MACH NATURAL RESOURCES LP

Previous wording

Our revenues, operating results, cash available for distribution, liquidity and ability to grow depend primarily upon the prices we receive for the natural gas, oil and NGLs we sell. We require substantial expenditures to replace our natural gas, oil and NGL reserves, sustain production and fund our business plans, including our development and exploratory drilling efforts. Historically, the markets for natural gas, oil and NGLs have been volatile, and they are likely to continue to be volatile. Wide fluctuations in natural gas, oil and NGL prices may result from relatively minor changes in the supply of or demand for natural gas, oil and NGLs, market uncertainty and other factors that are beyond our control, including:

Current wording

Our revenues, operating results, cash available for distribution, liquidity and ability to grow depend primarily upon the prices we receive for the oil, natural gas and NGLs we sell. We require substantial expenditures to replace our oil, natural gas and NGL reserves, sustain production and fund our business plans, including our development and exploratory drilling efforts. Historically, the markets for oil, natural gas and NGLs have been volatile, and they are likely to continue to be volatile. Wide fluctuations in oil, natural gas and NGL prices may result from relatively minor changes in the supply of or demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs, market uncertainty and other factors that are beyond our control, including:

Previous wording

•worldwide and regional economic conditions impacting the supply and demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs;

Current wording

•worldwide and regional economic conditions impacting the supply and demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs, including the potential impact of any significant new tariffs;

Previous wording

•actions of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (“OPEC+”), including the ability and willingness of the members of OPEC+ and other exporting nations to agree to and maintain oil price and production controls;

Current wording

•actions of OPEC+ including the ability and willingness of the members of OPEC+ and other exporting nations to agree to and maintain oil price and production controls;

Previous wording

•activities that to restrict the exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas to minimize greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions;

Current wording

•activities to restrict the exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas to minimize greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions;

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2023, approximately 22% of our total estimated proved reserves were classified as PUDs using SEC Pricing. Development of these undeveloped reserves may take longer and require higher levels of capital expenditures than we currently anticipate. Estimated future development costs relating to the development of our PUDs on December 31, 2023 were approximately $815.5 million over the next five years. Our ability to fund these expenditures is subject to a number of risks. See “— Our development projects and acquisitions require substantial capital expenditures. We may be unable to obtain any required capital or financing on satisfactory terms, which could lead to a decline in our production and reserves.” Delays in the development of our PUDs, increases in costs to drill and develop such reserves or decreases in commodity prices will reduce the PV-10 value of our estimated PUDs and future net cash flows estimated for such reserves and may result in some projects becoming uneconomic. In addition, delays in the development of reserves could cause us to have to reclassify some of our PUDs as unproved reserves. Furthermore, there is no certainty that we will be able to convert our undeveloped reserves to developed reserves or that our PUDs will be economically viable or technically feasible to produce.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2024, approximately 27% of our total estimated proved reserves were classified as PUDs using SEC Pricing. Development of these undeveloped reserves may take longer and require higher levels of capital expenditures than we currently anticipate. Estimated future development costs relating to the development of our PUDs on December 31, 2024 were approximately $842.1 million over the next five years. Our ability to fund these expenditures is subject to a number of risks. See “— Our development projects and acquisitions require substantial capital expenditures. We may be unable to obtain any required capital or financing on satisfactory terms, which could lead to a decline in our production and reserves.” Delays in the development of our PUDs, increases in costs to drill and develop such reserves or decreases in commodity prices will reduce the PV-10 value of our estimated PUDs and future net cash flows estimated for such reserves and may result in some projects becoming uneconomic. In addition, delays in the development of reserves could cause us to have to reclassify some of our PUDs as unproved reserves. Furthermore, there is no certainty that we will be able to convert our undeveloped reserves to developed reserves or that our PUDs will be economically viable or technically feasible to produce.

Previous wording

Actual future prices and costs may differ materially from those used in the net present value estimate, and future net present value estimates using then current prices and costs may be significantly less than current estimates. For example, our estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 2023 were calculated under SEC rules using the unweighted arithmetic average first day of the month prices for the prior 12 months of $2.637/MMBtu for natural gas and $78.22/Bbl for oil at December 31, 2023, which, for certain periods during this period, were substantially different from the available spot prices. In addition, the 10% discount factor we use when calculating discounted future net cash flow for reporting requirements in compliance with Accounting Standards Codification 932, “Extractive Activities — Oil and Gas,” may not be the most appropriate discount factor based on interest rates in effect from time to time and risks associated with us or the oil and natural gas industry in general.

Current wording

Actual future prices and costs may differ materially from those used in the net present value estimate, and future net present value estimates using then current prices and costs may be significantly less than current estimates. For example, our estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 2024 were calculated under SEC rules using the unweighted arithmetic average first day of the month prices for the prior 12 months of $2.130/MMBtu for natural gas and $75.48/Bbl for oil at December 31, 2024, which, for certain periods during this period, were substantially different from the available spot prices. In addition, the 10% discount factor we use when calculating discounted future net cash flow for reporting requirements in compliance with Accounting Standards Codification 932, “Extractive Activities — Oil and Gas,” may not be the most appropriate discount factor based on interest rates in effect from time to time and risks associated with us or the oil and natural gas industry in general.

Previous wording

We have entered into short-term and long-term, fixed-fee contracts with third parties for gathering, processing and transportation services, including four firm transportation contracts, three of which are fully utilized and one that is partially utilized, with the remainder released to other shippers or unutilized. The impact of the unutilized portion of this contract is assumed under the weighted average sales price in the reserves. Total remaining payments as of December 31, 2023 under firm transportation contracts were $7.0 million. In addition, under these short-term and long-term, fixed-fee arrangements, our gathering and processing expenses are generally fixed on a per unit basis for the term of the applicable contract and do not automatically adjust in response to a decline in oil and natural gas prices. In the event of a prolonged period of lower commodity prices, our revenue will decline while the per unit fees we pay for natural gas gathering, treating and compression services generally will not, which would negatively impact our operating margins and cash flow. In addition, during periods of depressed oil and natural gas prices, the market prices for such services may be lower than what we are contractually obligated to pay to our current third-party midstream service providers. Furthermore, to the extent certain future taxes or assessments are imposed on certain midstream assets we utilize, under certain circumstances we may be required by our midstream services contracts to reimburse the midstream service provider for such taxes or assessments, which could negatively affect our operating margins and cash flow. Our third-party midstream service providers are under no obligation to renegotiate their contracts with us. Our failure to obtain these services on competitive terms could materially harm our business.

Current wording

We have entered into short-term and long-term, fixed-fee contracts with third parties for gathering, processing and transportation services, including four firm transportation contracts, three of which are fully utilized and one that is partially utilized, with the remainder released to other shippers or unutilized. The impact of the unutilized portion of this contract is assumed under the weighted average sales price in the reserves. Total remaining payments as of December 31, 2024 under firm transportation contracts were $0.3 million. In addition, under these short-term and long-term, fixed-fee arrangements, our gathering and processing expenses are generally fixed on a per unit basis for the term of the applicable contract and do not automatically adjust in response to a decline in oil and natural gas prices. In the event of a prolonged period of lower commodity prices, our revenue will decline while the per unit fees we pay for natural gas gathering, treating and compression services generally will not, which would negatively impact our operating margins and cash flow. In addition, during periods of depressed oil and natural gas prices, the market prices for such services may be lower than what we are contractually obligated to pay to our current third-party midstream service providers. Furthermore, to the extent certain future taxes or assessments are imposed on certain midstream assets we utilize, under certain circumstances we may be required by our midstream services contracts to reimburse the midstream service provider for such taxes or assessments, which could negatively affect our operating margins and cash flow. Our third-party midstream service providers are under no obligation to renegotiate their contracts with us. Our failure to obtain these services on competitive terms could materially harm our business.

