drilling of all wells in the area except for our HV-3A and HV-1 wells. The 3D seismic provides critical information about how prior wells were not properly located and, more importantly, how the South Salinas Project potentially may be successfully exploited going forward.

The Monterey Formation oil and gas zones have been tested as various wells at the South Salinas Project. The Vaqueros Sand has not yet been tested but it is behind-pipe in the BM 2-2 well that the Company intends to perforate and test as soon as the necessary permits are in-hand.

We have a leasehold of approximately 9,300 gross and 7,946 net mineral acres from one Lessor, Bradley Minerals. The surface lands at the approximate 9,300 mineral acres are all part of the private Porter Ranch.

The HV-1 well was drilled in May 2023, and is the newest well in the South Salinas Project. The HV-1 well has undergone production testing but commercial oil/gas production has not been established. The HV-1 well is the only exploratory well drilled in the last three fiscal years at the South Salinas Project. The Company considers it premature to deem HV-1 either a dry development well or a net productive well. Additional operations, including possibly deepening or sidetracking, and additional testing, are feasible at HV-1. Thus, there has been no net productive well or dry development well drilled in the last three fiscal years at the South Salinas Project. Prior to the drilling of the HV-1 well, the newest well at the Project was the HV-3A discovery well that was drilled in 2018.

All of the Company’s acreage and reserves in the South Salinas Project are considered undeveloped. The new HV-1 well may or may not be capable of commercial oil and/or gas production but, regardless, additional investments (e.g., installing production facilities) will be required and commercial oil/gas production established before acreage and reserves associated with the well may potentially be moved out of the undeveloped category. Similarly, the HV-3A and BM 2-2 wells are and/or may be capable of oil and/or gas production but additional investments at both of these wells are anticipated in Phase 1 prior to establishing commercial oil/gas production and, therefore, the reserves and acreage at both of these wells are considered undeveloped. Thus, the total gross undeveloped acreage is approximately 9,300 acres and the total net undeveloped acreage (i.e., net to the Company) is approximately 7,927 acres (i.e., 9,300 acres x 0.8575 = 7,927 acres). The total gross developed acreage is zero acres and the total net developed acreage (i.e., net to the Company) is also zero acres.

As noted elsewhere, on the Company’s leases there is one existing active well (i.e., the HV-1 well) and there are six existing idle wells (i.e., the BM 1-2-RD1, BM 2-2, BM 2-6, HV-3A, HV 3-6 and HV 1-35 wells). Of these seven wells only the HV-1, HV-3A and BM 2-2 wells are considered to probably and/or possibly be capable of economic oil/gas production, whereas it cannot be ruled-out that economic oil/gas production could be established at the other four wells. Thus, on the Company’s leases there may be considered to be three (3) gross productive wells (i.e., the HV-1, HV-3A and BM 2-2 wells) and 2.5725 net productive wells (i.e., 85.75% WI times 3 gross wells = 2.5725 net productive wells).

The Porter Ranch is an active working property that supports farming operations, livestock grazing, and the exploitation of oil and gas reserves, as well as the preservation of open space that preserves natural habitat. There is partly overlapping ownership in Bradley Minerals (the Lessor) and in Porter Ranch (the surface owner) and the interests and objectives of the two entities are closely aligned. In some projects there are conflicts between surface and mineral owners, for example with the surface owner discouraging and the mineral owner encouraging development. Importantly, in this project the mineral and surface owners have aligned interests/objectives, and this is highly beneficial to the South Salinas Project. Total royalty burden at the South Salinas Project is 20%, all of which is held by lessors. The Company and Trio LLC and their associates hold no royalty interests in the South Salinas Project.

Infrastructure at the South Salinas Project includes seven existing wells (including the recently drilled HV-1 well), six expansive well pads, and three idle Exxon and/or AERA Energy oil and gas pipelines. The expansive well pads are important because they can accommodate significant project development without additional disturbance of the surface - this should help expedite the approval of necessary additional permits.

