HF Sinclair Corporation (DINO) Risk Analysis

An impairment of our goodwill or asset impairments could reduce our earnings or negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. We continually monitor our business, the business environment and the performance of our operations to determine if an event has occurred that indicates that our goodwill or assets may be impaired. If a triggering event occurs, which is a determination that involves judgment, we may be required to utilize cash flow projections to assess our ability to recover the carrying value based on the ability to generate future cash flows. We may also conduct impairment testing based on both the guideline public company and guideline transaction methods. Our goodwill and asset impairment analyses are sensitive to changes in key assumptions used in our analysis, estimates of future crack spreads, forecasted production levels, operating costs and capital expenditures. If the assumptions used in our analysis are not realized, it is possible a material impairment charge may need to be recorded in the future. We cannot accurately predict the amount and timing of any additional impairments of goodwill or asset impairments in the future. As market prices for refined products and market prices for crude oil continue to fluctuate, we will need to continue to evaluate the carrying value of our refinery reporting units. During the year ended December 31, 2024, we recorded asset impairment charges of $17 million, primarily related to certain logistic assets in our Midstream segment and other assets in our Refining segment. A reasonable expectation exists that a deterioration in our operating results or overall economic conditions could result in an impairment of goodwill and/or additional asset impairments at some point in the future. Future impairment charges could be material to our results of operations and financial condition.

Our facilities consist of many processing units, a number of which have been in operation for many years. One or more of the units may require unscheduled downtime for unanticipated maintenance or repairs that are more frequent than our scheduled turnaround for such units. Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance could reduce our revenues during the period of time that the units are not operating. The installation and redesign of key equipment at our facilities involves significant uncertainties, including the following: our upgraded equipment may not perform at expected levels; operating costs of the upgraded equipment may be higher than expected; and the yield and product quality of new equipment may differ from design and/or specifications and redesign, modification or replacement of the equipment may be required to correct equipment that does not perform as expected, which could require facility shutdowns until the equipment has been redesigned or modified. Any of these risks associated with new equipment, redesigned older equipment, or repaired equipment could lead to lower revenues or higher costs or otherwise have a negative impact on our future financial condition and results of operations. For example, in the third quarter of 2020, we ceased refining operations at our Cheyenne Refinery due, in part, to uncompetitive operating and maintenance costs for the refinery. One of the ways we may grow our business is through the construction of new refinery processing units (or the purchase and refurbishment of used units from another refinery), pipelines and terminals and the conversion or expansion of existing ones, such as the conversion of the Cheyenne Refinery to renewable diesel production and the connection of a new renewable diesel and a pre-treatment unit in Artesia, New Mexico. The construction process involves numerous regulatory, environmental, political, and legal uncertainties, most of which are not fully within our control, including: - third party challenges to, denials, or delays with respect to the issuance of requisite regulatory approvals and/or obtaining or renewing permits, licenses, registrations and other authorizations;- societal and political pressures and other forms of opposition;- compliance with or liability under environmental or pipeline safety regulations;- unplanned increases in the cost of construction materials or labor;- disruptions in transportation of modular components and/or construction materials;- shortages of sufficiently skilled labor, or labor disagreements resulting in unplanned work stoppages;- market-related increases in a project's debt or equity financing costs; and/or - nonperformance or force majeure by, or disputes with, vendors, suppliers, contractors, or sub-contractors involved with a project. If we are unable to complete capital projects at their expected costs or in a timely manner, our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. Delays in making required changes or upgrades to our facilities could subject us to fines or penalties as well as affect our ability to supply certain products we make. Moreover, we may construct facilities to capture anticipated future growth in demand for refined products or renewable diesel in a region in which such growth does not materialize. As a result, new capital investments may not achieve our expected investment return, which could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. In addition, we expect to execute turnarounds at a number of our refineries in 2025, which involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including delays and incurrence of additional and unforeseen costs. The turnarounds allow us to perform maintenance, upgrades, overhaul and repair of process equipment and materials, during which time all or a portion of the refinery will be under scheduled downtime. Our forecasted internal rates of return are also based upon our projections of future market fundamentals which are not within our control, including changes in general economic conditions, available alternative supply, global market conditions, actions by foreign nations and customer demand.