Previous wording

Our business could be harmed by factors such as the availability, terms and cost of capital, increases in interest rates or a reduction in our credit rating. For example, since March 2022, the Federal Reserve has raised its target range for the federal funds rate multiple times, and additional rate hikes may continue to occur. Changes in any one or more of these factors could cause our cost of doing business to increase, limit our access to capital, limit our ability to pursue acquisition opportunities, reduce our cash flows available and place us at a competitive disadvantage. Continuing disruptions and volatility in the global financial markets may lead to an increase in interest rates or a contraction in credit availability impacting our ability to finance our activities. A significant reduction in the availability of credit could materially and adversely affect our ability to achieve our business strategy and cash flows.

Current wording

Our business could be harmed by factors such as the availability, terms and cost of capital, increases in interest rates or a reduction in our credit rating. Changes in any one or more of these factors could cause our cost of doing business to increase, limit our access to capital, limit our ability to pursue acquisition opportunities, reduce our cash flows available and place us at a competitive disadvantage. Continuing disruptions and volatility in the global financial markets may lead to an increase in interest rates or a contraction in credit availability impacting our ability to finance our activities. A significant reduction in the availability of credit could materially and adversely affect our ability to achieve our business strategy and cash flows.

Previous wording

The demand for drilling rigs, frac crews, pipe and other equipment and supplies, including sand and other proppant used in hydraulic fracturing operations and acid used for acid stimulation, as well as for qualified and experienced field personnel, geologists, geophysicists, engineers and other professionals in the oil and natural gas industry, can fluctuate significantly, often in correlation with commodity prices or drilling activity in our areas of operation and in other shale basins in the United States, causing periodic shortages of supplies and needed personnel and rapid increases in costs. Increased drilling activity could materially increase the demand for and prices of these goods and services, and we could encounter rising costs and delays in or an inability to secure the personnel, equipment, power, services, resources and facilities access necessary for us to conduct our drilling and development activities, which could result in production volumes being below our forecasted volumes. In addition, any such negative effect on production volumes, or significant increases in costs could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow and profitability.

Current wording

The demand for drilling rigs, frac crews, pipe and other equipment and supplies, including sand and other proppant used in hydraulic fracturing operations and acid used for acid stimulation, as well as for qualified and experienced field personnel, geologists, geophysicists, engineers and other professionals in the oil and natural gas industry, can fluctuate significantly, often in correlation with commodity prices or drilling activity in our areas of operation and in other shale basins in the United States, causing periodic shortages of supplies and needed personnel and rapid increases in costs. Increased drilling activity could materially increase the demand for and prices of these goods and services, and we could encounter rising costs and delays in or an inability to secure the personnel, equipment, power, services, resources and facilities access necessary for us to conduct our drilling and development activities, which could result in net production volumes being below our forecasted volumes. In addition, any such negative effect on net production volumes, or significant increases in costs could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow and profitability.

Previous wording

For the year ended December 31, 2023, three purchasers each accounted for more than 10% of our revenue: Phillips 66 Company (52.6%), NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC (12.9%), and ONEOK Hydrocarbon L.P. (10.4%). We do not have long-term contracts with our customers; rather, we sell the substantial majority of our production contracts with terms of 12 months or less, including on a month-to-month basis, to a relatively small number of customers. The loss of any one of these purchasers, the inability or failure of our significant purchasers to meet their obligations to us or their insolvency or liquidation could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. We cannot assure you that any of our customers will continue to do business with us or that we will continue to have ready access to suitable markets for our future production. See “Business and Properties — Marketing and Customers” included in Items 1 and 2 of Part I of this Annual Report.

Current wording

For the year ended December 31, 2024, two purchasers each accounted for more than 10% of our revenue: Phillips 66 Company (32.2%) and Shell Oil Company (12.7%). We do not have long-term contracts with our customers; rather, we sell the substantial majority of our production contracts with terms of 12 months or less, including on a month-to-month basis, to a relatively small number of customers. The loss of any one of these purchasers, the inability or failure of our significant purchasers to meet their obligations to us or their insolvency or liquidation could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our unitholders. We cannot assure you that any of our customers will continue to do business with us or that we will continue to have ready access to suitable markets for our future production. See “Business and Properties — Marketing and Customers” included in Items 1 and 2 of Part I of this Annual Report.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2023, we had $825.0 million outstanding under our Credit Agreements. In the future, we and our subsidiaries may incur substantial additional indebtedness. The Credit Agreements contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, and these restrictions will be subject to waiver and a number of significant qualifications and exceptions, and indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. Additionally, the Credit Agreements permit us to incur certain amounts of additional indebtedness.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2024, we had $763.1 million outstanding under our Credit Agreements. In the future, we and our subsidiaries may incur substantial additional indebtedness. The Credit Agreements contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, and these restrictions will be subject to waiver and a number of significant qualifications and exceptions, and indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. Additionally, the Credit Agreements permit us to incur certain amounts of additional indebtedness.

Previous wording

Widespread public health crises, epidemics, and outbreaks of infectious diseases, which can give rise to a threat of recession and related economic repercussions can create significant volatility, uncertainty and turmoil in the global economy and oil and gas industry, as did COVID-19 during 2020 through the beginning of 2022. These variables are beyond our control and may have the effect of disrupting the normal operations of many businesses, including the temporary closure or scale-back of business operations and/or the imposition of either quarantine or remote work or meeting requirements for employees, either by government order or on a voluntary basis. While the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak have lessened, widespread public health crises, epidemics and outbreaks of infectious diseases spreading throughout the U.S. and globally, including from a renewed outbreak of COVID-19, could result in significant disruptions to our operations. The global economy, our markets and our business have been, and may continue to be, materially and adversely affected by widespread public health crises, epidemics and outbreaks of infectious diseases, which could significantly disrupt our business and operational plans and adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to pay distributions on our common units.

Current wording

Widespread public health crises, epidemics, and outbreaks of infectious diseases, which can give rise to a threat of recession and related economic repercussions can create significant volatility, uncertainty and turmoil in the global economy and oil and gas industry. These variables are beyond our control and may have the effect of disrupting the normal operations of many businesses, including the temporary closure or scale-back of business operations and/or the imposition of either quarantine or remote work or meeting requirements for employees, either by government order or on a voluntary basis. Widespread public health crises, epidemics and outbreaks of infectious diseases spreading throughout the U.S. and globally could result in significant disruptions to our operations. The global economy, our markets and our business have been, and may continue to be, materially and adversely affected by widespread public health crises, epidemics and outbreaks of infectious diseases, which could significantly disrupt our business and operational plans and adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to pay distributions on our common units.