South Salinas Project Property and Future Operations

The Company has drilling permits from Monterey County for two additional wells at the South Salinas Project, being the HV-2 well and the HV-4 well. The Company may drill one or both of these wells in 2024. The Company is evaluating whether to directionally drill both of these wells into the Presidents Oil Field, or to drill one into the Presidents Oil Field and one into the Humpback Oil Field. This determination will be made, in part, based on the results of production tests at the HV-1 and HV-3A wells.

The Company anticipates that it may be desirable in the future to obtain access or ownership of the Exxon pipelines to move oil and gas to markets and possibly to move produced water off-site. AERA Energy (“AERA”), which is Exxon-Mobil’s California subsidiary, has significant operations a few miles north at the San Ardo Field. It is noted here that it has recently been reported that AERA’s holdings in California have been acquired by the companies IKAV, which is self-described as an international asset management group headquartered in Germany, and CPP Investments, which is self-described as a professional investment management organization that manages investments of contributors and beneficiaries of the Canada Pension Plan. There may be synergies between our project and AERA’s and/or IKAV’s/CPP’s nearby operations that may include our use of one or more of the three pipelines.

There is an application for an UIC water disposal operation at the South Salinas Project that is under review by CalGEM and being modified and updated by Trio LLC. Approval of this water disposal project by CalGEM and Water Boards will be an important part of establishing an economic oil and gas operations.

One of the existing seven wells is currently operationally active (i.e., the HV-1 well) but may soon be idle, whereas six of the seven wells are currently idle and are temporarily shut-in. One of the seven wells (i.e., HV-3A) is expected to be active and returned to oil/gas production in Q1, 2024. When the appropriate permits are in-hand, which may be in about 8 to 12 months, and when the required funding is in-place, the Company plans to return the BM 2-2 well to oil and gas production, to reenter and sidetrack three of the wells (the HV 1-35, BM 2-6 and HV 3-6 wells) to optimal locations that are indicated in the 3D seismic data and to then put them on production, and to utilize one well (the BM 1-2-RD1 well) as a water disposal well. The Company is evaluating the new HV-1 well, as discussed above. The Company may drill one or both of the HV-2 and HV-4 wells in 2024. The HV-1, HV-2 and HV-4 wells may each be produced for its own 18-month period, under the Company’s current exploration/testing permits. The Company intends to work diligently with Monterey County, CalGEM and WaterBoards toward the goal of obtaining permits in about 8 to 12 months for full field development, including long-term production and water disposal. This would allow continued and uninterrupted oil and gas production at the HV-1, HV-2, HV-3A and HV-4 wells, the recompletion and return to production of the BM 2-2 well, the utilization of the BM 1-2-RD1 well for water disposal, and the sidetracking of the HV 1-35, BM 2-6 and HV 3-6 wells to the oil and gas targets that are indicated in the 3D seismic data.

Evaluation of Reserves and Net Revenue

Our evaluation and review of oil and gas reserves and future net revenue attributable to the Company’s interests in the South Salinas Project, as of the end of October 31, 2021, are based on independent analyses prepared by KLS Petroleum Consulting LLC (“KLSP”), Denver, Colorado, as documented in the report that it prepared that is entitled “Reserves Attributable to Trio Petroleum Corp South Salinas Area for Development Plan Phases 1 and 2” (the “Reserve Report”), and a parallel and related analysis by KLSP for the entire Project that is entitled “S. Salinas Area, Full Development Reserves Supplement to SEC Report Dated 1-28-2022” (the “Reserve Supplement Report”). KLSP is an independent, third-party, petroleum engineering firm that meets industry-standards for qualifications, independence, objectivity and confidentiality. The primary technical person, Kenneth L. Schuessler, responsible for preparing the Reserve Report is a registered professional petroleum engineer with decades of experience in the petroleum industry and in analyses of reserves. Mr. Schuessler has significant experience in the petroleum industry and has held important positions with Bergeson Associates, Malkewitz-Hueni Associates, SI International, System Technology Associates and MHA Petroleum Consultants. Importantly, Mr. Schuessler has significant experience in the evaluation and exploitation of Monterey Formation fractured-reservoirs at the giant Elk Hills and Coles Levee Fields in the San Joaquin Basin in California. Mr. Schuessler’s knowledge of the Monterey Formation is highly-relevant to the evaluation of our South Salinas Project at which the fractured Monterey Formation is of critical importance.

