Liberty Oilfield Services (LBRT) Risk Analysis

In most states, our hydraulic fracturing services, our natural gas compression and CNG delivery operations, and the operations of our oil and natural gas producing customers require permits from one or more governmental agencies in order to perform drilling and completion activities, secure water rights, or other regulated activities. Such permits are typically issued by state agencies, but federal and local governmental permits may also be required. The requirements for such permits vary depending on the location where such regulated activities will be conducted. As with all governmental permitting processes, there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether a permit will be granted, the time it will take for a permit to be issued, and the conditions that may be imposed in connection with the granting of the permit. In addition, some of our customers' drilling and completion activities may take place on federal land or Native American lands, requiring leases and other approvals from the federal government or Native American tribes to conduct such drilling and completion activities or other regulated activities. Under certain circumstances, federal agencies may cancel proposed leases for federal lands and refuse to grant or delay required approvals. Therefore, our customers' operations in certain areas may be interrupted or suspended for varying lengths of time, causing a loss of revenue to us and adversely affecting our results of operations in support of those customers.

Various federal, state, local and other applicable legislative and regulatory initiatives have been, or could be undertaken which could result in additional requirements or restrictions being imposed on hydraulic fracturing operations. Currently, hydraulic fracturing is generally exempt from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control (the "SDWA UIC") program and is typically regulated by state oil and gas commissions or similar agencies but increased scrutiny and regulation by federal agencies does occur. For example, in late 2016, the EPA released a final report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, concluding that "water cycle" activities associated with hydraulic fracturing may impact drinking water resources. Additionally, the EPA has asserted regulatory authority pursuant to the SDWA UIC program over hydraulic fracturing activities involving the use of diesel fuel in the fracturing fluid and issued guidance regarding the permitting of such activities. Furthermore, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has previously published rules that established stringent standards relating to hydraulic fracturing on federal and Native American lands. Similarly, the EPA has adopted rules on the capture of methane and other emissions released during hydraulic fracturing. These rules have been the subject of ongoing legal challenges. In recent years, the EPA has enacted additional methane rules for new and existing petroleum operations. The EPA rules could make it more difficult and/or costly to drill and operate oil and gas wells. These rules may result in a decline in the completion of new oil and gas wells or the recompletion of existing wells, which could negatively impact the drilling programs of our customers and, consequently, delay, limit or reduce the demand for our services. In addition to federal regulatory actions, legislation has been introduced, but not enacted, in Congress to provide for further federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing and to require disclosure of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Moreover, many states and local governments have adopted, or are considering, regulations that impose new or more stringent permitting, disclosure, disposal and well-construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing operations, including states where we or our customers operate, such as Texas, Colorado and North Dakota. States could also elect to place prohibitions on hydraulic fracturing, as several states have already done. In addition, some states have adopted broader sets of requirements related to oil and gas development more generally that could impact hydraulic fracturing activities. For example, the Colorado legislature adopted SB 19-181, which gave greater regulatory authority to local jurisdictions and reoriented the mandate of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to place more emphasis on the protection of human health and the environment. In response, a reconstituted Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission modified its rules to address the requirements of the legislation, adopting increased setback requirements, provisions for assessing alternative sites for well pads to minimize environmental impacts, and consideration to cumulative impacts, among other provisions. The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment also finalized rules related to the control of emissions from certain pre-production activities. In Texas, there has been increased pressure on the Railroad Commission ("RRC") to impose more stringent limitations on the flaring of gas from wells to prevent waste and because of increased concerns related to the environmental effects of flaring. The RRC continues to approve flaring permits, but at least one lawsuit was filed by a pipeline operator challenging the RRC's flaring approval practices, but the suit was subsequently dismissed without any substantive opinion on the issue of flaring. Environmental groups, local citizens groups and others continue to seek to use a variety of means to force action on additional restrictions on hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas development generally. Additionally, some states have enacted legislation limiting PFAS usage in certain products or limiting PFAS usage generally. For example, Colorado has banned the use of PFAS in oil and gas products including hydraulic fracturing fluids, drilling fluids and proppants. Should PFAS be in hydraulic fracturing chemicals, this could open up a new front for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing and result in additional exposure to liability for contamination resulting from the use or release of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Additionally, various regulatory actions have been taken with respect to PFAS, including listing of certain PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, that may result in additional exposure to liability for contamination resulting from the use or release of these chemicals. Some states in which we operate require the disclosure of some or all of the chemicals used in our hydraulic fracturing operations. Certain aspects of one or more of these chemicals may be considered proprietary by us or our chemical suppliers. Disclosure of our proprietary chemical information to third parties or to the public, even if inadvertent, could diminish the value of our trade secrets or those of the chemicals suppliers and could result in competitive harm to us, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations. In recent years, there have been allegations that hydraulic fracturing may result in seismic activities. Although the extent of any correlation between hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity has been and remains the subject of studies and debate, some parties believe that there is a causal relationship. As a result, federal and state legislatures and agencies may seek to further regulate, restrict or prohibit hydraulic fracturing. Such actions could result in a decline in the completion of new oil and gas wells, which could negatively impact the drilling programs of our customers and, consequently, delay, limit or reduce the demand for our services. Increased regulation and attention given to the hydraulic fracturing process could lead to greater opposition to, and litigation concerning, oil and natural gas production activities using hydraulic fracturing techniques. Additional legislation or regulation could also lead to operational delays for our customers or increased operating costs in the production of oil and natural gas, including from the developing shale plays, or could make it more difficult for (or could result in a prohibition for) us and our customers to perform hydraulic fracturing. The adoption of any additional laws or regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing or limitation in hydraulic fracturing could potentially cause a decrease in the completion of new oil and natural gas wells and an associated decrease in demand for our services and increased compliance costs and time. Such events could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of operations, and consolidated financial condition. Additional legislation, executive actions, regulations or other regulatory initiatives to limit, delay or prohibit hydraulic fracturing or other aspects of oil and gas development may be pursued. In the event that these or other new federal restrictions, delays or prohibitions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where we or our customers conduct business, we or our customers may incur additional costs or permitting requirements to comply with such federal requirements that may be significant and, in the case of our customers, also could result in added restrictions or delays in the pursuit of exploration, development, or production activities, which would in turn reduce the demand for our services and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Businesses and operations of our customers may be carried out on federal lands. As an example, in January 2021, based on a directive from President Biden, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order that effectively suspended new oil and gas leases and drilling permits on non-Indian federal lands and waters for a period of 60 days. However, the suspension did not limit existing operations under valid leases. President Biden followed with an executive order directing the Secretary of the Interior to pause the issuance of new oil and gas leases on federal public lands and offshore waters pending completion of a comprehensive review of federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices that take into consideration potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities. The leasing suspension was the subject of several lawsuits, resulting in conflicting decisions on the legality of the lease suspension. While the various lawsuits were pending, in August 2022, Congress passed the IRA 2022 which, among other things, made changes to the federal oil and gas leasing program (including increasing royalty rates and implementing policies to discourage venting and flaring) and require several oil and gas lease auctions, including some that had been suspended or cancelled. Additionally, in November 2021, the U.S. Department of the Interior released a report on the federal oil and gas leasing program, which found that the then current program failed to serve the public interest. The report made several recommendations, including increasing royalty rates and adding new restrictions on what lands are made available for oil and gas development to minimize leasing of lands with low potential for development. The U.S. Department of the Interior promulgated rules in 2024 based on the recommendations. In April 2022, the U.S. Department of the Interior also announced that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would post notices for significantly reformed onshore lease sales that would promote the public interest in public lands while addressing deficiencies in the current federal oil and gas leasing program. The new lease sales will incorporate many of the recommendations in the U.S. Department of the Interior report on the federal leasing program. Such scheduled sales began in June 2022. Furthermore, a group of oil and gas related interests has also sued alleging that lease sales are not occurring as required under the Mineral Leasing Act. In addition, where lease sales have occurred, environmental groups have sued to block the sales. On June 1, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to voluntarily dismiss three cases after the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and other defendants agreed to conduct more robust environmental reviews of certain oil and gas leases and reconsider the cumulative climate effects of these leases. The settlement agreements apply to nearly four million acres of land in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and New Mexico. If the U.S. Bureau of Land Management fails to complete its obligations under the settlement agreements, the plaintiffs can reinstate the litigation. To the extent our customers operate on leased federal land, these and other regulatory actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company and our industry.