Previous wording

Concerns over global economic conditions, energy costs, supply chain disruptions, increased demand, labor shortages associated with a fully employed U.S. labor force, geopolitical issues, inflation, the availability and cost of credit and the United States financial market and other factors have contributed to increased economic uncertainty and diminished expectations for the global economy. Although inflation in the United States had been relatively low for many years, there was a significant increase in inflation beginning in the second half of 2021, which continued into 2023, due to a substantial increase in money supply, a stimulative fiscal policy, a significant rebound in consumer demand as COVID-19 restrictions were relaxed, the Russia-Ukraine war and worldwide supply chain disruptions resulting from the economic contraction caused by COVID-19 and lockdowns followed by a rapid recovery. Inflation rose from 7.5% in January 2022 to a peak of 9.1% in June 2022 and then decreased to 6.5% in December 2022. In December 2023, inflation was 3.4%. We continue to undertake actions and implement plans to strengthen our supply chain to address these pressures and protect the requisite access to commodities and services.

Current wording

Concerns over global economic conditions, energy costs, supply chain disruptions, the potential for significant new tariffs, increased demand, labor shortages associated with a fully employed U.S. labor force, geopolitical issues, inflation, the availability and cost of credit and the United States financial market and other factors have contributed to increased economic uncertainty and diminished expectations for the global economy. Between 2022 and 2024, the Federal Reserve raised the target range for the federal funds rate in an effort to curb inflation. In September 2024 and November 2024, the Federal Reserve lowered the target range for the federal funds rate to its current range of 4.25% to 4.5% in light of the progress on inflation. In December 2024, inflation was 2.9%. We continue to undertake actions and implement plans to strengthen our supply chain to address these pressures and protect the requisite access to commodities and services.

Previous wording

In addition, continued hostilities related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the occurrence or threat of terrorist attacks in the United States or other countries could adversely affect the global economy. These factors and other factors, such as another surge in COVID-19 cases or decreased demand from China, combined with volatile commodity prices, and declining business and consumer confidence may contribute to an economic slowdown and a recession. Recent growing concerns about global economic growth have had a significant adverse impact on global financial markets and commodity prices. If the economic climate in the United States or abroad deteriorates, worldwide demand for petroleum products could diminish, which could impact the price at which we can sell our production, affect the ability of our vendors, suppliers and customers to continue operations and ultimately adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

In addition, continued hostilities related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the occurrence or threat of terrorist attacks in the United States or other countries could adversely affect the global economy. These factors and other factors, such as decreased demand from China, combined with volatile commodity prices, and declining business and consumer confidence may contribute to an economic slowdown and a recession. Recent growing concerns about global economic growth have had a significant adverse impact on global financial markets and commodity prices. If the economic climate in the United States or abroad deteriorates, worldwide demand for petroleum products could diminish, which could impact the price at which we can sell our production, affect the ability of our vendors, suppliers and customers to continue operations and ultimately adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

Title to oil and natural gas properties is often unclear and subject to claims by third parties. Additionally, oil and gas companies are frequently subject to claims with respect to underpayment of royalties, environmental hazards and contested ownership of properties, especially during periods of declining commodity prices and therefore revenue and royalty payments. The oil and gas exploration and production business is especially susceptible to increased cost of capital, hedging losses and declining revenues which can result in defaults on third party obligations. These risk and others can result in the incurrence of significant attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in the prosecution or defense of litigation.

Current wording

Title to oil and natural gas properties is often unclear and subject to claims by third parties. Additionally, oil and gas companies are frequently subject to claims with respect to underpayment of royalties, environmental hazards and contested ownership of properties, especially during periods of declining commodity prices and therefore revenue and royalty payments. The oil and gas exploration and production business is especially susceptible to increased cost of capital, hedging losses and declining revenues which can result in defaults on third-party obligations. These risks and others can result in the incurrence of significant attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in the prosecution or defense of litigation.

Previous wording

•environmental hazards, such as releases of pollutants into the environment, including groundwater, surface water, soil and air contamination;

Current wording

•environmental hazards, such as releases of pollutants into the environment, including groundwater, surface water, soil and air;

Previous wording

•inadvertent damage from construction, vehicles, farm and utility equipment;

Current wording

•inadvertent damage from construction, vehicles and farm and utility equipment;

Previous wording

Increasing attention from governmental and regulatory bodies, investors, consumers, industry and other stakeholders on combating climate change, together with changes in consumer and industrial/commercial behavior, societal pressure on companies to address climate change, investor and societal expectations regarding voluntary climate-related disclosures, preferences and attitudes with respect to the generation and consumption of energy, the use of hydrocarbons, and the use of products manufactured with, or powered by, hydrocarbons, may result in the enactment of climate change-related regulations, policies and initiatives at the government, regulator, corporate and/or investor community levels, including alternative energy requirements, new fuel consumption standards, energy conservation and emissions reductions measures and responsible energy development; technological advances with respect to the generation, transmission, storage and consumption of energy (including advances in wind, solar and hydrogen power, as well as battery technology); increased availability of, and increased demand from consumers and industry for, energy sources other than oil and natural gas (including wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal sources as well as electric vehicles); and development of, and increased demand from consumers and industry for, lower-emission products and services (including electric vehicles and renewable residential and commercial power supplies) as well as more efficient products and services. These developments may in the future adversely affect the demand for products manufactured with, or powered by, petroleum products, as well as the demand for, and in turn the prices of, oil and natural gas products. Such developments may also adversely impact, among other things, our stock price and access to capital markets, and the availability to us of necessary third-party services and facilities that we rely on, which may increase our operational costs and adversely affect our ability to successfully carry out our business strategy. Climate change-related developments may also impact the market prices of or our access to raw materials such as energy and water and therefore result in increased costs to our business.

Current wording

Increasing attention from governmental and regulatory bodies, investors, consumers, industry and other stakeholders on combating climate change, together with changes in consumer and industrial/commercial behavior, societal pressure on companies to address climate change, investor and societal expectations regarding voluntary climate-related disclosures, preferences and attitudes with respect to the generation and consumption of energy, the use of hydrocarbons, and the use of products manufactured with, or powered by, hydrocarbons, may result in the enactment of climate change-related regulations, policies and initiatives at the government, regulator, corporate and/or investor community levels, including alternative energy requirements, new fuel consumption standards, energy conservation, enhanced disclosure obligations and emissions reductions measures and responsible energy development; technological advances with respect to the generation, transmission, storage and consumption of energy (including advances in wind, solar and hydrogen power, as well as battery technology); increased availability of, and increased demand from consumers and industry for, energy sources other than oil and natural gas (including wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal sources as well as electric vehicles); and development of, and increased demand from consumers and industry for, lower-emission products and services (including electric vehicles and renewable residential and commercial power supplies) as well as more efficient products and services. These developments may in the future adversely affect the demand for products manufactured with, or powered by, petroleum products, as well as the demand for, and in turn the prices of, oil and natural gas products. Such developments may also adversely impact, among other things, our stock price and access to capital markets, and the availability to us of necessary third-party services and facilities that we rely on, which may increase our operational costs and adversely affect our ability to successfully carry out our business strategy. Climate change-related developments may also impact the market prices of or our access to raw materials such as energy and water and therefore result in increased costs to our business.