KLSP states that the reserves in the “Reserve Report” referenced as Exhibit 99.1 to the Registration Statement and the “Reserve Supplement Report” referenced as Exhibit 99.2 to the Registration Statement and their determination are consistent with definitions found in Rule 4-10 of SEC Regulation S-X (17CFR part 210), and Subpart 1200 of Regulation SK. The net reserves, costs and revenues are those attributable to the Company. Future net revenue and discounted present value are on a before federal income tax (BFIT) basis.

KLSP is an independent third-party that does not own an interest in any of our properties. Mr. Schuessler is not a permanent employee of our company but we continue to employ the services of KLSP on an as-needed basis.

Our internal staff including our geoscience, drilling, facilities, regulatory, compliance, land, legal and accounting professionals communicated as needed with KLSP to ensure the integrity, accuracy and timeliness of data furnished to KLSP, to review and discuss the properties, methods and assumptions used by KLSP in KLSP’s preparation of the reserve estimates, and to review and discuss KLSP’s conclusions. As discussed immediately above, KLSP is a highly-qualified, independent, petroleum-engineering consulting firm. Mr. Terence B. Eschner, the Company’s President and a registered professional geologist, who is very knowledgeable about the South Salinas Project, was the Company’s primary contact with KLSP regarding the reserve analyses that were conducted by KLSP. Mr. T. Eschner played a key role providing the Company’s internal controls on the reserve estimation effort that was carried-out by KLSP, while not interfering with KLSP’s analyses so as to ensure that KLSP’s analyses would truly be that of an independent third-party. The Company recognizes that estimating volumes of economically recoverable oil and natural gas reserves is somewhat subjective and that the accuracy of any reserve estimate is partly a function of the quality and accuracy of the available data and interpretations: for this reason and others the Company strove to provide the best available data and interpretations to KLSP. Reserve estimates typically require revision as new information becomes available and/or due to change in conditions and/or due to unforeseen circumstances. Reserve estimates commonly differ from the quantities of oil and natural gas that are ultimately recovered. Estimates of economically recoverable oil and natural gas and of future net revenues are based on a number of variables and assumptions, some or all of which may prove to be incorrect.

The technologies utilized by KLSP in their reserve estimation efforts are discussed in detail in the Reserve Report. These technologies included the evaluation and incorporation of data from analog oilfields. Analogs are widely used in reserves estimating, particularly in the early development stages when direct measurement information (production history) is limited. As described in the Society of Petroleum Engineers’ Petroleum Resource Management System (PRMS Section 4.1.1) “The methodology is based on the assumption that the analogous reservoir is comparable to the subject reservoir in regard to reservoir description, fluid properties, and most likely recovery mechanism(s) applied to the project that control the ultimate recovery of petroleum. By selecting appropriate analogs, where performance data of comparable development plans are available, a similar production profile may be forecast. Analogs are frequently applied in aiding in the assessment of economic producibility, production decline characteristics, drainage area, and recovery factor.” The technologies utilized by KLSP also included constructing several numerical models that evaluated the expected oil and gas production under an appropriate range of reservoir characteristics, and which allowed probabilistic estimates of reserves. These models required reservoir properties and, therefore, OOIP as input. The Probabilistic method defined a distribution representing the full range of possible values for input parameters. This included dependencies between parameters that are also defined and applied. These distributions were randomly sampled using Monte Carlo simulation to compute a full distribution of potential in-place and recoverable quantities of oil, gas, and water. Input distributions were included for porosity, permeability, water saturation and net productive thickness. In addition, pore volume compressibility was described with a distribution because its range of uncertainty can impact reservoir pressure and therefore future productivity. IHS’ Harmony Enterprise software was used to construct the numerical models for the various reservoir units, being Monterey Yellow, Monterey Blue and Vaqueros Sand reservoir units. A ‘type well’ or calibration model was constructed for each reservoir using the average conditions and reservoir properties cited above. In addition, using the probabilistic distributions of porosity, net thickness, water saturation, permeability and pore volume compressibility, the reservoir model was run 500 times, each time the model selecting via Monte Carlo sampling the input parameters according to the ranges and distributions defined. Each simulation run resulted in a particular value of oil and gas recovery. The cumulative probabilities of the resulting forecasts of ultimate oil and gas recovery were used to identify the reported reserve values.