Regulation affects almost every part of our business. For instance, we are subject to laws and regulations related to working conditions, health and safety, equal employment opportunity, employee benefit and other labor and employment matters, and competition and antitrust matters. Our facilities, pipelines, and other operations are subject to regulation and oversight by international, federal, state, provincial and local regulatory authorities, including the FERC, Commodities Futures Trading Commission, EPA, PHMSA, OSHA, the SEC and the United States Department of Justice, and similar authorities in Canada and the Netherlands, each of which may impose significant civil and criminal penalties or other enforcement actions to ensure compliance with its requirements. Any such regulatory violations could have a material adverse effect on our financial operating results including earnings, cash flow and liquidity. Further, our financial results may be materially affected by the adoption of new or amended financial accounting standards, and regulatory or outside auditor guidance or interpretations. New laws, policies, regulations, rulemaking and oversight, unexpected policy changes or interpretations of existing laws or regulations as well as changes to those currently in effect, could adversely impact our earnings, cash flows and operations. Legislative changes, as well as regulatory actions taken by these agencies, have the potential to adversely affect our profitability. These risks are heightened during periods of regulatory upheaval, such as during U.S. presidential and congressional transitions, and as a result of conflicting or potentially conflicting requirements in different jurisdictions. Furthermore, we could incur additional costs to comply with such statutes, rules, regulations and orders. Should we fail to comply with any applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and orders of regulatory authorities, we could be subject to substantial penalties and fines and withdrawal or denial of permits to operate.

The constantly evolving global regulatory and legislative environment surrounding data privacy and protection poses increasingly complex compliance challenges, and complying with such data protection obligations could increase the costs and complexity of compliance and enforcement risks. These laws also are not uniform, as certain laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to sensitive and personal information, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. Our data protection obligations may also change as the regulatory environment governing use and development of AI technologies changes. We, and our third-party service providers, collect some personal information from consumers, including credit card data, and we have personal information from our employees, job applicants and some business partners, such as customers, contractors and distributors. Any failure, whether real or perceived, by us to comply with applicable data protection obligations could result in proceedings or actions against us by governmental entities or others, subject us to significant fines, penalties, judgments, and negative publicity, require us to change our business practices, increase the costs and complexity of compliance, and adversely affect our business. Our compliance with current laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation and other similar current and upcoming data privacy/security laws, as well as any associated inquiries or investigations or any other government actions related to these laws, may increase our operating costs or subject us to legal and reputational risks, including significant fines, civil or criminal penalties or judgments, proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or customers, class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions and negative publicity. Our pipeline operations are subject to the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") security directives. These directives require us to comply with mandatory reporting measures, including, among other things, to appoint personnel, report confirmed and potential cybersecurity incidents to the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("CISA") and provide vulnerability assessments. As legislation continues to develop and cyber incidents continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to respond to cyberattacks, to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures, or to detect, assess, investigate and remediate any security vulnerabilities and report any cyber incidents to the applicable regulatory authorities. Any failure to maintain compliance with these evolving government regulations may result in enforcement actions which may then result in significant time, support and cost and have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.

We compete with a broad range of refining and marketing companies, including certain multinational oil companies. Because of their geographic diversity, larger and more complex refineries, integrated operations and greater resources, some of our competitors may be better able to withstand volatile market conditions, to obtain crude oil in times of shortage and to bear the economic risks inherent in all areas of the refining industry. We are not engaged in petroleum exploration and production activities and do not produce any of the crude oil feedstocks used at our refineries. Though we license our brand, we do not currently own or operate retail outlets at this time and therefore are dependent upon others for outlets for our refined products. Certain of our competitors, however, obtain a portion of their feedstocks from company-owned production and have retail outlets. Competitors that have their own production or extensive retail outlets, with brand-name recognition, are at times able to offset losses from refining operations with profits from producing or retailing operations, and may be better positioned to withstand periods of depressed refining margins or feedstock shortages. In recent years there have been several refining and marketing consolidations or acquisitions between entities competing in the geographies where we operate. These transactions could increase the future competitive pressures on us. We compete with other industries that provide alternative means to satisfy the energy and fuel requirements of our industrial, commercial and individual consumers. The more successful these alternatives become as a result of governmental regulations, technological advances, consumer demand, improved pricing or otherwise, the greater the impact on pricing and demand for our products and our profitability. There are governmental and consumer pressures to increase the use of alternative fuels in the United States.

