Northern Oil And Gas (NOG) Risk Analysis

We are affected by the adoption of laws, regulations and policy directives that, for economic, environmental protection or other policy reasons, could curtail exploration and development drilling for oil and gas. 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. Litigation over the leasing pause remains ongoing. Additionally, in April 2024, DOI finalized a rule to revise outdated fiscal terms of the onshore federal oil and gas leasing program, including for bonding requirements, royalty rates and minimum bids. 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, (ii) directing the heads of all federal agencies to facilitate the leasing, siting, and generation of domestic energy resources, including on federal lands and waters, and (iii) directing the heads of federal agencies to begin the processes to suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources. As a result, future implementation and enforcement of these rules and policies remains uncertain. In addition, the EPA has adopted regulations that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the U.S., and together with the DOT, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the U.S. For example, in June 2016, the EPA published NSPS, known as Subpart OOOOa, that require certain new, modified or reconstructed facilities in the natural gas and oil sector to reduce methane gas and VOC emissions. In December 2023, the EPA finalized more stringent methane rules for new, modified, and reconstructed facilities, known as OOOOb, as well as standards for existing sources for the first time ever, known as OOOOc. Notably, the EPA updated the applicability date for certain requirements to a construction date of December 6, 2022, meaning that sources constructed prior to that date will be considered existing sources with later compliance deadlines under state plans. Under the final rules, which went into effect in May 2024, states have until March 2026 to prepare and submit their plans to impose methane emission controls on existing sources and those existing sources themselves have until 2029 to comply. The presumptive standards established under the final rule are generally the same for both new and existing sources. The requirements include enhanced leak detection survey requirements using optical gas imaging and other advanced monitoring to encourage the deployment of innovative technologies to detect and reduce methane emissions, reduction of emissions by 95% through capture and control systems and zero-emission requirements for certain devices. The rule also establishes a "super emitter" response program that would allow third parties to make reports to EPA of large methane emission events, triggering certain investigation and repair requirements. Fines and penalties for violation of these rules can be substantial. However, the final rule and its requirements are currently subject to legal challenges but remain in effect. Further, in September 2021, the Biden Administration publicly announced the Global Methane Pledge, an international pact that aims to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. However, in January 2025, President Trump issued executive orders directing (i) 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 and (ii) 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, including the Global Methane Pledge. Consequently, future implementation and enforcement of the final methane rule remains uncertain at this time. To the extent that future legislative or regulatory impose more restrictive requirements pertaining to permitting, GHG emissions, financial assurance and bonding for decommissioning liabilities, or carbon taxes, such actions could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations by restricting the lands available for development and/or access to permits required for such development, or by imposing additional and costly environmental, health and safety requirements. While the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to overrule Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and end the concept of general deference to regulatory agency interpretations of laws introduces new complexity for federal agencies and administration of climate change policy and regulatory programs, many of these initiatives are expected to continue. Consequently, legislation and regulatory programs to address climate change or reduce emissions of GHGs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We are subject to various complex and evolving U.S. federal and state income taxes. U.S. federal, state and local tax laws, policies, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be implemented, interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us, in each case, possibly with retroactive effect. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act ("IRA") was signed into federal law. The IRA introduced, among other things, a new Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax ("CAMT") which is a minimum tax based on financial statement income that applies to "applicable corporations." CAMT is effective for tax years beginning in 2023. The Company is not subject to CAMT in 2023 but once we reach the applicable financial statement income thresholds, which we expect to occur no earlier than 2025, the CAMT rules could increase tax compliance complexity and uncertainty and result in additional administrative costs and income tax liabilities.