We have consulted with KLSP and concluded that it is unnecessary at this time to update the provided estimates of net reserves and/or cash flows, which are dated October 31, 2021, to the fiscal year-end of October 31, 2023. While there are new technical data as a result of drilling the HV-1 well in 2023, the geologic and completion results appear to indicate that while the productive area of the Yellow Zone of the President’s Area may be somewhat smaller than mapped in 2021, the swab test completion results of the Mid-Monterey Clay below the Yellow Zone may warrant attribution of reserves to the Mid-Monterey Clay at up-structure locations. Further integration of seismic data with the new well control and completion results will be required to assess the net impact of this new information on the President’s Area reserves, but the addition of the Mid-Monterey Clay pay is expected to offset the small reduction in the Yellow Zone productive area. Oil and gas prices have increased notably since October 2021 and, whilst material and operating costs have also risen, we believe that these factors will positively impact (i.e., favorably impact the Company’s estimated reserves and cash flows) and/or not significantly impact the aforementioned estimates.

Disclosure of Reserve Volumes and Reserve Values as of the End of October 31, 2021

KLSP in the aforementioned reserve analyses recognizes the occurrence at the South Salinas Project of both Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and of Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves (see: “Glossary of Terms Used to Characterize Reserves & Projects” in Table 22 in the Reserve Report). SEC criteria stipulate that reserves cannot be classified as P1 Proved (i.e., PDP or Proved Developed Producing, PDNP or Proved Developed Not Producing, PUD or Proved Undeveloped) if said reserves are not fully permitted for long-term production. Permits for full field development and long-term production have not yet been sought by the Company and thus are not yet issued for the South Salinas Project and, therefore, KLSP does not recognize Proved reserves at the South Salinas Project.

KLSP provided estimates of net oil and gas reserves and future net revenues, attributable to the Company, for Phase 1, Phase 2 and for the entire South Salinas Project, as shown in the below Table. Future net revenue and discounted present value are on a before federal income tax (BFIT) basis. Both undiscounted and discounted net cash flow to the Company are shown. The discounted dollar amounts shown in the below Table are discounted at 10% and, therefore, are net present value (“NPV”) 10 amounts, whereas KLSP also provided estimated NPV5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 45, 55, 65 and 75. Reserve volumes are expressed in stock tank barrels of oil and thousands of standard cubic feet of gas (MCF).

There are uncertainties in reserve forecasts and in associated estimates of future cash flows due to uncertainties in various matters that are elaborated above (see: We face substantial uncertainties in estimating the characteristics of our prospects, so you should not place undue reliance on any of our measures.). The Company’s estimates of Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves, Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves and their respective estimated future cash flows are discussed more-fully above (see Evaluation of Reserves and Net Revenue) and are described in detail in the Reserve Report. The Company’s reserve estimates are based on field analogs, numerical models and probabilistic modeling. Copied below are two paragraphs from the Full Development Reserve Report that further explain the Company’s estimated reserves:

“Because decline curve analysis could not be used to forecast reserves, and since the development of type curves was problematic due to the early historical time frame in which the analog fields were developed, probabilistic methods were employed. The interpretations of open hole logs, core, and test information were used to describe ranges and distributions of key reservoir parameters. These were then input to numerical simulation models that used Monte Carlo sampling and hundreds of runs to derive forecasts of production and ultimate recovery representing P90 (1P), P50 (2P) and P10 (3P) reserve estimates. As indicated in the nomenclature of TABLE 22, these estimates are also known as Proved, Proved+Probable, and Proved+Probable+Possible, respectively. The designation ‘P50’ means there is a 50 percent probability that the actual production will exceed the value reported as the P50 reserves. The P50 value, also considered the Best or Most Likely estimate, is derived from a cumulative frequency distribution of forecast reserves from the Monte Carlo simulations. If Proved reserves have been assigned, Probable reserves are then represented by the difference between the P50 and P90 probabilistic estimates. However, as explained below, Proved reserves have not been assigned in this report because project approval has not been secured by all necessary government entities. Therefore, since there are no Proved or P90 volumes, the Probable reserves disclosed herein, derived from the P50 probabilistic forecasts, are incremental volumes and presented as Probable (P2) reserves. The P10 reserve estimate has a 10 percent probability of exceeding the estimated recovery and is also known as the High estimate. Possible reserves are represented by the difference between the P10 and P50 estimates. Possible reserves are typically larger than Probable reserves. This is the result of the key reservoir parameter distributions reflecting their variation in nature, and when the most favorable parameters are sampled together the resulting calculation provides the highest, but least likely, values of estimated recoveries.”

“Probable reserves are assigned in certain areas where, as described above, reserves could be considered Proved if all regulatory approvals and permits were in place. Probable reserves are also assigned in areas where well control and interpretations of available data provide sufficient geologic evidence of reservoir continuity at structural positions above lowest known hydrocarbons (LKH), and where engineering evidence indicates the reservoir will have the requisite porosity, permeability and oil saturation to produce commercial quantities of oil and gas. The assignment of Possible reserves does not incorporate a larger reservoir area, but rather Possible reserves are assigned to the same wells having Probable reserves because the probabilistic methods employed indicate there may be a greater percentage recovery of hydrocarbons than is appropriate for the ‘Most Likely’ reserve estimates.”

The estimates of Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves and their respective estimated future cash flows have different risk and/or uncertainty profiles and should not be summed arithmetically with each other. For example, estimates of permeability, oil saturation, reservoir thickness and estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) are higher for the P3 reserve estimates than for the P2 reserve estimates (see for example Figure 25 and Table 2 in the Reserve Report).

The Probable (P2) and Possible (P3) reserves in the below Table are considered to be undeveloped as of the end of October 31, 2021. The HV-3A and BM 2-2 wells are capable of oil and/or gas production but additional investments at both of these wells are anticipated in Phase 1 prior to establishing commercial oil/gas production and, therefore, the reserves at both of these wells are considered undeveloped.

The effective date of the data in the below Table is as of the end of October 31, 2021. The date (i.e., as of the end of October 31, 2021) is noted because the reserve estimates are date-specific, and might be, will likely be, revised at later dates. For example, if the Company’s working-interest in the South Salinas Project, and/or the size of the Company’s leasehold position at the South Salinas Project, were in the future to increase or decrease, then the reserve estimates would increase or decrease accordingly (note: the Company’s %WI and leasehold position may increase but are not expected to decrease). Similarly, changes in the future of estimates of oil and/or gas that can be economically recovered, in the market values of oil and/or gas, in estimates of reservoir properties such as thickness, oil saturation, porosity, etc., and various other possible changes in the future, would accordingly result in revised reserve estimates and/or revised estimates of net cash flow. No significant discovery or other favorable or adverse event has occurred since the end of October 31, 2021, that would cause a substantial change in estimated reserves and/or cash flow, as of that date, other than the recent (i.e., March 2022) significant increase in oil price stemming, in part, from Russia’s war on Ukraine, which oil price increase is not incorporated into the analysis provided here.

Phase 1 is a development project with expenditures that are appropriately scaled to the capital raises that the Company anticipates may be realized in the near term now that the Company has completed its IPO. Phase 2, upon demonstration of success in Phase 1, is a development project with expenditures that are appropriately scaled to anticipated future capital raises.