We are subject to various transportation regulations including as a motor carrier by the Department of Transportation and by various federal, state, provincial and tribal agencies, whose regulations include certain permit requirements of highway and safety authorities. These regulatory authorities exercise broad powers over our equipment transportation operations, generally governing such matters as the authorization to engage in motor carrier operations, safety, equipment testing, driver requirements and specifications and insurance requirements. The trucking industry is subject to possible regulatory and legislative changes that may impact our operations, such as changes in fuel emissions limits, hours of service regulations that govern the amount of time a driver may drive or work in any specific period and requiring onboard electronic logging devices or limits on vehicle weight and size. As the federal government continues to develop and propose regulations relating to fuel quality, engine efficiency and greenhouse gasses emissions, we may experience an increase in costs related to truck purchases and maintenance, impairment of equipment productivity, a decrease in the residual value of vehicles, unpredictable fluctuations in fuel prices and an increase in operating expenses. Additionally, we rely on third parties to provide trucking services, including hauling proppant to our customer work sites, and these third parties may fail to comply with various transportation regulations, resulting in our inability to use such third-party providers. Increased truck traffic may contribute to deteriorating road conditions in some areas where our operations are performed. Our operations, including routing and weight restrictions, could be affected by road construction, road repairs, detours and state and local regulations and ordinances restricting access to certain roads. Proposals to increase federal, state, provincial or local taxes, including taxes on motor fuels, are also made from time to time, and any such increase would increase our operating costs. Also, state and local regulation of permitted routes and times on specific roadways could adversely affect our operations. We cannot predict whether, or in what form, any legislative or regulatory changes or municipal ordinances applicable to our logistics operations will be enacted and to what extent any such legislation or regulations could increase our costs or otherwise adversely affect our business or operations.

We are subject to laws and regulations relating to human exposure to crystalline silica. Historically, our environmental compliance costs with respect to existing crystalline silica requirements have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations; however, federal regulatory authorities and analogous state agencies may continue to propose changes in their regulations regarding workplace exposure to crystalline silica, such as permissible exposure limits, required controls and personal protective equipment. We may not be able to comply with any new laws and regulations that are adopted, and any new laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our operating results by requiring us to modify or cease our operations. In addition, the inhalation of respirable crystalline silica is associated with the lung disease silicosis. There is evidence of an association between crystalline silica exposure or silicosis and lung cancer and a possible association with other diseases, including immune system disorders such as scleroderma. The actual or perceived health risks of handling hydraulic fracture sand could materially and adversely affect hydraulic fracturing service providers, including us, through reduced use of hydraulic fracture sand, the threat of product liability or employee lawsuits, increased scrutiny by federal, state and local regulatory authorities of us and our customers or reduced financing sources available to the industry. Furthermore, we may incur additional costs with respect to purchasing specialized equipment designed to reduce exposure to crystalline silica in connection with our operations or invest capital in new equipment.