ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS LP

Previous wording

Before making any distributions to our unitholders, we will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all expenses they have incurred on our behalf. The reimbursement of these expenses and the payment of these fees could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to the unitholders. Our general partner has sole discretion to determine the amount of these expenses and fees. For additional information, please see "Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Related-Party Transactions—Administrative Services."

Current wording

Before making any distributions to our unitholders, we will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all expenses they have incurred on our behalf. The reimbursement of these expenses and the payment of these fees could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to the unitholders. Our general partner has sole discretion to determine the amount of these expenses and fees. For additional information, please see “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Related-Party Transactions—Expense Reimbursements.”

Previous wording

Increasing attention to ESG matters may negatively impact our business, financial results, and unit price.

Current wording

Increased attention to ESG matters may negatively impact our business, financial results, and unit price.

Previous wording

Companies across all industries, including companies in fossil-fuel industries, are facing increased scrutiny from stakeholders related to their ESG practices. Companies that do not adapt or comply with evolving investor or stakeholder expectations and standards, or are perceived to have not responded appropriately to ESG issues, regardless of any legal requirement to do so, may suffer reputational damage and the business, financial condition, and valuation of such companies could be materially and adversely affected. Several advocacy groups, both domestically and internationally, have campaigned for governmental and private action to promote change at public companies related to ESG matters, including through the investment and voting practices of investment advisers, public pension funds, universities, and other members of the investing community. These activities include increasing attention to and demands for action related to climate change, promoting the use of substitutes to fossil-fuel products, encouraging the divestment of fossil-fuel equities, and pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil-fuel reserves. These activities could increase costs, reduce demand for our coal and hydrocarbon products, reduce our profits, increase the potential for investigations and litigation, impair our brand, limit our choices for lenders, insurance providers and business partners, and have negative impacts on our unit price and access to capital markets.

Current wording

Companies across all industries, including companies in fossil-fuel industries, are facing increased scrutiny from stakeholders related to their ESG practices. Companies that do not adapt or comply with evolving investor or stakeholder expectations and standards, or are perceived to have not responded appropriately to ESG issues, regardless of any legal requirement to do so, may suffer reputational damage and the business, financial condition, and valuation of such companies could be adversely affected. Several advocacy groups, both domestically and internationally, have campaigned for governmental and private action to promote change at public companies related to ESG matters, including through the investment and voting practices of investment advisers, public pension funds, universities, and other members of the investing community. These activities include increased attention to and demands for action related to climate change, changes in regulation relating to climate change, promoting the use of substitutes to fossil-fuel products, encouraging the divestment of fossil-fuel equities, and pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil-

Previous wording

In addition, certain organizations that provide corporate governance and other corporate risk information to investors and unitholders have developed scores and ratings to evaluate companies and investment funds based on ESG or "sustainability" metrics. Currently, there are no universal standards for such scores or ratings, but consideration of sustainability evaluations is becoming more broadly accepted by investors. Indeed, many investment funds focus on positive ESG business practices and sustainability scores when making investments, whereas other funds may use certain ESG criteria to "screen" certain sectors, such as coal or fossil fuels more generally, out of their investments. In addition, investors, particularly institutional investors, use these scores to benchmark companies against their peers and if a company is perceived as lagging, these investors may engage with companies to require improved ESG disclosure or performance or sell their interests in the company, particularly if its ESG performance does not improve. Moreover, certain members of the broader investment community may consider a company's sustainability score as a reputational or other factor in making an investment decision. Companies in the energy industry, and in particular those focused on coal, natural gas, or oil extraction, often do not score as well under ESG assessments compared to companies in other industries. Consequently, a low ESG or sustainability score could result in our securities, both debt and equity, being excluded from the portfolios of certain investment funds and investors, restricting our access to capital to fund our continuing operations and growth opportunities. Additionally, to the extent ESG matters negatively impact our reputation, we may not be able to compete as effectively to recruit or retain employees, which may adversely affect our operations.

Current wording

In addition, certain organizations that provide ESG and other corporate risk information to investors and unitholders have developed scores and ratings to evaluate companies and investment funds based on ESG or “sustainability” metrics. Currently, there are no universal standards for such scores or ratings, but consideration of sustainability evaluations has become more broadly accepted by investors. Indeed, many investment funds focus on business practices perceived to have a less risky ESG profile and better sustainability scores when making investments, whereas other funds may use certain ESG criteria to “screen” certain sectors, such as coal or fossil fuels more generally, out of their investments. In addition, investors, particularly institutional investors, use these scores to benchmark companies against their peers and if a company is perceived as lagging, these investors may engage with companies to require improved ESG disclosure or performance, vote against a company’s management proposals or board nominees, or sell their interests in the Partnership, particularly if its ESG performance does not improve. Moreover, certain members of the broader investment community may consider a company’s sustainability scores as a reputational or other factor in making an investment decision. Companies in the energy industry, and in particular those focused on coal, natural gas, or oil extraction, often do not score as well under ESG assessments compared to companies in other industries. Consequently, a low ESG or sustainability score could result in our securities, both debt and equity, being excluded from the portfolios of certain investment funds and investors, restricting our access to capital to fund our continuing operations and growth opportunities. Additionally, to the extent ESG matters negatively impact our reputation, we may not be able to compete as effectively to recruit or retain employees, which may adversely affect our operations.

Previous wording

Public statements with respect to ESG matters, such as emission reduction goals, other environmental targets, or other commitments addressing certain social issues, are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities related to the risk of potential "greenwashing," i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits. For example, in March 2021, the SEC established the Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement to identify and address potential ESG-related misconduct, including greenwashing. Certain non-governmental organizations and other private actors have also filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG-statements, emission reduction claims, approaches to accounting for GHG emissions reductions, or other ESG-related goals, or standards were misleading, false, or otherwise deceptive. As a result, we may face increased litigation risks from private parties and governmental authorities related to our ESG efforts. In addition, any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to further negative sentiment and diversion of investments. Additionally, we could face increasing costs as we attempt to comply with and navigate further ESG-related focus and scrutiny.