Phase 1 assumes that existing exploration permits will be utilized to drill three new wells (HV-1, HV-2 and HV-4 wells), which drilling was completed for the HV-1 well in May 2023, and may commence for HV-2 and/or HV-4 in 2024, and that four additional wells (HV-3A, BM 2-2, HV 1-35, BM 3-6 wells) will be either recompleted or sidetracked/redrilled in 2024 upon securing necessary permits. The Company’s estimated total Phase 1 investment is $18.6 million and provides for work to secure regulatory permits and to drill/sidetrack and/or recomplete the aforementioned seven (7) wells. The Phase 1 analysis includes capital to plug and abandon the wells, including surface-location cleanup and restoration as per CalGEM guidelines and regulations.

Phase 2 is assumed to begin in the third quarter of 2024, and employs $37.7 million to establish 12 additional oil and gas wells (i.e., sidetracking/redrilling the HV 2-6 well and drilling 11 new wells) and install necessary associated infrastructure. The Phase 2 analysis includes capital to plug and abandon the wells, including-surface location cleanup and restoration as per CalGEM guidelines and regulations.

Phase 1 is estimated to comprise an approximate 2.0 MMBO plus 2.0 BCFG, or 2.3 million BOE, in Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and an approximate 3.7 MMBO plus 6.7 BCFG, or 4.9 million BOE, in Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves, as shown in part “A” of the below Table. The Phase 1 estimated net cash flow to the Company, discounted at 10%, is $28 million for the Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and $109 million for the Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves, as shown in part “A” of the below Table. Note that the conversion rate used in the below Table is 6.0 Mcf per 1 BOE.

Phase 2 is estimated to comprise an approximate 3.1 MMBO plus 3.2 BCFG, or 3.7 million BOE, in Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and an approximate 7.3 MMBO plus 11.6 BCFG, or 9.2 million BOE, in Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves, as shown in part “B” of the below Table. The Phase 2 estimated net cash flow to the Company, discounted at 10%, is $34 million for the Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and $175 million for the Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves, as shown in part “B” of the below Table.

The Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves in Phases 1 and 2 combined comprise an approximate 5.1 MMBO plus 5.2 BCFG, or 6 million BOE, as shown in part “C” of the below Table. The estimated net cash flow to the Company, discounted at 10%, is $62.2 million for the Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves in the combined Phases 1 and 2, as shown in part “C” of the below Table.

The Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves in Phases 1 and 2 combined comprise an approximate 11 MMBO plus 18.3 BCFG, or 14.1 million BOE, as shown in part “D” of the below Table. The estimated net cash flow to the Company, discounted at 10%, is $283.5 million for the Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves in the combined Phases 1 and 2, as shown in part “D” of the below Table.

Full field development of the entire Project, as documented in the Reserve Supplement Report, incorporates the SEC Report Phase 1 Development Project (i.e., Phase 1 in the Reserve Report) and deploys a subsequent drilling schedule (i.e., an expanded “Phase 2”) that reflects full field development and that captures the reserve and value proposition that may be achieved with a capital commitment that could result from a successful Phase 1. As described in the Reserve Report, Phase 1 uses existing exploration permits to drill three wells beginning in May 2022. Four additional wells will be drilled upon securing a Development Permit from Monterey County in October 2023. Trio’s total Phase 1 investment is $18.6 million and provides for work to secure regulatory permits and drill or recomplete seven (7) wells. Full field development (i.e., the expanded Phase 2 in the Reserve Supplement Report) begins July 2024 and employs $463.2 million to drill 144 wells by the end of 2027 and install associated infrastructure. The number of wells reflects full leasehold development of the targeted Monterey productive intervals and areas using vertical wells on 80-acre spacing. The prospective Vaqueros Sand is developed using horizontal wells on 160-acre spacing.

Full field development of the entire Project is estimated to comprise an approximate 39.0 MMBO plus 40.0 BCFG, or 45.7 million BOE, in Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and an approximate 92.4 MMBO plus 148.8 BCFG, or 117.2 million BOE, in Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves, as shown in part “E” of the below Table. The entire Project estimated net cash flow to the Company, discounted at 10%, is $407.6 million for the Probable (P2) Undeveloped reserves and $2 billion for the Possible (P3) Undeveloped reserves, as shown in part “E” of the below Table.