Combating the effects of climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the United States and internationally, including from regulators, legislators, companies in a variety of industries, financial market participants and other stakeholders. This focus, together with changes in consumer and industrial/commercial behavior, preferences and attitudes with respect to the generation and consumption of energy, petroleum products and the use of products manufactured with, or powered by, petroleum products, may in the long-term result in (i) 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, (ii) technological advances with respect to the generation, transmission, storage and consumption of energy (e.g., wind, solar and hydrogen power, smart grid technology and battery technology, increasing efficiency) and (iii) increased availability of, and increased consumer and industrial/commercial demand for, alternative energy sources and products manufactured with, or powered by, alternative energy sources (e.g., electric vehicles and renewable residential and commercial power supplies). Climate change legislation and regulatory initiatives may arise from a variety of sources, including international, national, regional and state levels of government and associated administrative bodies, seeking to monitor, restrict or regulate existing emissions of GHGs, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as well as to restrict or eliminate future emissions. Accordingly, our business and operations, and those of our operating partners, are subject to executive, regulatory, political and financial risks associated with oil and natural gas services and products and the emission of GHGs. Any legislation or regulatory programs related to climate change could increase our costs and require substantial capital, compliance, operating and maintenance costs, and reduce demand for oil and natural gas products and services. See further discussion in the risk factor further below entitled "The adoption of climate change legislation or regulations restricting or relating to emissions of GHGs could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the oil and natural gas we produce." Fuel conservation measures, alternative fuel requirements, increasing consumer demand for alternatives to oil and natural gas, technological advances in fuel economy and energy generation devices, and the increased competitiveness of alternative energy sources could reduce demand for oil and natural gas. Additionally, the increased competitiveness of alternative energy sources (such as electric vehicles, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, fuel cells and biofuels) could reduce demand for oil and natural gas and, therefore, our revenues. Such developments may also adversely impact, among other things, the availability to operators at our properties of necessary third-party services and facilities that they rely on or impact the market prices of or our operating partners' access to raw materials, which may adversely affect our ability to successfully carry out our business strategy. Additionally, certain segments of the investor community have expressed negative sentiment towards investing in the oil and natural gas industry. Climate change-related developments in particular may result in negative perceptions of the traditional oil and gas industry and, in turn, reputational risks associated with exploration and production activities. 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. Financial institutions 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. Some investors, including certain pension funds, university endowments and family foundations, have stated policies to reduce or eliminate their investments in the oil and natural gas sector based on social and environmental considerations. With the continued volatility in oil and natural gas prices, and the possibility that interest rates will rise in the near term, increasing the cost of borrowing, certain investors have emphasized capital efficiency and free cash flow from earnings as key drivers for energy companies, especially shale producers. This may also result in a reduction of available capital funding for potential development projects, further impacting our future financial results. Increasing attention to climate change may also result in additional governmental investigations, private litigation against us, operational delays or restrictions, increased operating costs, and additional regulatory burdens. For example, claims have been made against certain companies in the energy industry alleging that GHG emissions from oil and natural gas operations constitute a public nuisance under federal and/or state common law, or 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. As a result, private individuals or public entities may seek to enforce environmental laws and regulations against us and could allege personal injury, property damages or other liabilities. While our business is not a party to any such litigation, we could be named in actions making similar allegations. An unfavorable ruling in any such case could significantly impact our operations and could have an adverse impact on our financial condition. Moreover, governmental authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance and the public may engage in the permitting process, including through intervention in the courts. Negative public perception in relation to climate change or other environmental matters could cause the permits our operating partners need to conduct their operations to be withheld, delayed or burdened by requirements that restrict our ability to profitably conduct our business. Ultimately, any legislation, regulatory programs, technological advances or social pressures related to climate change could increase our operating and compliance costs, reduce demand for oil and natural gas services and products, together with a change in investor sentiment, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Furthermore, if we are unable to achieve the desired level of capital efficiency or free cash flow within the timeframe expected by the market, our stock price may be adversely affected.

Our success depends heavily upon the continued contributions of those members of our management team whose knowledge, relationships with industry participants, leadership and technical expertise would be difficult to replace.  In particular, our ability to successfully acquire additional properties, to increase our reserves, to participate in drilling opportunities and to identify and enter into commercial arrangements depends on developing and maintaining close working relationships with industry participants.  In addition, our ability to select and evaluate suitable properties and to consummate transactions in a highly competitive environment is dependent on our management team's knowledge and expertise in the industry.  To continue to develop our business, we rely on our management team's knowledge and expertise in the industry and will use our management team's relationships with industry participants to enter into strategic relationships. The members of our management team may terminate their employment with our company at any time.  If we were to lose members of our management team, we may not be able to replace the knowledge or relationships that they possess and our ability to execute our business plan could be materially harmed.