Current wording

Certain public statements with respect to ESG matters, such as emission reduction goals, other environmental targets, or other commitments addressing certain social issues, are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, related to the risk of potential “greenwashing,” i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits. For example, the SEC has recently taken enforcement action against companies for ESG-related misconduct, including alleged greenwashing. Certain regulators, such as the SEC and various state agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and other private actors have also filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG-statements, emission reduction claims, approaches to accounting for GHG emissions reductions, or other ESG-related goals, or standards were misleading, false, or otherwise deceptive. Any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to further negative sentiment and diversion of investments. Additionally, we could face increasing costs as we attempt to comply with and navigate further ESG-related focus and scrutiny.

Previous wording

We had long-term indebtedness of $347.6 million as of December 31, 2023. Our leverage may:

Current wording

We had long-term indebtedness of $490.4 million as of December 31, 2024. Our leverage may:

Previous wording

Various limitations in our debt agreements may reduce our ability to incur additional indebtedness, engage in some transactions, and capitalize on business opportunities. Any subsequent refinancing of our current indebtedness or any new indebtedness could have similar or greater restrictions. Please see "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 6 – Long-Term Debt" for further discussion.

Current wording

Any subsequent refinancing of our current indebtedness or any new indebtedness could have similar or greater restrictions. Please see “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 6 – Long-Term Debt” for further discussion.

Previous wording

In 2023, we sold approximately 93.4% of our coal sales tonnage under contracts having a term greater than one year, which we refer to as long-term sales contracts. These contracts have historically provided a relatively secure market for the production committed under the terms of the contracts. From time to time industry conditions could make it more difficult for us to enter into long-term sales contracts with our electric utility customers, and if supply exceeds demand in the coal industry, electric utilities may become less willing to lock in price or quantity commitments for an extended period of time. Accordingly, we may not be able to continue to obtain long-term sales contracts with reliable customers as existing contracts expire, which could subject a portion of our revenue stream to the increased volatility of the spot market.

Current wording

In 2024, we sold approximately 83.6% of our coal sales tonnage under contracts having a term greater than one year, which we refer to as long-term sales contracts. These contracts have historically provided a relatively secure market for the production committed under the terms of the contracts. From time to time industry conditions could make it more difficult for us to enter into long-term sales contracts with our electric utility customers, and if supply exceeds demand in the coal industry, electric utilities may become less willing to lock in price or quantity commitments for an extended period of time. Accordingly, we may not be able to continue to obtain long-term sales contracts with reliable customers as existing contracts expire, which could subject a portion of our revenue stream to the increased volatility of the spot market.

Previous wording

some instances, require the parties to the contract to agree on a new price. Any adjustment or renegotiation leading to a significantly lower contract price could adversely affect our operating profit margins. Accordingly, long-term sales contracts may provide only limited protection during adverse market conditions. In some circumstances, the failure of the parties to agree on a price under a reopener provision can also lead to the early termination of a contract.

Current wording

Some of our long-term sales contracts contain provisions that allow the purchase price to be renegotiated at periodic intervals. These price reopener provisions may automatically set a new price based on the prevailing market price or, in some instances, require the parties to the contract to agree on a new price. Any adjustment or renegotiation leading to a significantly lower contract price could adversely affect our operating profit margins. Accordingly, long-term sales contracts may provide only limited protection during adverse market conditions. In some circumstances, the failure of the parties to agree on a price under a reopener provision can also lead to the early termination of a contract.

Previous wording

In 2023, we derived more than 10% of our total revenues from each of American Electric Power and Tennessee Valley Authority. If we were to lose this or any of our significant customers without finding replacement customers willing to purchase an equivalent amount of coal on similar terms, or if these customers were to decrease the amounts of coal purchased or change the terms, including pricing terms, on which they buy coal from us, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Current wording

In 2024, we derived more than 10% of our total revenues from each of American Electric Power Company Inc., Louisville Gas and Electric Company, and Tennessee Valley Authority. If we were to lose this or any of our significant customers without finding replacement customers willing to purchase an equivalent amount of coal on similar terms, or if these customers were to decrease the amounts of coal purchased or change the terms, including pricing terms, on which they buy coal from us, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Previous wording

Like most companies, we have become increasingly dependent upon digital technologies, including information systems, infrastructure, and cloud applications and services, to operate our businesses, process and record financial and operating data, communicate with our business partners, analyze mine and mining information, and estimate quantities of reserves and resources, as well as other activities related to our businesses. Strategic targets, such as energy-related assets, could be at greater risk of future terrorist or cyber-attacks than other targets in the United States. Deliberate attacks on, or security breaches in, our systems or infrastructure, or the systems or infrastructure of third parties could lead to corruption or loss of our proprietary data and potentially sensitive data, delays in production or delivery, difficulty in completing and settling transactions, misdirected wire transfers, challenges in maintaining our books and records, environmental damage, communication interruptions, other operational disruptions, and third-party liability. Our insurance may not protect us against such occurrences. Consequently, it is possible that any of these occurrences, or a combination of them, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and reputation. Further, as cyber incidents continue to evolve, we could be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any vulnerability to cyber incidents.

Current wording

Like most companies in our industry, we have become increasingly dependent upon access to and the use of our digital technologies, including information systems, infrastructure, and cloud applications and services, to operate our businesses, process and record financial and operating data, communicate with our business partners, analyze mine and mining information, and estimate quantities of reserves and resources, as well as other activities related to our businesses. We also depend on the information systems and infrastructure of third-party vendors, contractors, and partners to support various aspects of our operations. Additionally, certain networks and systems are managed by external service providers which operate outside our direct control. This reliance introduces risks, including potential system failures, security breaches, and external attacks. Strategic targets, such as energy-related assets, could be at greater risk of future terrorist or cyber-attacks than other targets in the United States.

Previous wording

Pandemics, outbreaks or other public health events that are outside of our control could significantly disrupt our operations and adversely affect our financial condition. The global or national outbreak of an illness or other communicable disease, or any other public health crisis, such as COVID-19, may cause disruptions to our business and operations, which may include (i) shortages of employees, (ii) unavailability of contractors or subcontractors, (iii) interruption of supplies from third parties upon which we rely, (iv) restrictions recommended or imposed by government and health authorities, including quarantines, to address an outbreak and (v) restrictions that we and our contractors, subcontractors and our customers impose, including facility shutdowns, to ensure the safety of employees.