Previous wording

Negative perceptions regarding the Company’s industry and related reputational risks may also in the future adversely affect the Company’s ability to successfully carry out the Company’s business strategy by adversely affecting the Company’s access to capital. There have been efforts in recent years, for example, to influence the investment community, including investment advisors, insurance companies, and certain sovereign wealth, pension and endowment funds and other groups, by promoting divestment of fossil fuel equities and pressuring lenders to limit funding and insurance underwriters to limit coverages to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil fuel reserves. Certain financial institutions and members of the investment community have shifted, and others may elect in the future to shift, some or all of their investment into non-fossil fuel related sectors. There is also a risk that financial institutions may be required to adopt policies that have the effect of reducing the funding provided to the fossil fuel sector. Certain investment banks and asset managers based both domestically and internationally have announced that they are adopting climate change guidelines for their banking and investing activities. Institutional lenders who provide financing to energy companies, such as the Company, have also become more attentive to sustainable lending practices, and some may elect not to provide traditional energy producers or companies that support such producers with funding. Ultimately, this could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration and production activities or adversely impact the cost of capital for both the Company and its customers, and could thereby adversely affect the demand and price of the Company’s securities. Limitation of investments in and financings for energy companies could also result in the restriction, delay, or cancellation of infrastructure projects and energy production activities.

Current wording

Negative perceptions regarding the Company’s industry and related reputational risks may also in the future adversely affect the Company’s ability to successfully carry out the Company’s business strategy by adversely affecting the Company’s access to capital. There have been efforts, for example, to influence the investment community, including investment advisors, insurance companies, and certain sovereign wealth, pension and endowment funds and other groups, by promoting divestment of fossil fuel equities and pressuring lenders to limit funding and insurance underwriters to limit coverages to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil fuel reserves. Certain financial institutions and members of the investment community have shifted, and others may elect in the future to shift, some or all of their investment into non-fossil fuel related sectors. There is also a risk that financial institutions may be required to adopt policies that have the effect of reducing the funding provided to the fossil fuel sector. Certain investment banks and asset managers based both domestically and internationally have announced that they are adopting climate change guidelines for their banking and investing activities. Institutional lenders who provide financing to energy companies, such as the Company, have also become more attentive to sustainable lending practices, and some may elect not to provide traditional energy producers or companies that support such producers with funding. Ultimately, this could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration and production activities or adversely impact the cost of capital for both the Company and its customers, and could thereby adversely affect the demand and price of the Company’s securities. Limitation of investments in and financings for energy companies could also result in the restriction, delay, or cancellation of infrastructure projects and energy production activities.

Previous wording

More broadly, negative public perception regarding us and/or our industry resulting from, among other things, concerns raised by advocacy groups about climate change or other sustainability-related matters, may also lead to increased reputational and litigation risk and regulatory, legislative and judicial scrutiny, which may, in turn, lead to new laws, regulations, guidelines and enforcement interpretations targeting our industry. Companies in the oil and natural gas industry are often the target of activist efforts from both individuals and non-governmental organizations, and such activism could materially and adversely impact our ability to operate our business and raise capital. The foregoing factors may result in downward pressure on the stock prices of oil and gas companies, including the Company’s, and cause operational delays or restrictions, increased operating costs, additional regulatory burdens and increased risk of litigation. For example, some parties have initiated public nuisance claims under federal or state common law against certain companies involved in the production of oil and natural gas, or claims alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but failed to adequately disclose such impacts to their investors or customers. Although the Company is not a party to any such litigation, we could be named in actions making similar allegations, which could lead to costs and materially impact our financial condition in an adverse way.

Current wording

Further, negative public perception regarding us and/or our industry resulting from, among other things, concerns raised by advocacy groups about climate change or other sustainability-related matters, may also lead to increased reputational and litigation risk and regulatory, legislative and judicial scrutiny, which may, in turn, lead to new laws, regulations, guidelines and enforcement interpretations targeting our industry. Companies in the oil and natural gas industry are often the target of activist efforts from both individuals and non-governmental organizations, and such activism could materially and adversely impact our ability to operate our business and raise capital. The foregoing factors may result in downward pressure on the stock prices of oil and gas companies, including the Company’s, and cause operational delays or restrictions, increased operating costs, additional regulatory burdens and increased risk of litigation. For example, some parties have initiated public nuisance claims under federal or state common law against certain companies involved in the production of oil and natural gas, or claims alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but failed to adequately disclose such impacts to their investors or customers. Although the Company is not a party to any such litigation, we could be named in actions making similar allegations, which could lead to costs and materially impact our financial condition in an adverse way.

Previous wording

The long-term trend of more expansive and stringent environmental legislation and regulations applied to the oil and natural gas industry could continue, particularly in light of the Biden administration’s focus on addressing climate change, resulting in increased costs of doing business and consequently affecting profitability. For example, in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order directing the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to temporarily pause new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters pending completion of a comprehensive review of the federal government’s existing oil and gas leasing and permitting program. In June 2021, a federal district court enjoined the DOI from implementing the pause and leasing resumed subject to certain limitations, although litigation over the leasing pause remains ongoing. As a result, it is difficult to predict if and when such areas may be made available for future exploration activities. Further, in November 2021, the EPA issued a proposed rule intended to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas sources. The proposed rule imposes emissions reduction standards on both new and existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry, expands the scope of Clean Air Act (“CAA”) regulation by making regulations in Subpart OOOOa more stringent and creating a Subpart OOOOb to expand reduction requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed oil and gas sources, including standards focusing on certain source types that have never been regulated under the CAA, and imposes emissions reductions targets to meet the stated goals of the U.S. federal administration. In addition, the proposed rule would establish “Emissions Guidelines,” creating a Subpart OOOOc that would require states to develop plans to reduce methane emissions from existing sources that must be at least as effective as presumptive standards set by the EPA. In November 2022, the EPA issued the proposed rule supplementing the November 2021 proposed rule. Among other things, the November 2022 supplemental proposed rule removes an emissions monitoring exemption for small wellhead-only sites and creates a new third-party monitoring program to flag large emissions events, referred to in the proposed rule as “super emitters.” In December 2023, the EPA announced a final rule, which, among other things, requires the phase out of routine flaring of natural gas from newly constructed wells (with some exceptions) and routine leak monitoring at all well sites and compressor stations. Notably, the EPA updated the applicability date for Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc to December 6, 2022, meaning that sources constructed prior to that date will be considered existing sources with later compliance deadlines under state plans. The final rule gives states, along with federal tribes that wish to regulate existing sources, two years to develop and submit their plans for reducing methane emissions from existing sources. The final emissions guidelines …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