We are subject to risks of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers. We derive a significant portion of our revenues from contracts with key customers. Additionally, certain key customers of our Puget Sound Refinery contribute significantly to the cash flows and profitability of that facility. Any default or delay in payment by, or disputes with, those customers, such delays or disputes which have occurred in the past and may occur in the future, could have an adverse impact on our financial results. Any such default or delay in payment by our customers could negatively affect our operating results in the periods in which they occur, and, if significant, could materially or adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. In addition, nonperformance by vendors who have committed to provide us with products or services could result in higher costs or interfere with our ability to successfully conduct our business.

Climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other regions. Numerous proposals have been made and could continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit existing emissions of GHGs, to limit or eliminate future emissions, and to require or incentivize the use of lower carbon or renewable alternatives, including through accounting and risk disclosures. As a result, our operations, and those of our customers, are subject to a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks associated with the refining, transportation and use of petroleum products and emission of GHGs. The EPA has adopted rules that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas sources in the United States or require control or reduction of emissions of GHGs, including methane, from such sources. Agency regulations related to GHG emissions and climate change are often dependent on the goals of the current presidential administration, so the transition to a new administration may lead to increased uncertainty relating to the regulatory risks associated with climate change. In 2021, the previous administration issued several executive orders that committed to substantial action on climate change, released "The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050", which established a roadmap to net zero emissions in the United States by 2050 and called for, among other things, improving energy efficiency, decarbonizing energy sources, the increased use of zero-emission vehicles by the federal government, the elimination of subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry, and increased emphasis on climate-related risks across governmental agencies and economic sectors. However, the 2050 roadmap and other climate change related executive orders were recently revoked, federal agencies have been directed to stop using the Social Cost of GHG emissions in rulemaking and other activities and the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases has been disbanded. The previous administration's executive orders prioritizing the reduction of GHG emissions have been rescinded and the EPA's GHG "Endangerment Finding", which underpins the majority of the EPA's GHG regulations, is under review. We are unable to predict the impact of these changes. In 2023, the EPA finalized a rule to further reduce GHGs and other emissions primarily from oil production and natural gas production, transmission and storage that could increase the cost of domestic crude oil and natural gas. The EPA finalized rules in 2024 to regulate GHG emissions from power plants that could increase the cost of electricity use by our facilities. Various states and groups of states have adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on such areas as GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, restriction of emissions, electric vehicle mandates and combustion engine phaseouts. See also "Compliance with, or developments with respect to, renewable and low carbon fuel blending programs, and other regulations, policies, and standards impacting the demand for low carbon fuels could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations" below for more information on how these programs may impact us. State efforts may increase in response to decreased federal enforcement efforts. In March 2024, the SEC adopted a final rule that requires public companies to include certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports, including information about climate-related risks, climate-related financial statement metrics, and greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of the final rule is currently stayed pending litigation. At the state level, in October 2023, the Governor of California signed the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act ("CCDAA") and Climate-Related Financial Risk Act ("CRFRA") into law. The CCDAA requires both public and private U.S. companies that are "doing business in California" and that have a total annual revenue of $1 billion to publicly disclose and verify, on an annual basis, Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions. The CRFRA requires the disclosure of a climate-related financial risk report (in line with the Task Force on the Climate-Related Financial Disclosures recommendations or equivalent disclosure requirements under the International Sustainability Standards Board's climate-related disclosure standards) every other year for public and private companies "doing business in California" with a total annual revenue of $500 million. Although both laws are subject to litigation, reporting under both laws is expected to begin in 2026. Non-compliance with these new laws may result in the imposition of substantial fines or penalties. Additionally, other states are considering similar laws. Any new laws or regulations imposing more stringent requirements on our business related to the disclosure of climate-related risks may result in (i) reputational harms among certain stakeholders if they disapprove of our reported GHG emissions data or disagree with our approach to mitigating climate-related risks, (ii) increased compliance costs resulting from the development of any such disclosures, and (iii) increased costs of and restrictions on access to capital to the extent that we do not meet any climate-related expectations or requirements of financial institutions. Additionally, similar climate reporting legislation is being considered in other states, and if any such new laws come into effect, may pose similar risks and costs to our business. Similar regulations exist at the provincial and federal levels in Canada, including a nation-wide GHG pricing initiative and regulations related