Current wording

Pandemics, outbreaks or other public health events that are outside of our control could significantly disrupt our operations and adversely affect our financial condition. The global or national outbreak of an illness or other communicable disease, or any other public health crisis, such as SARS, H1N1/09 flu, avian flu, Ebola,E. Coli., measles and COVID-19, may cause disruptions to our business and operations, which may include (i) shortages of employees, (ii) unavailability of contractors or subcontractors, (iii) interruption of supplies from third parties upon which we rely, (iv) restrictions recommended or imposed by government and health authorities, including quarantines, to address an outbreak and (v) restrictions that we and our contractors, subcontractors and our customers impose, including facility shutdowns, to ensure the safety of employees.

Previous wording

The extent to which COVID-19 or another future pandemic may adversely impact our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition depends on future developments, which are highly uncertain and unpredictable.

Current wording

The extent to which any future pandemic may adversely impact our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition depends on future developments, which are highly uncertain and unpredictable.

Previous wording

In addition, we face competition from foreign producers that sell their coal in the export market. Potential changes to international trade agreements, trade concessions, or other political and economic arrangements could benefit coal producers operating in countries other than the United States. We could be adversely impacted on the basis of price or other factors by foreign trade policies or other arrangements that benefit competitors. In addition, coal is sold internationally in United States dollars and, as a result, general economic conditions in foreign markets and changes in foreign currency exchange rates could provide our foreign competitors with a competitive advantage. If our competitors' currencies decline against the United States dollar or foreign purchasers' local currencies, those competitors could be able

Current wording

In addition, we face competition from foreign producers that sell their coal in the export market. Potential changes to international trade agreements, trade concessions, or other political and economic arrangements could benefit coal producers operating in countries other than the United States. We could be adversely impacted on the basis of price or other factors by foreign trade policies or other arrangements that benefit competitors. In addition, coal is sold internationally in United States dollars and, as a result, general economic conditions in foreign markets and changes in foreign currency exchange rates could provide our foreign competitors with a competitive advantage. If our competitors’ currencies decline against the United States dollar or foreign purchasers’ local currencies, those competitors could be able to offer lower prices for coal to those purchasers. Furthermore, if the currencies of overseas purchasers were to significantly decline in value in comparison to the United States dollar, those purchasers may seek decreased prices for the coal we sell. Consequently, currency fluctuations could adversely affect the competitiveness of our coal in international markets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Previous wording

New tariffs and other trade measures could adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. In response to tariffs imposed by the United States, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and China have imposed tariffs on United States goods and services. The new tariffs, along with any additional tariffs or trade restrictions that may be implemented by the United States or retaliatory trade measures or tariffs implemented by other countries, could result in reduced economic activity, increased costs in operating our business, reduced demand and changes in purchasing behaviors for thermal and metallurgical coal, limits on trade with the United States or other potentially adverse economic outcomes. Additionally, we sell coal into the export thermal and metallurgical markets. Accordingly, our international sales could also be impacted by the tariffs and other restrictions on trade between the United States and other countries. While tariffs and other retaliatory trade measures imposed by other countries on United States goods have not yet had a significant impact on our business or results of operations, we cannot predict further developments, and such existing or future tariffs could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows and could reduce our revenues and cash available for distribution.

Current wording

New tariffs and other trade measures could adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. In response to tariffs imposed by the United States, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and China have imposed tariffs on United States goods and services, including coal. These tariffs, along with any additional tariffs or trade restrictions that may be implemented by the United States or retaliatory trade measures or tariffs implemented by other countries, could result in reduced economic activity, increased costs in operating our business, reduced demand and changes in purchasing behaviors for thermal and metallurgical coal, limits on trade with the United States or other potentially adverse economic outcomes. Additionally, we sell coal into the export thermal and metallurgical markets. Accordingly, our international sales could also be impacted by the tariffs and other restrictions on trade between the United States and other countries. We cannot predict the impact that new or changes in tariffs and other trade measures imposed by the United States or other countries on United States goods, but such new or changes in trade measures could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows and could reduce our revenues and cash available for distribution. Please see risk factor titled “Unexpected increases in raw material costs could significantly impair our operating profitability.” for additional information.

Previous wording

Volatility in coal and oil & gas prices has been and may continue to be heightened as a result of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict, continued hostilities in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas and the potential impact to global shipping caused by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Globally, various governments have banned imports from Russia including commodities such as oil & gas and coal. These events have caused volatility in the aforementioned commodity markets. Although we have not experienced any material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows as a result of such conflicts or the resulting volatility, such volatility, may significantly affect prices for our coal and oil & gas or the cost of supplies and equipment, as well as the prices of competing sources of energy for our electric power plant customers.

Current wording

Volatility in coal and oil & gas prices has been and may continue to be heightened as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, hostilities in the Middle East and the potential impact to global shipping. Globally, various governments have banned imports from Russia including commodities such as oil & gas and coal. These events have caused volatility in the

Previous wording

Future environmental regulation of GHG emissions also could accelerate the use by utilities of fuels other than coal. In addition, federal and state mandates for increased use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources could affect demand for coal. Such mandates, combined with other incentives to use renewable energy sources such as tax credits, could make alternative fuel sources more competitive with coal. Further, far-reaching federal regulations promulgated by the EPA in the last several years, such as CSAPR and MATS, have led to the premature retirement of coal-fired generating units and a significant reduction in the amount of coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. A decrease in coal consumption by the domestic electric utility industry could adversely affect the demand for or the price of coal, which could negatively impact our results of operations and reduce our cash available for distribution.

Current wording

Future environmental regulation of GHG emissions also could accelerate the use by utilities of fuels other than coal, although the short-term future is uncertain as policy changes develop and are implemented by the Trump Administration. In addition, federal and state mandates for increased use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources could affect demand for coal. Such mandates, combined with other incentives to use renewable energy sources such as tax credits, could make alternative fuel sources more competitive with coal. Further, far-reaching federal regulations promulgated by the EPA in the last several years, such as CSAPR and MATS, have led to the premature retirement of coal-fired generating units and a significant reduction in the amount of coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. A decrease in coal consumption by the domestic electric utility industry could adversely affect the demand for or the price of coal, which could negatively impact our results of operations and reduce our cash available for distribution.