The long-term trend of more expansive and stringent environmental legislation and regulations applied to the oil and natural gas industry could continue, resulting in increased costs of doing business and consequently affecting profitability. For example, in January 2021, the Biden administration directed the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to temporarily pause new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters pending completion of a comprehensive review of the federal government’s existing oil and gas leasing and permitting program. In June 2021, a federal district court enjoined the DOI from implementing the pause and leasing resumed subject to certain limitations. In August 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the federal district court’s decision to block the pause on new oil and gas leasing, and the federal district court shortly thereafter enjoined the DOI from implementing the pause in the thirteen states that had challenged the pause, including Oklahoma and Texas. Litigation over leasing remains ongoing. However, in January 2025, President Trump issued executive orders (i) reversing the Biden administration’s leasing pause and executive orders withdrawing certain lands and waters from federal oil and gas leasing and (ii) directing all federal agencies to facilitate the leasing, siting, and generation of domestic energy resources, including on federal lands and waters. In addition, in November 2021, the EPA issued a proposed rule intended to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas sources. The proposed rule sought to impose emissions reduction standards on both new and existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry, expand the scope of Clean Air Act (“CAA”) regulation by making regulations in Subpart OOOOa more stringent and creating a Subpart OOOOb to expand reduction requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed oil and gas sources, including standards focusing on certain source types that have never been regulated under the CAA. In addition, the proposed rule sought to establish “Emissions Guidelines,” creating a Subpart OOOOc that would require states to develop plans to reduce methane emissions from existing sources that must be at least as effective as presumptive standards set by the EPA. In November 2022, the EPA issued a proposed rule supplementing the November 2021 proposed rule. Among other things, the November 2022 supplemental proposed rule sought to remove an emissions monitoring exemption for small wellhead-only sites and create a new third-party monitoring program to flag large emissions events, referred to in the proposed rule as “super emitters,” triggering certain investigation and repair requirements. In December 2023, the EPA announced a final rule, which, among other things, requires the phase out of routine flaring of natural gas from newly constructed wells (with some exceptions) and routine leak monitoring at all well sites and compressor stations. Notably, the EPA updated the a…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

More stringent laws and regulations relating to climate change and GHGs may be adopted and could cause us to incur material expenses to comply with such laws and regulations. In response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment and in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation on GHG emission control, the EPA has adopted regulations pursuant to the CAA to monitor, report, and/or reduce GHG emissions from various sources. We cannot predict the scope of any final methane regulatory requirements or the cost 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.

Current wording

More stringent laws and regulations relating to climate change and GHGs may be adopted and could cause us to incur material expenses to comply with such laws and regulations. In response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment and in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation on GHG emission control, the EPA has adopted regulations pursuant to the CAA to monitor, report, and/or reduce GHG emissions from various sources. We cannot predict the scope of any future methane regulatory requirements or the cost 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.

Previous wording

In addition, Congress has from time to time considered adopting legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, and a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing GHG emissions, such as by means of cap and trade programs. Cap and trade programs typically require major sources of GHG emissions to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting those GHGs. At the international level, in February 2021, pursuant to the Paris Agreement, the current administration announced reentry of the U.S. into the Paris Agreement (an international agreement from the 21 st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, France, which resulted in an agreement for signatory countries to nationally determine their contributions and set GHG emission reduction goals) along with a new “nationally determined contribution” for U.S. GHG emissions that would achieve emissions reductions of at least 50% relative to 2005 levels by 2030. In September 2021, President Biden publicly announced the Global Methane Pledge, an international pact that aims to reduce global methane emissions to at least 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. To date, over 150 countries have joined the pledge. Further, at the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, member countries entered into an agreement that calls for actions toward achieving, at a global scale, a tripling of renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency improvements by 2030. The goals of the agreement, among other things, are to accelerate efforts toward the phase-down of unabated coal power, phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and take other measures that drive the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Various state and local governments have also vowed to continue to enact regulations to satisfy their proportionate obligations under the Paris Agreement.

Current wording

In addition, Congress has from time to time considered adopting legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, and a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing GHG emissions, such as by means of cap and trade programs. Cap and trade programs typically require major sources of GHG emissions to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting those GHGs. At the international level, in February 2021, the Biden administration announced reentry of the U.S. into the Paris Agreement (an international agreement from the 21 st Conference of the Parties (“COP”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, France, which resulted in an agreement for signatory countries to nationally determine their contributions and set GHG emission reduction goals) along with a new “nationally determined contribution” for U.S. GHG emissions that would achieve emissions reductions of at least 50% relative to 2005 levels by 2030. In September 2021, the Biden administration publicly announced the Global Methane Pledge, an international pact that aims to reduce global methane emissions to at least 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. Further, at the 28 th COP, member countries entered into an agreement that calls for actions toward achieving, at a global scale, a tripling of renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency improvements by 2030. The goals of the agreement, among other things, are to accelerate efforts toward the phase-down of unabated coal power, phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and take other measures that drive the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the immediate notice to the United Nations of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and all other agreements made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; however, at the same time, various state and local governments have vowed to continue to enact regulations to satisfy their proportionate obligations under the Paris Agreement. Most recently, at the 29th Conference of the Parties (“COP29”), delegates approved rules to operationalize international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, including a new Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism to trade UN-approved carbon credits. Additionally, participants at COP29 representing 159 countries met to review progress toward the goals of the Global Methane Pledge and the addition of nearly $500 million in new grant funding for methane abatement.

Previous wording

Any legislation or regulatory programs addressing GHG emissions could increase the cost of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, the natural gas we produce, and could require us to incur increased operating costs, such as costs to purchase and operate emissions control systems, to acquire emissions allowances or comply with new regulatory requirements, and to monitor and report on GHG emissions. Any GHG emissions legislation or regulatory programs applicable to power plants or refineries could also increase the cost of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, the oil and natural gas we produce. Moreover, incentives or requirements to conserve energy, use alternative energy sources, reduce GHG emissions in product supply chains, and increase demand for low-carbon fuel or zero-emissions vehicles, could reduce demand for the oil and natural gas we produce. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, for example, provides significant funding and incentives for research and development of low-carbon energy production methods, carbon capture and other programs directed at addressing climate change. Additionally, the SEC adopted the SEC Climate Rules in March 2024, which will mandate detailed disclosure regarding material climate-related risks and related governance and risk management processes, among other items, for certain public companies. Further, in January 2024, President Biden announced a temporary pause on pending decisions on exports of LNG to non-free trade agreement countries until the Department of Energy can update the underlying analyses for authorizations, including an assessment of the impact of GHG emissions.

Current wording

Any legislation or regulatory programs addressing GHG emissions could increase the cost of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, the natural gas we produce, and could require us to incur increased operating costs, such as costs to purchase and operate emissions control systems, to acquire emissions allowances or comply with new regulatory requirements, and to monitor and report on GHG emissions. Any GHG emissions legislation or regulatory programs applicable to power plants or refineries could also increase the cost of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, the oil and natural gas we produce. Moreover, incentives or requirements to conserve energy, use alternative energy sources, reduce GHG emissions in product supply chains, and increase demand for lower-carbon fuel or zero-operating emissions vehicles, could reduce demand for the oil and natural gas we produce. Further, in January 2024, the Biden administration announced a temporary pause on pending decisions on exports of LNG to non-free trade agreement countries until the Department of Energy can update the underlying analyses for authorizations, including an assessment of the impact of GHG emissions. However, in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Energy to restart reviews of applications for approvals of LNG export projects as expeditiously as possible.

Previous wording

Although it is not currently possible to predict how these executive orders, national commitments or any proposed or future GHG or climate change legislation or regulation promulgated by Congress, the states or multi- state regions and their respective regulatory agencies will impact our business, any legislation or regulation of GHG emissions that may be imposed in areas in which we conduct business or on the assets we operate could result in increased compliance or operating costs or additional operating restrictions or reduced demand for our products, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For further discussion of certain existing and proposed climate-related rules and regulations, see “Business and Properties — Legislative and regulatory environment” included in Items 1 and 2 of Part I of this Annual Report.