to the control of GHGs from vehicles as well as industrial facilities and either cap and trade programs or carbon taxes at both federal and provincial levels. Canada's 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan ("ERP") issued pursuant to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, includes a projected contribution from the oil and gas sector of emissions reductions to 31% below 2005 levels in 2030 (or to 42% below 2019 levels) with an ultimate goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. The Government of Canada has proposed and may continue to propose regulations in furtherance of its ERP goals, such as the regulations proposed in December 2023, to reduce upstream oil and gas methane emissions. At this time, the applicability of the ERP, and any regulations adopted in furtherance of it, to, and impact on, if any, our Canadian operations is not clear. The Netherlands also participates in European legal initiatives, including GHG cap and trade programs. Furthermore, the Climate Act has come into effect with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 55% (compared to 1990) by 2030 and to be climate neutral by 2050. The Climate Act also establishes that the government must prepare a Climate Plan. This plan contains, among others, the principles by which the Dutch government intends to achieve the goals set out in the Climate Act. The first Climate Plan of the Dutch government was adopted in 2019 and covers the period from 2021-2030. At the international level, the United Nations-sponsored "Paris Agreement" requires member nations to limit their GHG emissions through nationally-determined reduction goals reevaluated every five years after 2020. The United States initially joined and then withdrew from such agreement in 2020. The United States rejoined the Paris Agreement in 2021 and issued its corresponding NDC to reduce economy-wide net GHG emissions to 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030. While the NDC does not identify specific actions necessary to achieve these reductions, it lists several sectors as pathways for reductions, including the power, transportation, building, industrial, and agricultural sectors. The administration has acknowledged that a combination of regulatory actions and legislation will be necessary to achieve the U.S. NDC. European Union ("EU") member states have agreed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 55% reduction by 2030. They have also agreed to be climate neutral and climate sustainable by 2050 (net zero). Moreover, following the United States' reentry into Paris Agreement, the United States, the EU and other partner countries have announced further pledges and agreements at several United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties, including a pledge to reduce global methane emissions by 30% from 2020 to 2030 and a commitment to develop international standards for monitoring and reporting on methane emissions. On June 13, 2024, the EU Regulation on Methane Emissions Reduction was adopted by the EU and became effective on August 4, 2024. This regulation aims to stop the avoidable release of methane into the atmosphere, both in the EU and in global supply chains, and to minimize leaks of methane by fossil energy companies operating in the EU. The regulation applies to the production of crude oil, natural gas and coal. These sectors must now report their methane emissions to a regulator and take measures to minimize methane emissions during their operations. At the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28), participants agreed to transition "away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner" and increase renewable energy capacity so as to achieve net zero by 2050, although no timeline for doing so was set. Such international pledges and treaties may cause signatory nations to increase regulations, taxes or restrictions, or subsidize competitive industries, which could have a detrimental impact on our industry in general and our business in particular. Recently, the President announced his intention to re-withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, which could take up to a year, and revoked most of the previous administration's climate-related executive orders, and may take further action to rescind certain climate-related regulations. We are not able to predict the outcome of these actions or their impact on us at this time. The adoption of legislation or regulatory programs to reduce emissions of GHGs could require us to incur increased operating costs, such as costs to purchase and operate emissions control systems and electricity, to acquire emissions allowances or comply with new regulatory or reporting and disclosure requirements or otherwise result in decreased demand for the petroleum products we refine and produce. For example, in November 2021, the United States enacted a nearly $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law, which provided significant funding for electric vehicles and clean energy technologies, and in August 2022 the United States enacted the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which allocated $369 billion to climate change and environmental initiatives, including transportation electrification, fees on and greater regulation of methane emissions, and financial incentives for low or zero-carbon forms of energy, products, or processes, which could result in changes in consumer preferences or otherwise increase competition within our industry. In addition, several states have also taken steps to incentivize the production of electric vehicles or otherwise limit the sale of gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. These and any future legislation or regulatory programs could increase the cost of consuming or otherwise reduce demand for, the refined petroleum products that we produce and transport. Additionally, political, litigation and financial risks may result in curtailed refinery activity, increased liability, or other adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations. There are also increasing risks of litigation related to climate change effects. Governments and third-parties have brought suit against some fossil fuel companies alleging, among other things, that such companies created public and private nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to climate change, such as rising sea levels, and therefore are responsible for resulting roadway and infrastructure damages, or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors or customers by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. In 2022, the EPA announced