Previous wording

Other factors, such as efficiency improvements associated with technologies powered by electricity have slowed electricity demand growth and could contribute to slower growth in the future. Further decreases in the demand for electricity, such as decreases that could be caused by a worsening of current economic conditions, could have a material adverse effect on the demand for coal and our business over the long term.

Current wording

Other factors, such as efficiency improvements associated with technologies powered by electricity have slowed electricity demand growth in the past, and while demand growth has grown in recent years in the U.S., could contribute to slower growth in the future. Further decreases in the demand for electricity, such as decreases that could be caused by a worsening of current economic conditions, could have a material adverse effect on the demand for coal and our business over the long term.

Previous wording

We, our customers, or the Operators of our oil & gas mineral interests could be subject to litigation related to climate change.

Current wording

We, our customers, or the operators of our oil & gas mineral interests could be subject to litigation or regulatory fines or penalties related to climate change.

Previous wording

Increasing attention to climate change risk has also resulted in a recent trend of governmental investigations and private litigation by state and local governmental agencies as well as private plaintiffs in an effort to hold energy companies accountable for the alleged effects of climate change. Other public nuisance lawsuits have been brought in the past against power, coal, and oil & gas companies alleging that their operations are contributing to climate change. The plaintiffs in these suits sought various remedies, including punitive and compensatory damages and injunctive relief. While the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal common law provided no basis for public nuisance claims against the defendants in those cases, tort-type liabilities remain a possibility and a source of concern. Government entities in other states (including California and New York) have brought similar claims seeking to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the GHG emissions attributable to those fuels. Those lawsuits allege damages as a result of climate change and the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. Separately, litigation has been brought against certain fossil-fuel companies alleging that they have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but failed to adequately disclose such impacts to their investors or consumers. We have not been made a party to these other suits, but it is possible that we could be included in similar future lawsuits initiated by state and local governments as well as private claimants.

Current wording

Increased attention to climate change risk has also resulted in a recent trend of governmental investigations and private litigation by state and local governmental agencies as well as private plaintiffs in an effort to hold energy companies accountable for the alleged effects of climate change. Other public nuisance lawsuits have been brought in the past against power, coal, and oil & gas companies alleging that their operations are contributing to climate change. The plaintiffs in these suits sought various remedies, including punitive and compensatory damages and injunctive relief. While the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal common law provided no basis for public nuisance claims against the defendants in those cases, tort-type liabilities remain a possibility and a source of concern. Government entities in other states (including California and New York) have brought similar claims seeking to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the GHG emissions attributable to those fuels. Those lawsuits allege damages as a result of climate change and the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. Separately, litigation has been brought against certain fossil-fuel companies alleging that they have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but failed to adequately disclose such impacts to their investors or consumers. In addition, in December 2024, New York adopted a law requiring companies that emitted over one billion

Previous wording

Effective October 1, 2023, we renewed our property and casualty insurance program through September 30, 2024. Our property insurance was procured from our wholly owned captive insurance company, Wildcat Insurance. Wildcat Insurance charged certain of our subsidiaries for the premiums on this program and in return purchased reinsurance for the program in the standard market. The maximum limit in the commercial property program is $100.0 million per occurrence, excluding a $1.5 million deductible for property damage, a 75 or 90 day waiting period for underground business interruption depending on the mining complex and an additional $25.0 million overall aggregate deductible. We retained a 7.25% participating interest in our current commercial property insurance program. We can make no assurances that we will not experience significant insurance claims in the future that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to purchase property insurance in the future. Also, exposures exist for which no insurance may be available and for which we have not reserved. In addition, the insurance industry has been subject to efforts by environmental activists to restrict coverages available for fossil-fuel companies.

Current wording

Effective October 1, 2024, we renewed our property and casualty insurance program through September 30, 2025. Our property insurance was procured from our wholly owned captive insurance company, Wildcat Insurance. Wildcat Insurance charged certain of our subsidiaries for the premiums on this program and in return purchased reinsurance for the program in the standard market. The maximum limit in the commercial property program is $100.0 million per occurrence, excluding a $1.5 million deductible for property damage, a 75- or 90-day waiting period for underground business interruption depending on the mining complex and an additional $25.0 million overall aggregate deductible. We retained a 2.50% participating interest in our current commercial property insurance program. We can make no assurances that we will not experience significant insurance claims in the future that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to purchase property insurance in the future. Also, exposures exist for

Previous wording

The EPA has begun reviewing permits required for the discharge of overburden from mining operations under Section 404 of the CWA. Various initiatives by the EPA regarding these permits have increased the time required to obtain and the costs of complying with such permits. In addition, the EPA previously exercised its "veto" power to withdraw or restrict the use of previously issued permits in connection with one of the largest surface mining operations in Appalachia. The EPA's action was ultimately upheld by a federal court. As a result of these developments, we could be unable to obtain or experience delays in securing, utilizing, or renewing Section 404 permits required for our operations, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operation and financial position. Please read "Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations—Water Discharge."

Current wording

The EPA has been reviewing permits required for the discharge of overburden from mining operations under Section 404 of the CWA. Various initiatives by the EPA regarding these permits have increased the time required to obtain and the costs of complying with such permits. In addition, the EPA previously exercised its “veto” power to withdraw or restrict the use of previously issued permits in connection with one of the largest surface mining operations in Appalachia. The EPA’s action was ultimately upheld by a federal court. As a result of these developments, we could be unable to obtain or experience delays in securing, utilizing, or renewing Section 404 permits required for our operations, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operation and financial position. Please read “Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations—Water Discharge.”

Previous wording

States in which our coal is transported by truck may modify or increase enforcement of their laws regarding weight limits or coal trucks on public roads. Such legislation and enforcement efforts could result in shipment delays and increased costs. An increase in transportation costs could have an adverse effect on our ability to increase or maintain production and could adversely affect revenues.