Current wording

It is not currently possible to predict how these executive orders or any proposed or future GHG or climate change legislation or regulation promulgated by Congress, the states or multi-state regions and their respective regulatory agencies may impact our business. Further, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loperto overrule Chevron ended the concept of general deference to regulatory agency interpretations of laws and introduced new complexity for federal agencies and administration of climate change policy and regulatory programs. However, many such initiatives at the international, state and local levels are expected to continue and any climate change legislation or regulation of GHG emissions that may be imposed in areas in which we conduct business or on the assets we operate could result in increased compliance or operating costs or additional operating restrictions or reduced demand for our products, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For further discussion of certain existing and proposed climate-related rules and regulations, see “Business and Properties — Legislative and regulatory environment” included in Items 1 and 2 of Part I of this Annual Report.

Previous wording

In recent years, companies across all industries are facing increasing scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders, including investor advocacy groups, proxy advisory firms, certain institutional investors and lenders, investment funds and other influential investors and rating agencies, related to their ESG and sustainability practices. If we do not adapt to or comply with investor or other stakeholder expectations and standards on ESG matters as they continue to evolve, or if we are perceived to have not responded appropriately or quickly enough to growing concern for ESG and sustainability issues, regardless of whether there is a regulatory or legal requirement to do so, we may suffer from reputational damage and our business, financial condition and/or stock price could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Unfavorable ESG ratings could lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward us and our industry and to the diversion of investment to other industries, which could have a negative impact on our stock price and our access to and costs of capital.

Current wording

Companies across all industries continue to face increasing scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders, including investor advocacy groups, proxy advisory firms, certain institutional investors and lenders, investment funds and other influential investors and rating agencies, related to their ESG and sustainability practices. If we do not adapt to or comply with investor or other stakeholder expectations and standards on ESG matters as they continue to evolve, or if we are perceived to have not responded appropriately or quickly enough to growing concern for ESG and sustainability issues, regardless of whether there is a regulatory or legal requirement to do so, we may suffer from reputational damage and our business, financial condition and/or stock price could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Unfavorable ESG ratings could lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward us and our industry and to the diversion of investment to other industries, which could have a negative impact on our stock price and our access to and costs of capital.

Previous wording

In addition, the EPA has asserted federal regulatory authority pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) over certain hydraulic fracturing activities involving the use of diesel fuels and published permitting guidance in February 2014 addressing the performance of such activities. The EPA also finalized rules under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) in June 2016 that prohibit the discharge of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing and certain other natural gas operations to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. Additionally, in December 2016, the EPA released its final report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The final report concluded that certain activities associated with hydraulic fracturing may impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. In March 2016, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a final rule to impose stricter standards for worker exposure to silica, which went into effect in June 2018 and applies to use of sand as a proppant for hydraulic fracturing. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) finalized rules in March 2015 that impose new or more stringent standards for performing hydraulic fracturing on federal and American Indian lands. Following years of litigation, the BLM rescinded this rule in December 2017. However, California and various environmental groups filed lawsuits in January 2018 challenging the BLM’s rescission of the rule and, in March 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California upheld the BLM’s decision to rescind the rule. However, there is ongoing litigation regarding the BLM rules, and future implementation of these rules is uncertain at this time. In November 2022, the BLM issued a proposed rule to reduce the waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, and leaks during oil and gas production activities on Federal and Indian leases. Although the final rule was expected by January 2024, the final rule has not yet been issued.

Current wording

In addition, the EPA has asserted federal regulatory authority pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) over certain hydraulic fracturing activities involving the use of diesel fuels and published permitting guidance in February 2014 addressing the performance of such activities. The EPA also finalized rules under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) in June 2016 that prohibit the discharge of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing and certain other natural gas operations to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. Additionally, in December 2016, the EPA released its final report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The final report concluded that certain activities associated with hydraulic fracturing may impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. To date, the EPA has taken no further action in response to the 2016 report. In March 2016, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a final rule to impose stricter standards for worker exposure to silica, which went into effect in June 2018 and applies to use of sand as a proppant for hydraulic fracturing. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) finalized rules in March 2015 that impose new or more stringent standards for performing hydraulic fracturing on federal and American Indian lands. Following years of litigation, the BLM rescinded this rule in December 2017. However, California and various environmental groups filed lawsuits in January 2018 challenging the BLM’s rescission of the rule and, in March 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California upheld the BLM’s decision to rescind the rule. However, there is ongoing litigation regarding the BLM rules, and future implementation of these rules is uncertain at this time. In April 2024, the BLM finalized a rule to reduce the waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, and leaks during oil and gas production activities on Federal and Indian leases. The final rule took effect in June

Previous wording

New laws or regulations that impose new obligations on, or significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing, could make it more difficult or costly for us to perform hydraulic fracturing activities and thereby affect our determination of whether a well is commercially viable and increase our cost of doing business. Such increased costs and any delays or curtailments in our production activities could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Current wording

However, in May 2024, the states of North Dakota, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah challenged the rule. In September 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota granted a motion prohibiting the BLM from enforcing the rule against those states pending the outcome of the litigation. However, in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the heads of all federal agencies to identify and begin the processes to suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions that are unduly burdensome on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources. Accordingly, future implementation and enforcement of this rule is uncertain at this time. New laws or regulations that impose new obligations on, or significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing, could make it more difficult or costly for us to perform hydraulic fracturing activities and thereby affect our determination of whether a well is commercially viable and increase our cost of doing business. Such increased costs and any delays or curtailments in our production activities could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Previous wording