an ongoing enforcement initiative targeting GHG compliance, which was included as one of six national enforcement and compliance initiatives for fiscal years 2024 - 2027. Due to recent changes in priorities, it is not clear if the EPA will continue viewing GHG compliance as an enforcement priority. In the Netherlands, The Hague District Court has ordered Royal Dutch Shell ("RDS") to reduce the CO2 emissions of the RDS group by net 45% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels, through the RDS group's corporate policy. On November 12, 2024, the Court of Appeal of The Hague ruled that RDS has indeed a duty of care to reduce its GHG emissions. Despite this duty of care, the court ruled that it could not impose the specific reduction on RDS. However, other environmental organizations may bring similar cases against other parties. In Canada, in March 2023, Greenpeace filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau of Canada alleging that Pathways Alliance, a coalition of six of Canada's largest oil sand producers, made false and misleading claims that they are actively reducing emissions and helping Canada achieve its climate targets. Although the Competition Bureau has not yet made a determination, the remedies being sought include a fine in the amount of the greater of CAN 10 million or 3% of worldwide gross revenues. In October 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Mathur v. Ontario that the Ontario government by passing legislation that set emissions reduction targets was required to do so in way that did not jeopardize the plaintiffs' rights to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person or Equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case was remitted back to the trial court for a determination of the constitutionality of the legislation based on this ruling. While we are not party to such suits at this time, we may become subject to or impacted by similar litigation in the future. Such cases could also adversely impact public perception and the demand for fossil fuels and petroleum products, or result in additional regulatory requirements, which could subsequently result in decreased demand for our services and refined products and a drop in our stock price. In addition, increasing societal expectations for companies to address environmental issues, including climate change, and increased consumer use of substitutes to energy commodities may result in increased costs, reduced demand for our products and our services, reduced profits, increased investigations and litigation, and negative impacts on our stock price and costs of and access to capital markets. To the extent that societal pressures or political or other factors are involved, it is possible that such liability could be imposed on us without regard to our causation of or contribution to the asserted damage, or to other mitigating factors. Furthermore, our stock price could be adversely impacted if existing stockholders, including institutional investors, elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into renewable energy or non-energy related sectors. Additionally, there is the possibility that financial institutions may be pressured or required to adopt policies that limit funding for fossil fuel energy companies. For example, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero announced commitments from over 500 firms around the world, resulting in over $100 trillion in capital committed to net zero goals. More recently, in October 2023, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. released a finalized set of principles guiding financial institutions with $100 billion or more in assets on the management of physical and transition risks associated with climate change. Moreover, institutional lenders have been lobbied intensively, and often publicly, by environmental activists, advocates of international climate change treaties and agreements, proponents of the international Paris Agreement, and foreign citizenry concerned about climate change not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies. Accordingly, limitation of investments in and financings for fossil fuel energy companies or subsidies or other governmental support for competitive technologies or industries could result in the direct or indirect restriction, delay or cancellation of drilling programs or development or production activities, could result in a reduction of available capital funding for potential development projects and could also adversely affect demand for our services and refined petroleum products, all of which could adversely impact our future financial results.

We develop and use intellectual property in the ordinary course of our business, including trademarks, trade secrets, copyrighted work and innovations, some of which are material to our business. We take measures designed to identify and protect our intellectual property through practices appropriate for securing and protecting exclusive rights in and to our intellectual property, including applying for registrations in the United States and in various foreign jurisdictions. Despite our efforts to protect such intellectual property, unauthorized third parties from time to time have, and may continue to, illegally obtain, copy, use or disclose our trademarks (or other marks likely to cause confusion among our consumers), technologies, products and processes or seek court declarations that they do not infringe, misappropriate, dilute, or otherwise violate our intellectual property. In addition, the laws and/or judicial systems and enforcement mechanisms of foreign jurisdictions in which we create, market and sell our products may afford little or no effective protection of our intellectual property. We may also be subject to infringement, misappropriation, dilution, or other violation complaints from others challenging our use of a valid technology or intellectual property right. We cannot guarantee that our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights against unauthorized use and appropriation, or our efforts to defend against third party claims of infringement would be successful. These potential risks to our intellectual property and any failure to adequately maintain, enforce and protect our intellectual property could subject us to increased competition and potentially result in the loss of our competitive advantage, key technology and resources, and customer trust, and negatively impact our brand. These risks could also lead to a decrease in our revenue which would negatively impact our business, prospects, liquidity, financial position and results of operations.