Current wording

States in which our coal is transported by truck may modify or increase enforcement of their laws regarding weight limits or coal trucks on public roads. Such legislation and enforcement efforts could result in shipment delays and increased

Previous wording

Our coal mining operations are affected by commodity prices. We use significant amounts of steel, petroleum products, and other raw materials in various pieces of mining equipment, supplies, and materials, including the roof bolts required by the room-and-pillar method of mining. Steel prices and the prices of scrap steel, natural gas, and coking coal consumed in the production of iron and steel fluctuate significantly and could change unexpectedly. Inflationary pressures have and could continue to lead to price increases affecting many of the components of our operating expenses such as fuel, steel, and maintenance expenses. There could be acts of nature or terrorist attacks or threats that could also impact the future

Current wording

Our coal mining operations are affected by commodity prices. We use significant amounts of steel, petroleum products, and other raw materials in various pieces of mining equipment, supplies, and materials, including the roof bolts required by the room-and-pillar method of mining. Steel prices and the prices of scrap steel, natural gas, and coking coal consumed in the production of iron and steel fluctuate significantly and could change unexpectedly. Inflationary pressures, including as a result of the imposition or increase of existing tariffs, have and could continue to lead to price increases affecting many of the components of our operating expenses such as fuel, steel, and maintenance expenses. For example, the Trump Administration recently announced plans to implement or increase tariffs, and on February 10, confirmed the extension of 25 percent import tariffs on steel globally, which could result in an increase of $100 to $150 per short ton according to an analysis from Citi Bank, with such tariffs going into effect on March 12. While the ultimate impact of this tariff is unknown at this time, a portion of our coal production is used by end users to produce steel, and we use a significant amount of steel in our own operations. To the extent that such tariffs depress demand for steel globally or increase the cost to purchase steel, our results of operations, financial position and cash flows may be materially and adversely effected. There could be acts of nature or terrorist attacks or threats that could also impact the future costs of raw materials. Future volatility in the price of steel, petroleum products, or other raw materials will impact our operational expenses and could result in significant fluctuations in our profitability.

Previous wording

Efficient coal mining using modern techniques and equipment requires skilled laborers, preferably with at least one year of experience and proficiency in multiple mining tasks. In recent years, a shortage of experienced coal miners has caused us to include some inexperienced staff in the operation of certain mining units, which decreases our productivity and increases our costs. This shortage of experienced coal miners is the result of a significant percentage of experienced coal miners reaching retirement age, combined with the difficulty of retaining existing workers and attracting new workers to the coal industry. Thus, this shortage of skilled labor could continue over an extended period. If the shortage of experienced labor continues or worsens, it could have an adverse impact on our labor productivity and costs and our ability to expand production in the event there is an increase in the demand for our coal, which could adversely affect our profitability.

Current wording

Efficient coal mining using modern techniques and equipment requires skilled laborers, preferably with at least one year of experience and proficiency in multiple mining tasks. In recent years, a shortage of experienced coal miners has caused us to pay more in direct labor costs in our efforts to attract and maintain talent, and to include some inexperienced staff in the operation of certain mining units, which decreases our productivity and increases our costs. This shortage of experienced coal miners is the result of a significant percentage of experienced coal miners reaching retirement age, combined with the difficulty of retaining existing workers and attracting new workers to the coal industry. Thus, this shortage of skilled labor could continue over an extended period. If the shortage of experienced labor continues or worsens, it could have an adverse impact on our labor productivity and costs and our ability to expand production in the event there is an increase in the demand for our coal, which could adversely affect our profitability.

Previous wording

Disruptions in supply chains could significantly impair our operating profitability.

Current wording

Disruptions in supply chains, inflationary pressures and unexpected increases in raw material costs could significantly impair our operating profitability.

Previous wording

We are dependent upon vendors to supply mining equipment, safety equipment, supplies, and materials. If a vendor fails to deliver on its commitments, or if common carriers have difficulty providing capacity to meet demands for their services, we could experience reductions in our production or increased production costs, which could lead to reduced profitability and adversely affect our results of operations.

Current wording

We are dependent upon vendors to supply mining equipment, safety equipment, supplies, and materials. If a vendor fails to deliver on its commitments, or if common carriers have difficulty providing capacity to meet demand for their services, we could experience reductions in our production or increased production costs, which could lead to reduced profitability and adversely affect our results of operations.

Previous wording

Any future inflationary or deflationary pressures could adversely affect the results of our operations. For example, at times our results have been significantly impacted by price increases affecting many of the components of our operating expenses such as fuel, steel, maintenance expense and labor. In addition to potential cost increases, inflation could cause a decline in global or regional economic conditions that reduce demand for our coal or oil & gas and could adversely affect our results of operations.

Current wording

future inflationary or deflationary pressures could adversely affect the results of our operations. For example, at times our results have been significantly impacted by price increases affecting many of the components of our operating expenses such as fuel, steel, maintenance expenses and labor. In addition to potential cost increases, inflation could cause a decline in global or regional economic conditions that reduces demand for our coal or oil & gas and could adversely affect our results of operations.

Previous wording

Our profitability depends substantially on our ability to mine coal mineral reserves and resources that have the geological characteristics that enable them to be mined at competitive costs and to meet the quality needed by our customers. Because we deplete our reserves and resources as we mine coal, our future success and growth depend, in part, upon our ability to acquire additional coal mineral reserves and resources that are economically recoverable. Replacement reserves and resources may not be available when required or, if available, may not be mineable at costs comparable to those of the depleting mines. We may not be able to accurately assess the geological characteristics of any reserves or resources that we acquire, which could adversely affect our profitability and financial condition. Exhaustion of reserves and resources at particular mines also could have an adverse effect on our operating results that is disproportionate to the percentage of overall production represented by such mines. Our ability to obtain other reserves and resources in the future could be limited by restrictions under our existing or future debt agreements, competition from other coal companies for attractive properties, the lack of suitable acquisition candidates, or the inability to acquire coal properties on commercially reasonable terms.