Oil and natural gas operations in our operating areas may be adversely affected by seasonal or permanent restrictions on drilling activities designed to protect various wildlife and/or habitats. The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and (in some cases) comparable state laws were established to protect endangered and threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) may designate critical habitat and suitable habitat areas that it believes are necessary for survival of a threatened or endangered species. A critical habitat or suitable habitat designation could result in material restrictions to land use and may materially delay or prohibit land access for natural gas development. In January 2021, the Department of the Interior finalized a rule limiting the application of the MBTA. In October 2021, the Biden administration published two rules that reversed those changes, and in June and July 2022, the FWS issued final rules rescinding Trump-era regulations concerning the definition of “habitat” and critical habitat exclusions. In June 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued three proposed rules governing critical habitat designation and expanding protection options for species listed as threatened pursuant to the ESA. The comment periods for these rules ended in August 2023, and final rules are expected by April 2024. The designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered or new critical or suitable habitat designations in areas where we conduct operations could result in limitations or prohibitions on our operations and could adversely impact our business, and it is possible the new rules could increase the portion of our lease areas that could be designated as critical habitat. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to, among other things, hunt, capture, kill, possess, sell, or purchase migratory birds, nests, or eggs without a permit. This prohibition covers most bird species in the United States. In October 2021, the FWS issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on the Department’s plan to develop regulations that authorize incidental take pursuant to the MBTA under certain prescribed conditions. The notice of proposed rulemaking was expected in October 2023 with a final rule to follow by April 2024; however, the notice of proposed rulemaking has not yet been issued. Permanent restrictions imposed to protect threatened or endangered species could prohibit drilling in certain areas or require the implementation of expensive mitigation measures. The designation of previously unprotected species in areas where we operate as threatened or endangered or further changes to regulations could cause us to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures or could result in limitations on our activities that could have a material and adverse impact on our ability to develop and produce our reserves. There is also increasing inte…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Oil and natural gas operations in our operating areas may be adversely affected by seasonal or permanent restrictions on drilling activities designed to protect various wildlife and/or habitats. The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and (in some cases) comparable state laws were established to protect endangered and threatened species. The FWS may designate critical habitat and suitable habitat areas that it believes are necessary for survival of a threatened or endangered species. A critical habitat or suitable habitat designation could result in material restrictions to land use and may materially delay or prohibit land access for natural gas development. In January 2021, the Department of the Interior finalized a rule limiting the application of the MBTA. In October 2021, the Biden administration published two rules that reversed those changes, and in June and July 2022, the FWS issued final rules rescinding Trump-era regulations concerning the definition of “habitat” and critical habitat exclusions. In April 2024, the FWS finalized three rules governing critical habitat designation and expanding protection options for species listed as threatened pursuant to the ESA. In August 2024, environmental groups challenged the new ESA regulations in federal district court, which litigation remains ongoing. However, in January 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing (i) agencies to use, to the maximum extent permissible, the ESA regulation on consultations in emergencies, to facilitate the domestic energy supply and (ii) the Endangered Species Act Committee to meet at least quarterly to ensure a prompt and efficient review of all submissions for potential actions that could facilitate energy development. The designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered or new critical or suitable habitat designations in areas where we conduct operations could result in limitations or prohibitions on our operations and could adversely impact our business, and it is possible the new rules could increase the portion of our lease areas that could be designated as critical habitat. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to, among other things, hunt, capture, kill, possess, sell, or purchase migratory birds, nests, or eggs without a permit. This prohibition covers most bird species in the United States. Permanent restrictions imposed to protect threatened or endangered species could prohibit drilling in certain areas or require the implementation of expensive mitigation measures. The designation of previously unprotected species in areas where we operate as threatened or endangered or further changes to regulations could cause us to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures or could result in limitations on our activities that could have a material and adverse impact on our ability to develop and produce our reserves. There is also increasing interest …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, established federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and of entities, such as us, that participate in that market. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act. In its rulemaking under the Dodd-Frank Act, in November 2013, the CFTC proposed new rules that would place limits on positions in certain core futures and equivalent swap contracts for or linked to certain physical commodities, subject to exceptions for certain bona fide hedging transactions. As these new position limit rules are not yet final, the impact of those provisions on us is uncertain at this time. The full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act’s swap regulatory provisions and the related rules of the CFTC on our business will not be known until all of the rules to be adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act have been adopted and fully implemented and the market for derivatives contracts has adjusted. The Dodd-Frank Act and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts, materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, and reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and CFTC rules, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures. Any of these consequences could have a material and adverse effect on us, our financial condition or our results of operations.

Current wording

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, established federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and of entities, such as us, that participate in that market. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act. On January 14, 2021, the CFTC published a final rule imposing position limits for certain futures and options contracts in various commodities (including oil and gas) and for swaps that are their economic equivalents, though certain types of derivative transactions are exempt from these limits, provided that such derivative transactions satisfy the CFTC’s requirements for certain enumerated “bona fide” hedging transactions and positions. The CFTC has also adopted final rules regarding aggregation of positions, under which a party that controls the trading of, or owns ten percent or more of the equity interests in, another party will have to aggregate the positions of the controlled or owned party with its own positions for purposes of determining compliance with position limits unless an exemption applies. These rules may affect both the size of the positions that we may hold and the ability or willingness of counterparties to trade with us, potentially increasing the costs of transactions. Moreover, such changes could materially reduce our access to derivative opportunities, which could adversely affect revenues or cash flow during periods of low commodity prices. The full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act’s swap regulatory provisions and the related rules of the CFTC on our business will not be known until all of the rules to be adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act have been adopted and fully implemented and the market for derivatives contracts has adjusted. The Dodd-Frank Act and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts, materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, and reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and CFTC rules, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures. Any of these consequences could have a material and adverse effect on us, our financial condition or our results of operations.

Previous wording

Our general partner has control over all decisions related to our operations. The Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources own all of the membership interests in our general partner which are in the same proportion to each other as their limited partner interest ownership in us. The Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources also own approximately 68,226,633 and 13,639,511, respectively, of our outstanding common units as of December 31, 2023. In addition, certain trusts affiliated with Mr. Ward for which an employee of Mach Resources is the trustee own approximately 1,599,133 of our outstanding common units. Although our general partner has a duty to manage us in a manner that is not adverse to the best interests of us and our unitholders, the executive officers and directors of our general partner also have a duty to manage our general partner at the direction of the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources. As a result of these relationships, conflicts of interest may arise in the future between the Sponsor, Tom L. Ward in his capacity as a member of our general partner through his ownership of Mach Resources and their respective affiliates, including our general partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand; provided, however, that under our code of business conduct, any such member of our management, so long as they are an executive officer, is required to avoid personal conflicts of interest and not compete against us, in each case unless approved by the Board. In resolving these conflicts of interest, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of us and our common unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following:

Current wording

Our general partner has control over all decisions related to our operations. The Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources own all of the membership interests in our general partner which are in the same proportion to each other as their limited partner interest ownership in us. The Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources also own approximately 74,287,410 and 13,665,631, respectively, of our outstanding common units as of March 7, 2025. Although our general partner has a duty to manage us in a manner that is not adverse to the best interests of us and our unitholders, the executive officers and directors of our general partner also have a duty to manage our general partner at the direction of the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources. As a result of these relationships, conflicts of interest may arise in the future between the Sponsor, Tom L. Ward in his capacity as a member of our general partner through his ownership of Mach Resources and their respective affiliates, including our general partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand; provided, however, that under our code of business conduct, any such member of our management, so long as they are an executive officer, is required to avoid personal conflicts of interest and not compete against us, in each case unless approved by the Board. In resolving these conflicts of interest, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of us and our common unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following:

Previous wording

Our general partner has control over all decisions related to our operations. Since affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) collectively own and control the voting of an aggregate of approximately 86.2% of our outstanding common units as of December 31, 2023, the other unitholders do not have an ability to influence any operating decisions and are not able to prevent us from entering into any transactions. However, our partnership agreement can generally be amended with the consent of our general partner and the approval of the holders of a majority of our outstanding common units (including common units held by affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources)). Assuming we do not issue any additional common units and affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) do not transfer any of their common units, affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) will generally have the ability to control any amendment to our partnership agreement, including our policy to distribute all of our cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Furthermore, the goals and objectives of the affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) that hold our common units relating to us may not be consistent with those of a majority of the other unitholders. Please read “— Our general partner and its affiliates own a controlling interest in us and have conflicts of interest with, and owe limited duties to, us, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us and our unitholders.”

Current wording

Our general partner has control over all decisions related to our operations. Since affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) collectively own and control the voting of an aggregate of approximately 74.3% of our outstanding common units as of March 7, 2025, the other unitholders do not have an ability to influence any operating decisions and are not able to prevent us from entering into any transactions. However, our partnership agreement can generally be amended with the consent of our general partner and the approval of the holders of a majority of our outstanding common units (including common units held by affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources)). Assuming we do not issue any additional common units and affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) do not transfer any of their common units, affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) will generally have the ability to control any amendment to our partnership agreement, including our policy to distribute all of our cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Furthermore, the goals and objectives of the affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) that hold our common units relating to us may not be consistent with those of a majority of the other unitholders. Please read “— Our general partner and its affiliates own a controlling interest in us and have conflicts of interest with, and owe limited duties to, us, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us and our unitholders.”