The marketability of our oil and natural gas depends in part on the availability, proximity and capacity of pipeline systems, processing facilities, oil trucking fleets and rail transportation assets owned by third parties. The lack of available capacity on these systems and facilities, whether as a result of proration, growth in demand outpacing growth in capacity, physical damage, scheduled maintenance, legal or other reasons such as suspension of service due to legal challenges (see below regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline), could result in a substantial increase in costs, declines in realized commodity prices, the shut-in of producing wells or the delay or discontinuance of development plans for our properties. In recent periods, we experienced significant delays and production curtailments, and declines in realized natural gas prices, that we believe were due in part to gas gathering and processing constraints in the Williston Basin. The negative effects arising from these and similar circumstances may last for an extended period of time. In many cases, operators are provided only with limited, if any, notice as to when these circumstances will arise and their duration. In addition, our wells may be drilled in locations that are serviced to a limited extent, if at all, by gathering and transportation pipelines, which may or may not have sufficient capacity to transport production from all of the wells in the area. As a result, we rely on third-party oil trucking to transport a significant portion of our production to third-party transportation pipelines, rail loading facilities and other market access points. In addition, concerns about the safety and security of oil and gas transportation by pipeline may result in public opposition to pipeline development and increased regulation of pipelines by PHMSA, and therefore less capacity to transport our products by pipeline. The Dakota Access Pipeline ("DAPL"), a major pipeline transporting crude oil from the Williston Basin, is subject to ongoing litigation (the "DAPL Litigation") that could threaten its continued operation. In July 2020, a federal district court ordered DAPL to be shut down pending the completion of an environmental impact statement ("EIS") to determine whether the DAPL poses a threat to the Missouri River and drinking water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The temporary shutdown order was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals in August 2020. DAPL currently remains in operation while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") conducts the EIS, which was released in draft form in September 2023 and was open for public comment until mid-December 2023. The USACE received over 200,000 public comments. The date that the final EIS will be published is not yet known, although according to statements from the USACE the final EIS may be published in 2025. Following completion of the EIS, the USACE will determine whether to grant DAPL an easement to cross the Missouri River or to shut down the pipeline, unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the lower courts' order to conduct the EIS. Moreover, the EIS and/or the USACE's easement decision may subsequently be challenged in court. As a result, a shut-down remains possible, and there is no guarantee that DAPL will be permitted to continue operations following the completion of the EIS and/or the DAPL Litigation. Any significant curtailment in gathering system or pipeline capacity, or the unavailability of sufficient third-party trucking or rail capacity, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may become responsible for costs associated with plugging, abandoning and reclaiming wells, pipelines and other facilities that we use for production of oil and natural gas reserves.  Abandonment and reclamation of these facilities and the costs associated therewith is often referred to as "decommissioning."  We accrue a liability for decommissioning costs associated with our wells, but have not established any cash reserve account for these potential costs in respect of any of our properties.  If decommissioning is required before economic depletion of our properties or if our estimates of the costs of decommissioning exceed the value of the reserves remaining at any particular time to cover such decommissioning costs, we may have to draw on funds from other sources to satisfy such costs.  The use of other funds to satisfy such decommissioning costs could impair our ability to focus capital investment in other areas of our business.

A portion of our crude oil production is transported to market centers by rail. Derailments in North America of trains transporting crude oil have caused various regulatory agencies and industry organizations, as well as federal, state and municipal governments, to focus attention on transportation by rail of flammable liquids. Any changes to existing laws and regulations, or promulgation of new laws and regulations, including any voluntary measures by the rail industry, that result in new requirements for the design, construction or operation of tank cars used to transport crude oil could increase our costs of doing business and limit our ability to transport and sell our crude oil at favorable prices at market centers throughout the United States, the consequences of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, any derailment of crude oil involving crude oil that we have sold or are shipping may result in claims being brought against us that may involve significant liabilities.

Most scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in the earth's atmosphere may produce significant physical effects on weather conditions, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, extreme temperatures, droughts and floods, among other climatic phenomena. If any such effects were to occur, they could adversely affect or delay demand for oil and natural gas products or cause us or our third party operators to incur significant costs in preparing for, or responding to, the effects of climatic events themselves, which may not be fully insured. Energy needs could increase or decrease as a result of extreme weather conditions depending on the duration and magnitude of any such climate changes. A decrease in energy use due to weather changes may affect our financial condition through decreased revenues. To the extent the frequency of extreme weather events increases, this could impact our business in various ways, including damage to operators' facilities at our properties or increased insurance premiums. Potential adverse effects on our third party operators could also include disruption of their production activities and supply chain. Any of these effects could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.