Current wording

Our profitability depends substantially on our ability to mine coal mineral reserves and resources that have the geological characteristics that enable them to be mined at competitive costs and to meet the quality needed by our customers. Because we deplete our reserves and resources as we mine coal, our future success and growth depend, in part, upon our ability to acquire additional coal mineral reserves and resources that are economically recoverable. Replacement reserves and resources may not be available when required or, if available, may not be mineable at costs comparable to those of the depleting mines. We may not be able to accurately assess the geological characteristics of any reserves or resources that we acquire, which could adversely affect our profitability and financial condition. Exhaustion of reserves and resources at certain mines also could have an adverse effect on our operating results that is disproportionate to the percentage of overall production represented by such mines. Our ability to obtain other reserves and resources in the future could be limited by restrictions under our existing or future debt agreements, competition from other coal companies for attractive properties, the lack of suitable acquisition candidates, or the inability to acquire coal properties on commercially reasonable terms.

Previous wording

The estimates of our coal mineral reserves and resources could vary substantially from the actual amounts of coal we are able to economically recover. The reserve and resource data set forth in "Item 2. Properties—Coal Mineral Resources and Reserves" represent engineering estimates. All of the coal mineral reserves presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitute proven and probable mineral reserves. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of reserves and resources, including many factors beyond our control. Estimates of coal mineral reserves and

Current wording

The estimates of our coal mineral reserves and resources could vary substantially from the actual amounts of coal we are able to economically recover. The reserve and resource data set forth in “Item 2. Properties—Coal Mineral Resources and Reserves” represent engineering estimates. All of the coal mineral reserves presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitute proven and probable mineral reserves. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of reserves and resources, including many factors beyond our control. Estimates of coal mineral reserves and resources necessarily depend upon a number of variables and assumptions, any one of which could vary considerably from actual results. These factors and assumptions relate to:

Previous wording

The geological characteristics of some of our coal mineral reserves, such as depth of overburden and coal seam thickness, make them difficult and costly to mine. As mines become depleted, replacement reserves may not be available when required or, if available, may not be mineable at costs comparable to those of the depleting mines. In addition, permitting, licensing, and other environmental and regulatory requirements associated with certain of our mining operations are more costly and time-consuming to satisfy. Subsidence issues are particularly important to our operations engaged in longwall mining. Failure to timely and economically secure subsidence rights or any associated mitigation agreements could materially affect our results by causing delays or changes in our mining plan. These factors could materially adversely affect the mining operations and cost structures of, and our customers' ability to use coal produced by, our mines.

Current wording

operations are more costly and time-consuming to satisfy. Subsidence issues are particularly important to our operations engaged in longwall mining. Failure to timely and economically secure subsidence rights or any associated mitigation agreements could materially affect our results by causing delays or changes in our mining plan. These factors could materially adversely affect the mining operations and cost structures of, and our customers’ ability to use coal produced by, our mines.

Previous wording

We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations affecting the coal mining industry, including laws and regulations pertaining to employee health and safety, permitting and licensing requirements, air and water quality standards, plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed, the discharge or release of materials into the environment, surface subsidence from underground mining, and the effects that mining has on groundwater quality and availability. Certain of these laws and regulations may impose strict liability without regard to fault or legality of the original conduct. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in

Current wording

We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations affecting the coal mining industry, including laws and regulations pertaining to employee health and safety, permitting and licensing requirements, air and water quality standards, plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed, the discharge or release of materials into the environment, surface subsidence from underground mining, and the effects that mining has on groundwater quality and availability. Certain of these laws and regulations may impose strict liability without regard to fault or legality of the original conduct. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial liabilities, and the issuance of injunctions limiting or prohibiting the performance of operations. Complying with these laws and regulations could be

Previous wording

the assessment of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial liabilities, and the issuance of injunctions limiting or prohibiting the performance of operations. Complying with these laws and regulations could be costly and time-consuming and could delay the commencement or continuation of exploration or production operations. The possibility exists that new laws or regulations may be adopted, or that judicial interpretations or more stringent enforcement of existing laws and regulations may occur, which could materially affect our mining operations, cash flow, and profitability, either through direct impacts on our mining operations, or indirect impacts that discourage or limit our customers' use of coal. Please read "Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations."

Current wording

costly and time-consuming and could delay the commencement or continuation of exploration or production operations. Although we cannot predict what actions the Trump Administration may take with respect to regulation of the coal mining industry, the possibility exists that new laws or regulations may be adopted, or that judicial interpretations or more stringent enforcement of existing laws and regulations may occur, which could materially affect our mining operations, cash flow, and profitability, either through direct impacts on our mining operations, or indirect impacts that discourage or limit our customers’ use of coal. Please read “Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations.”

Previous wording

The Operators' operations on the properties in which we hold interests are subject to various federal, state, and local governmental regulations that may change from time to time in response to economic and political conditions. Matters subject to regulation include drilling operations, production and distribution activities, discharges or releases of pollutants or wastes, plugging and abandonment of wells, maintenance and decommissioning of other facilities, the spacing of wells, unitization and pooling of properties, and taxation. From time to time, regulatory agencies have imposed price controls and limitations on production by restricting the rate of flow of oil & gas wells below actual production capacity to conserve supplies of oil & gas. In addition, the production, handling, storage, and transportation of oil & gas, as well as the remediation, emission, and disposal of oil & gas wastes, by-products thereof, and other substances and materials produced or used in connection with oil & gas operations are subject to regulation under federal, state, and local laws and regulations primarily relating to the protection of worker health and safety, natural resources, and the environment. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions on the Operators, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties, permit revocations, requirements for additional pollution controls, and injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of the Operators' operations on our properties. Moreover, these laws and regulations have generally imposed increasingly strict requirements related to water use and disposal, air pollution control, and waste management. Laws and regulations governing exploration and production may also affect production levels. The Operators must comply with federal and state laws and regulations governing conservation matters, including:

Current wording

The operators on the properties in which we hold interests are subject to various federal, state, and local governmental regulations that may change from time to time in response to economic and political conditions. Matters subject to regulation include drilling operations, production and distribution activities, discharges or releases of pollutants or wastes, plugging and abandonment of wells, maintenance and decommissioning of other facilities, the spacing of wells, unitization and pooling of properties, and taxation. From time to time, regulatory agencies have imposed price controls and limitations on production by restricting the rate of flow of oil & gas wells below actual production capacity to conserve supplies of oil & gas. In addition, the production, handling, storage, and transportation of oil & gas, as well as the remediation, emission, and disposal of oil & gas wastes, by-products thereof, and other substances and materials produced or used in connection with oil & gas operations are subject to regulation under federal, state, and local laws and regulations primarily relating to the protection of worker health and safety, natural resources, and the environment. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions on the operators, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties, permit revocations, requirements for additional pollution controls, and injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of the operators’ operations on our properties. Moreover, these laws and regulations have generally imposed increasingly strict requirements related to water use and disposal, air pollution control, and waste management. Laws and regulations governing exploration and production may also affect production levels. The operators must comply with federal and state laws and regulations governing conservation matters, including:

Previous wording

The Operators must also comply with laws and regulations prohibiting fraud and market manipulations in energy markets. To the extent the operators of our properties are shippers on interstate pipelines, they must comply with the tariffs of those pipelines and with federal policies related to the use of interstate capacity. The Operators may be required to make significant expenditures to comply with the governmental laws and regulations described above and may be subject to potential fines and penalties if they are found to have violated these laws and regulations. We believe the trend of more expansive and stricter environmental legislation and regulations will continue. These current laws and regulations and other potential regulations could increase the operating costs of the Operators and delay production and could ultimately impact the Operators' ability and willingness to develop our properties.

Current wording

The operators must also comply with laws and regulations prohibiting fraud and market manipulation in energy markets. To the extent the operators of our properties are shippers on interstate pipelines, they must comply with the tariffs of those pipelines and with federal policies related to the use of interstate capacity. The operators may be required to make significant expenditures to comply with the governmental laws and regulations described above and may be subject to potential fines and penalties if they are found to have violated these laws and regulations. While we cannot predict what actions the Trump Administration may take with respect to environmental regulation in the short term, we believe the trend of more expansive and stricter environmental legislation and regulations will continue. These current laws and regulations and other potential regulations could increase the operating costs of the operators and delay production and could ultimately impact the operators’ ability and willingness to develop our properties.

Previous wording

In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed in other states, including** **in Oklahoma, alleging that disposal well operations have caused damage to neighboring properties or otherwise violated state and federal rules regulating waste disposal. In response to these concerns, regulators in some states are seeking to impose additional requirements, including requirements in the permitting of produced water disposal wells or otherwise to assess the relationship between seismicity and the use of such wells. For example, both Texas and Oklahoma have imposed certain limits on the permitting or operation of disposal wells in areas with increased instances of induced seismic events. In September 2021, the TRRC issued a notice to operators in the Midland area to reduce saltwater disposal well activities and provide certain data to the TRRC. Subsequently, the TRRC ordered the indefinite suspension of all deep oil & gas-produced water injection wells in the area, effective December 31, 2021. Relatedly, in March 2022, the TRRC began implementation of its Northern Culberson-Reeves Seismic Response Action Plan to address injection-induced seismicity with the goal to eliminate 3.5 magnitude or greater earthquakes no later than December 31, 2023. In response to continued seismicity in the area, the TRRC issued a notice that it is suspending all disposal wells in the Northern Culberson-Reeves Seismic Response Area, effective January 12, 2024.

Current wording

In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed in other states, including in Oklahoma, alleging that disposal well operations have caused damage to neighboring properties or otherwise violated state and federal rules regulating waste disposal. In response to these concerns, regulators in some states are seeking to impose additional requirements, including requirements in the permitting of produced water disposal wells or otherwise to assess the relationship between seismicity and the use of such wells. For example, both Texas and Oklahoma have imposed certain limits on the permitting or operation of disposal wells in areas with increased instances of induced seismic events. In September 2021, the TRRC issued a notice to operators in the Midland area to reduce saltwater disposal well activities and provide certain data to the TRRC. Subsequently, the TRRC ordered the indefinite suspension of all deep oil & gas-produced water injection wells in the area, effective December 31, 2021. Relatedly, in December 2023, in response to continued seismicity within the area, the TRRC issued a notice to suspend the permits of all deep disposal wells within the Northern Culberson-Reeves Seismic Response Area.

Previous wording

The adoption or implementation of any new laws or regulations that restrict the Operators' ability to use hydraulic fracturing or dispose of produced water gathered from drilling and production activities by limiting volumes, disposal rates, disposal well locations, or otherwise, or requiring the Operators to shut down or limit the operation of disposal wells, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

The adoption or implementation of any new laws or regulations that restrict the operators’ ability to use hydraulic fracturing or dispose of produced water gathered from drilling and production activities by limiting volumes, disposal rates,

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, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources in the United States, or constrain the emissions of powerplants (though such emissions restraints have been subject to challenge; for more information, see our regulatory disclosure titled "GHG emissions"). Additionally, the U.S. Congress approved, and President Biden signed into law, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to repeal September 2020 revisions to methane standards, effectively reinstating the more stringent 2016 standards. Furthermore, in December 2023, EPA issued its final methane rules, known as OOOOb and OOOOc, that established new sources and first-time existing source standards of performance for methane and volatile organic compound emissions for oil & gas facilities. The final rules include nationwide emissions guidelines for states to limit methane emissions from existing crude oil and natural gas facilities and states have two years to prepare and submit their plants to impose methane emission controls on existing sources. The rules also revise requirements for fugitive emissions monitoring and repair as well as equipment leaks and the frequency of monitoring surveys and establishes a "super-emitter" response program to timely mitigate emissions events. It is likely that the final rule will be subject to legal challenges. Moreover, compliance with the new rules may effect the amount oil and gas companies owe under the Inflation Reduction Act, which amended the CAA to impose a first-time fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the EPA. The methane emissions fee applies to excess methane emissions from certain facilities and starts at $900 per metric ton of leaked methane in 2024 and increases to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026 and thereafter. Compliance with the EPA’s new final rules would exempt an otherwise covered facility from the requirement to pay the methane fee. We cannot predict the scope of any final methane regulatory requirements or the cost for the Operators to comply with such requirements. However, given the long-term trend toward increasing regulation, future federal GHG regulations of the oil and gas industry remain a significant possibility and may have an impact on drilling operations on our oil & gas mineral interests.