Previous wording

The public unitholders are unable initially to remove our general partner without its consent because affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) own sufficient units to prevent the removal of our general partner. Our general partner may not be removed except by vote of the holders of at least 66⅔% of all outstanding units voting together as a single class is required to remove our general partner. As of December 31, 2023, affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) own approximately 86.2% of our outstanding common units, which enable those holders, collectively, to prevent the removal of our general partner.

Current wording

The public unitholders are unable initially to remove our general partner without its consent because affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) own sufficient units to prevent the removal of our general partner. Our general partner may not be removed except by vote of the holders of at least 66⅔% of all outstanding units voting together as a single class is required to remove our general partner. As of March 7, 2025, affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) own approximately 74.3% of our outstanding common units, which enable those holders, collectively, to prevent the removal of our general partner.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2023, the Sponsor owns 68,226,633 common units, or approximately 71.8% of our limited partner interests, and management owns 16,773,367 common units, or approximately 17.7% of our limited partner interests. Under our partnership agreement, we have agreed to register for resale under the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws any common units or other partnership interests proposed to be sold by our general partner or any of its affiliates, which includes the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources. The sale of these units in the public markets could have an adverse impact on the price of the common units or on any trading market that may develop.

Current wording

As of March 7, 2025, the Sponsor owns 74,287,410 common units, or approximately 62.8% of our limited partner interests, and management owns 14,176,882 common units, or approximately 12.0% of our limited partner interests. Under our partnership agreement, we have agreed to register for resale under the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws any common units or other partnership interests proposed to be sold by our general partner or any of its affiliates, which includes the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources. The sale of these units in the public markets could have an adverse impact on the price of the common units or on any trading market that may develop.

Previous wording

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 95% of the then outstanding common units, our general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price that is not less than their then-current market price, as calculated pursuant to the terms of our partnership agreement. As a result, you may be required to sell your common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on your investment. You may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of your common units. Our general partner is not obligated to obtain a fairness opinion regarding the value of the common units to be repurchased by it upon exercise of the limited call right. There is no restriction in our partnership agreement that prevents our general partner from causing us to issue additional common units and then exercising its call right. If our general partner exercises its limited call right, the effect would be to take us private and, if the units were subsequently deregistered, we would no longer be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). As of December 31, 2023, affiliates of our general partner (including the Sponsor and Tom L. Ward through his ownership of Mach Resources) own approximately 86.2% of our common units. Furthermore, certain trusts affiliated with Mr. Ward for which an employee of Mach Resources is the trustee own and control the voting of an aggregate of approximately 1.7% of our outstanding common units.

Current wording

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 95% of the then outstanding common units, our general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price that is not less than their then-current market price, as calculated pursuant to the terms of our partnership agreement. As a result, you may be required to sell your common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on your investment. You may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of your common units. Our general partner is not obligated to obtain a fairness opinion regarding the value of the common units to be repurchased by it upon exercise of the limited call right. There is no restriction in our partnership agreement that prevents our general partner from causing us to issue additional common units and then exercising its call right. If our general partner exercises its limited call right, the effect would be to take us private and, if the units were subsequently deregistered, we would no longer be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Previous wording

We and our general partner have entered into a MSA with Mach Resources pursuant to which Mach Resources will manage and perform all aspects of our oil and gas and midstream operations and other general and administrative functions in exchange for reimbursement of certain expenses. On a monthly basis, we will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for certain expenses they incur and payments they make on our behalf pursuant to the MSA. Our partnership agreement does not set a limit on the amount of expenses for which our general partner and its affiliates may be reimbursed. These expenses include salary, bonus, incentive compensation and other amounts paid to persons who perform services for us or on our behalf and expenses allocated to our general partner by its affiliates. Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner will determine the expenses that are allocable to us. The reimbursement of expenses to our general partner and its affiliates will reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders. For the year ended December 31, 2023, we paid $52.3 million to Mach Resources, which consisted of $4.8 million for a management fee and $47.5 million for reimbursements of its costs and expenses under the management services agreements among Mach Resources, the Company and the Mach Companies.

Current wording

We and our general partner have entered into a MSA with Mach Resources pursuant to which Mach Resources will manage and perform all aspects of our oil and gas and midstream operations and other general and administrative functions in exchange for reimbursement of certain expenses. On a monthly basis, we will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for certain expenses they incur and payments they make on our behalf pursuant to the MSA. Our partnership agreement does not set a limit on the amount of expenses for which our general partner and its affiliates may be reimbursed. These expenses include salary, bonus, incentive compensation and other amounts paid to persons who perform services for us or on our behalf and expenses allocated to our general partner by its affiliates. Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner will determine the expenses that are allocable to us. The reimbursement of expenses to our general partner and its affiliates will reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders. For the year ended December 31, 2024, we paid $112.9 million to Mach Resources, which consisted of $7.4 million for a management fee and $105.5 million for reimbursements of its costs and expenses under the management services agreements among Mach Resources, the Company and the Mach Companies.

Previous wording

We have a limited history operating as a publicly traded partnership. As a publicly traded partnership, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur prior to our initial public offering. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and the NYSE, require publicly traded entities to adopt various corporate governance practices that will further increase our costs. The amount of our expenses or reserves for expenses, including the costs of being a publicly traded partnership will reduce the amount of cash we have for distribution to our unitholders. As a result, the amount of cash we have available for distribution to our unitholders will be affected by the costs associated with being a public company.

Current wording

We have a limited history operating as a publicly traded partnership. As a publicly traded partnership, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur prior to the Offering. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules implemented by the SEC and the NYSE, require publicly traded entities to adopt various corporate governance practices that will further increase our costs. The amount of our expenses or reserves for expenses, including the costs of being a publicly traded partnership will reduce the amount of cash we have for distribution to our unitholders. As a result, the amount of cash we have available for distribution to our unitholders will be affected by the costs associated with being a public company.

Previous wording

We also incur additional expense in order to obtain director and officer liability insurance. Because of the limitations in coverage for directors, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on the Board or as executive officers than it was prior to our initial public offering.

Current wording

We also incur additional expense in order to obtain director and officer liability insurance. Because of the limitations in coverage for directors, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on the Board or as executive officers than it was prior to the Offering.

Previous wording

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations. From time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units, including elimination of partnership tax treatment for certain publicly traded partnerships. For example, in recent years, the Biden administration has proposed repealing the exemption from the corporate income tax for “fossil fuel” publicly traded partnerships in its budget, which is published annually.

Current wording

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations. From time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units, including elimination of partnership tax treatment for certain publicly traded partnerships.

Previous wording

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns (including any income tax returns filed by us or the Mach Companies in respect of periods beginning prior to the closing of our initial public offering), it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us. Generally, we expect to elect to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, but there can be no assurance that such election will be made or be effective in all circumstances. If we are unable to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, our current unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own our common units during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.

Current wording

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns (including any income tax returns filed by us or the Mach Companies in respect of periods beginning prior to the closing of the Offering), it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustment directly from us. Generally, we expect to elect to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, but there can be no assurance that such election will be made or be effective in all circumstances. If we are unable to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, our current unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own our common units during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.