Table 1: Estimated Undeveloped Reserves and Cash Flow

ESTIMATED UNDEVELOPED RESERVES AND CASH FLOW

Reasonable Expectations of Reserve Analyses

This Annual Report provides a summary of risks and detailed discussions of risks relating to our business and risks related to this offering. The Company recognizes these risks as being real and substantial. Nevertheless, the Company has reasonable expectations that the Company’s South Salinas Project will prove to have reserves approximately as estimated, that the Company will have adequate funding to develop the reserves, and that there will exist the legal right to develop the Company’s reserves in the South Salinas Project, including the rights to full-field development, to long-term production and to deliver natural gas to market via pipeline, recognizing as discussed elsewhere hereunder that there may be project delays and/or obstacles related to obtaining necessary permits from regulatory agencies. Furthermore and more specifically, the Company has a reasonable expectation that the primary governmental regulatory agencies that are currently and/or that will be involved in the permitting processes, which agencies will primarily be CalGEM, State Water Boards and Monterey County, will determine to approve the Company’s applications for permits for various reasons that are discussed below. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business -We may face delays and/or obstacles in project development due to difficulties in obtaining necessary permits from federal, state, county and/or local agencies, which may materially affect our business;” “Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business - We face substantial uncertainties in estimating the characteristics of our prospects, so you should not place undue reliance on any of our measures;” “Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business - The drilling of wells is speculative, often involving significant costs that may be more than our estimates, and drilling may not result in any discoveries or additions to our future production or future reserves; “Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business - Any material inaccuracies in drilling costs, estimates or underlying assumptions will materially affect our business;” “Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business - Seismic studies do not guarantee that oil or gas is present or, if present, will produce in economic quantities; and “Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business - We are subject to numerous risks inherent to the exploration and production of oil and natural gas.”

The Company currently is preparing a full-field development plan that is expected to include the following key elements:

The Company during Phase 1 or shortly thereafter expects to engage a third-party expert consulting company (“Environmental Consultant”) to prepare a Full Environmental Impact Report (Full EIR) on the Company’s full-field development plan. It is customary in Monterey County in these matters for the Environmental Consultant to be chosen by and/or agreed to by the County, for the Environmental Consultant to report directly to the County’s technical staff, and to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest for County to directly compensate the Environmental Consultant from funds paid to County by the Operator. The Company has a reasonable expectation that the Full EIR will determine that the full-development project will have “a less than significant environmental impact” with a “mitigated negative declaration”, meaning that the Project will be deemed environmentally acceptable with specific, delineated mitigation-measures being taken to protect and prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, natural resources, climate and other similar matters (e.g., water and air quality, scenic views or “viewshed”, etc.). The Company has a reasonable expectation that it will be able to obtain a Full EIR with a mitigated negative declaration for the full-field development project that should help expedite approval of necessary permits.

The surface lands at the Project are privately owned by the Porter Ranch and the subsurface mineral rights are privately owned by Lessor Bradley Minerals Company. The Porter Ranch is a multi-use working-ranch with operations that include the Company’s oil and gas operations as well as extensive agricultural and livestock operations. The Porter Ranch (surface owners) and the Bradley Minerals Company (mineral owners) are fully-aligned in their desire to develop the oil and gas resources at the Project. The Company has a reasonable expectation that the surface and mineral owners will be fully-aligned and fully-supportive of the Company’s full-field development plan and that this undivided support should help expedite approval of necessary permits.

CalGEM has statutory mandates to ensure both energy production and environmental protection. The Company has a reasonable expectation that CalGEM will have a favorable view of the Company’s full-development plan for the South Salinas Project and that CalGEM accordingly will determine that the Company’s applications for necessary permits should be approved. The Company furthermore has a reasonable expectation that State Water Boards will, similarly to CalGEM, have a favorable view of the Company’s full-development plan for the South Salinas Project and that Water Boards accordingly will determine that the Company’s applications for necessary permits should be approved.