Current wording

In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level. However, the EPA has adopted regulations that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources in the United States, constrain the emissions of powerplants (though such emissions restraints have been subject to challenge; for more information, see our regulatory disclosure titled “GHG emissions”), and, in some cases, require shutdown of power plants by a certain date. Additionally, in December 2023, EPA issued its final methane rules, known as OOOOb and OOOOc, that established new sources and first-time existing source standards of performance for methane and volatile organic compound emissions for oil & gas facilities. The final rules include nationwide emissions guidelines for states to limit methane emissions from existing crude oil and natural gas facilities and states have two years to prepare and submit their plants to impose methane emission controls on existing sources. The rules also revise requirements for fugitive emissions monitoring and repair as well as equipment leaks and the frequency of monitoring surveys and establishes a “super-emitter” response program to timely mitigate emissions events. The final rules are currently being challenged by 23 states and a coalition of industry groups in the D.C. Circuit Court, although OOOOb is already in effect. In February 2025, the court granted the EPA’s motion to hold the cases in abeyance while the EPA reviews the final rules. While the Trump Administration may take action to repeal or modify the methane rules, we cannot predict whether such action will occur or its timing. To the extent the methane rules are implemented as originally promulgated, compliance with the new rules may affect the amount oil and gas companies owe under the Inflation Reduction Act, which amended the CAA to impose a first-time fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the EPA. The methane emissions fee applies to excess methane emissions from certain facilities and starts at $900 per metric ton of leaked methane in 2024 and increases to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026 and thereafter. In November 2024, the EPA finalized a rule, applicable to oil and gas facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 per year, to implement the methane emissions fee provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. We cannot predict whether, how, or when the Trump Administration might take action to revise or repeal the methane fee rule. Additionally, Congress may take actions to repeal or revise the Inflation Reduction Act, including with respect to the methane emissions fee, which timing or outcome similarly cannot be predicted. Should the regulation requiring such payments survive judicial review, we may be require…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Separately, various states and groups of states 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. Internationally, the Paris Agreement requires member states to submit non-binding, individually-determined emissions reduction targets. These commitments could further reduce demand and prices for fossil fuels. Although the United States had withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, following President Biden's executive order in January 2021, the United States rejoined the Agreement and, in April 2021, established a goal of reducing economy-wide net GHG emissions 50-52% below levels by 2030. Additionally, at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021, the United States and the European Union jointly announced the launch of a Global Methane Pledge committing to a collective goal of reducing global methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030, including "all feasible reductions" in the energy sector. At COP27 in Sharm El-Sheik in November 2022, countries reiterated the agreements from COP26 and were called upon to accelerate efforts toward the phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The United States also announced, in conjunction with the European Union and other partner countries, that it would develop standards for monitoring and reporting methane emissions to help create a market for low methane-intensity natural gas. Although no firm commitment or timeline to phase out or phase down all fossil fuels was made at COP27, there can be no guarantees that countries will not seek to implement such a phase out in the future. In December 2023, the United Arab Emirates hosted COP28 where parties agreed to transition "away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner" and increase renewable energy capacity so as to achieve net zero by 2050, although no

Current wording

Separately, various states and groups of states 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. Internationally, the Paris Agreement requires member states to submit non-binding, individually-determined emissions reduction targets. The United States rejoined the Paris Agreement in 2021 and in December 2024, unveiled a new emissions target, seeking to cut emissions by 61-66% from 2005 levels by 2035. The Trump Administration, however, withdrew from the Paris Agreement in January 2025, alongside any other commitments made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Additionally, the Trump Administration revoked any purported financial commitment by the United States pursuant to the same. The full impact of these actions is uncertain at this time and it is unclear what additional initiatives may be adopted or implemented that may have adverse effects on us and the operators’ operations.

Previous wording

Governmental, scientific, and public concern over climate change has also resulted in increased political risks, including certain climate-related pledges made by certain candidates now in political office. In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that commits to substantial action on climate change, calling for, among other things, the increased use of zero-emissions vehicles by the federal government, the elimination of subsidies provided to the fossil-fuel industry, a doubling of electricity generated by offshore wind by 2030, and increased emphasis on climate-related risks across governmental agencies and economic sectors. Other actions that may be pursued include restrictive requirements on new pipeline infrastructure or fossil-fuel export facilities or the promulgation of a carbon tax or cap and trade program. Further, although Congress has not passed such legislation, almost half of the states have begun to address GHG emissions, primarily through the planned development of emissions inventories, regional GHG cap and trade programs, or the establishment of renewable energy requirements for utilities. Depending on the particular program, we, our customers, or operators of our mineral interests could be required to control GHG emissions or to purchase and surrender allowances for GHG emissions resulting from our operations. Litigation risks are also increasing. For more information, see our risk factor titled "We, our customers, or the Operators of our oil & gas mineral interests could be subject to litigation related to climate change."

Current wording

Biden issued an executive order that committed to substantial action on climate change, calling for, among other things, the increased use of zero-emissions vehicles by the federal government, the elimination of subsidies provided to the fossil-fuel industry, a doubling of electricity generated by offshore wind by 2030, and increased emphasis on climate-related risks across governmental agencies and economic sectors. Although the Trump Administration has already announced its disagreement with various of these initiatives, we cannot predict what action the Trump Administration may take regarding these commitments or the timing of such action. Further, although Congress has not passed comprehensive climate legislation, almost half of the states have begun to address GHG emissions, primarily through the planned development of emissions inventories, regional GHG cap and trade programs, or the establishment of renewable energy requirements for utilities. Depending on the particular program, we, our customers, or operators of our mineral interests could be required to control GHG emissions or to purchase and surrender allowances for GHG emissions resulting from our operations. Litigation risks are also increasing. For more information, see our risk factor titled “We, our customers, or the operators of our oil & gas mineral interests could be subject to litigation related to climate change.”