The Company has a reasonable expectation that the County Commissioners and more importantly the County Supervisors (the Supervisors are a higher authority than the Commissioners) of Monterey County will determine that the Company’s applications for necessary permits should be approved. This reasonable expectation is based, in part, on the expected benefits of the Project to the County and to the State of California that include the following statistics and claims from Californians for Energy Independence:

The Company has a reasonable expectation that the primary governmental regulatory agencies (i.e., CalGEM, State Water Boards and Monterey County) that are and/or that will be involved in the permitting process will endeavor to avoid any unconstitutional takings of private property that might result from denying permits for the South Salinas Project. The Company has a reasonable expectation that governmental regulatory agencies will wish to avoid any unconstitutional takings of private property and that this should help expedite approval of necessary permits.

Trio LLC, which is Operator of the South Salinas Project, has significant experience in Monterey County in obtaining necessary permits (e.g., drilling permits for exploration and development wells, permits for Underground Injection Control water-disposal projects, permits for constructing facilities, permits for constructing pipelines and power lines, etc.) from governmental regulatory agencies (e.g., CalGEM, Monterey County, and other local agencies). More specifically, Trio LLC, as Operator, developed both the Lynch Canyon Oil Field and the Hangman Hollow Area of the McCool Ranch Oil Field, both of which oilfields are located in Monterey County approximately seven miles north of the Company’s South Salinas Project. The Company has a reasonable expectation that, given its own expertise and the expertise and local experience of Trio LLC as an Operator, that the necessary permits may be obtained from governmental regulatory agencies and thus that there will exist the legal right to develop the Company’s reserves in the South Salinas Project.

The Company has a reasonable expectation that it will be able to negotiate an agreement with Exxon/AERA to utilize their existing idle gas pipeline and one or more of their two idle oil pipelines that exist at the Company’s South Salinas Project. The pipelines extend from the Company’s South Salinas Project to the San Ardo Oil Field that is located approximately three miles to the north. San Ardo is a giant oilfield with cumulative oil recovery to-date of approximately 500 million barrels of oil - it is ranked among the largest 100 oilfields in the United States by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy and is commonly cited as being among the largest ten oilfields in California. San Ardo uses significant natural gas for operations including to run steam-generators to generate steam for steam-injection into wells as part of thermal oil-recovery operations (i.e., to produce the heavy oil that occurs at the field). An additional supply of natural gas would be beneficial at San Ardo and the high-gravity oil that occurs in the Company’s South Salinas Project could be beneficially blended with the heavy oil at San Ardo (source: personal communication between Trio personnel and AERA Energy personnel: September, 2022). It is feasible that opening the three mile section of the pipelines will be agreeable to the Company and to Exxon/AERA to the financial benefit of all parties. If this arrangement cannot be realized, and if funding and the oil and gas reserves in the Project are sufficient, the Company and the Operator Trio LLC will seek permits for new oil and/or gas pipelines, perhaps along the right-of-way of the existing pipelines to minimize new surface disturbance. The Company has a reasonable expectation that it will be able to establish the transport of oil and/or gas, and especially gas, to market via pipelines, whether through the existing Exxon/AERA pipelines or new pipelines.

The Company has a reasonable expectation that the Company’s South Salinas Project will prove to have reserves approximately as estimated. The Company has this reasonable expectation because it believes that:

The Company has a reasonable expectation that it will have adequate funding to develop the reserves at the South Salinas Project. This reasonable expectation of adequate funding is based on anticipated proceeds from additional capital raises and anticipated operating revenues:

For all of the reasons discussed above in this section, the Company has a reasonable expectation that the Company’s South Salinas Project will prove to have reserves approximately as estimated, that the Company will have adequate funding to develop the reserves, and that there will exist the legal right to develop the Company’s reserves in the Project.

Employees

As of December 23, 2023, we had 7 employees, all of whom are located in the United States.

Subsidiaries

The Company has no subsidiaries.