Dorchester Minerals (DMLP) Risk Analysis

A unitholder may be required to file tax returns and be subject to tax liability in the foreign, state or local jurisdictions where the unitholder resides and in each state or local jurisdiction in which we have assets or otherwise do business. We also may be required to withhold state income tax from distributions otherwise payable to a unitholder, and state income tax may be withheld by others on royalty payments to us.

If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after 2017, it may collect any resulting taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly from us. We generally will have the ability to shift any such tax liability (including any applicable penalties and interest) to our General Partner and our unitholders in accordance with their interests in us during the year under audit, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so under all circumstances. If we are unable to have our 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 economic burden resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own units in us during the tax year under audit. If we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest resulting from audit adjustments, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced.

We are prohibited from owning working interests or cost-bearing interests. At the time of the creation of the Minerals NPI, we assigned to the Operating Partnership all rights in any such working interests or cost-bearing interests that might subsequently be created from the mineral properties that were and are subject of the Minerals NPI. As additional working interests and other cost-bearing interests are created out of such mineral properties, they are owned by the Operating Partnership pursuant to such original assignment, and we have executed various documents since the creation of the Minerals NPI to confirm such treatment under the original assignment. This treatment could be characterized differently by the IRS, and in such a case we are unable to predict, with certainty, all of the income tax consequences relating to the Minerals NPI as it relates to such working interests and other cost-bearing interests.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Despite the fact that we are organized as a limited partnership under Delaware law, we would be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a "qualifying income" requirement. Based upon our current operations, we believe we satisfy the qualifying income requirement. However, we have not requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this or any other matter affecting us. A change in our business or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity. If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 21%, and would likely pay state income tax at varying rates. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses or deductions would flow through to our unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. In addition, changes in current state law may subject us to additional entity-level taxation by individual states. Several states have subjected, or are evaluating ways to subject, partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of taxation. Imposition of any such taxes may substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation or the assessment of a material amount of entity-level taxation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

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 administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. For example, from time to time, the President and members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that affect publicly traded partnerships, including elimination of partnership tax treatment for publicly traded partnerships. Under current law, we believe that our royalty income is qualifying income for purposes of Section 7704(d)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). If the current law remains effective in its current form, we believe we will continue to be able to meet the qualifying income requirement. However, there can be no assurance that there will not be changes to the federal income tax laws or the Treasury Department's interpretation of the qualifying income rules in a manner that could impact our ability to qualify as a partnership for federal income tax purposes in the future. Any modification to the federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be retroactively applied and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes or otherwise adversely affect us. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes, or other proposals, will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units.

For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and ending on or before December 31, 2025, an individual taxpayer may generally claim a deduction in the amount of 20% of its allocable share of certain publicly traded partnership income, including generally, among other items, the net amount of its items of income, gain, deduction, and loss from a publicly traded partnership's U.S. trade or business. Because we own only non-operated, passive mineral and royalty interests, most or all of the income that we now generate, or will generate in the future, may not be "qualifying publicly traded partnership income" eligible for the 20% deduction. If the deduction is not available, our unitholders' tax liability from ownership and disposition of our units may be materially higher than if the deduction is available. We urge our unitholders to consult with their tax advisors regarding the availability of the 20% deduction on any income allocated from us.

Leases on oil and natural gas properties typically have a term of three years, after which they expire unless, prior to expiration, production is established within the spacing units covering the undeveloped acres. In addition, even if production or drilling is established during such primary term, if production or drilling ceases on the leased property, the lease typically terminates, subject to certain exceptions. Any reduction in our operators' drilling programs, either through a reduction in capital expenditures or the unavailability of equipment, services, or supplies, could result in the expiration of existing leases. If the lease governing any of our mineral interests expires or terminates, all development rights typically revert back to us, and we may seek new lessees to explore and develop such mineral interests or in some states remain unleased. If the lease underlying any of our ORRIs expires or terminates, our ORRIs that are derived from such lease will also terminate. Any such expirations or terminations of our leases or our ORRIs could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

The Operating Partnership may participate in drilling activities in limited circumstances on the properties underlying the NPIs, and third parties may undertake drilling activities on our properties. Any increases in our reserves will come from such drilling activities or from acquisitions. Drilling involves a wide variety of risks, including the risk that no commercially productive oil or natural gas reservoirs will be encountered. The cost of drilling, completing and operating wells is often uncertain, and drilling operations may be delayed or canceled as a result of a variety of factors, including: - pressure or irregularities in formations;- equipment failures or accidents;- unexpected drilling conditions;- shortages or delays in the delivery of equipment;- adverse weather conditions; and - disputes with drill-site owners. Future drilling activities on our properties may not be successful. If these activities are unsuccessful, this failure could have an adverse effect on our future results of operations and financial condition. In addition, under the terms of the NPIs, the costs of unsuccessful future drilling on the working interest properties that are subject to the NPIs will reduce amounts payable to us under the NPIs by 96.97% of these costs.

The cash available for distribution that comes from our royalty and mineral interests, including the NPIs, is directly affected by increases in production costs and other costs. Most of these costs are outside of our control, including costs of regulatory compliance and severance and other similar taxes. Other expenditures are dictated by business necessity, such as drilling additional wells in response to the drilling activity of others.

We may experience delays in receiving royalty payments from our operators, including as a result of delayed division orders received by our operators. Typically, the failure of an operator to make royalty payments to which we are entitled, gives us the right to terminate the lease, repossess the property and enforce payment obligations under the lease. If we repossessed any of our properties, we would seek a replacement operator. However, we cannot guarantee finding a suitable replacement operator in such a circumstance and if we did, we might not be able to enter into a new lease on favorable terms within a reasonable period of time. In addition, the outgoing operator could be subject to a bankruptcy proceeding under Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"), in which case our right to enforce or terminate the lease for any defaults, including non-payment, may be substantially delayed or otherwise at risk. In general, in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, the bankrupt operator would have an extended period of time to decide whether to ultimately reject or assume the lease, which could significantly delay or prevent the execution of a new lease or the assignment of the existing lease to a replacement operator. In the event that an operator rejects the lease, our ability to collect amounts owed to us would be substantially delayed, and our ultimate recovery may be only a fraction of the amount owed or nothing. In addition, if we are able to enter into a new lease with a new operator, there is no guarantee that such replacement operator will achieve the same levels of production or sell oil or natural gas at the same price as the operator it replaced.

As with other companies engaged in the ownership and production of oil and natural gas, we always have possible risk of exposure to environmental costs and liabilities because of the costs associated with environmental compliance or remediation. The properties in which we hold interests are subject to extensive federal, state, tribal and local regulatory requirements relating to environmental affairs, health and safety and waste management. Governmental authorities have the power to enforce compliance with applicable regulations and permits, which could increase production costs on our properties and affect their cash flow. Third parties may also have the right to pursue legal actions to enforce compliance. Because we do not directly operate our properties, our direct liability under environmental laws is limited. It is likely, however, that expenditures in connection with environmental matters, individually or as part of normal capital expenditure programs, will affect the net cash flow from our properties. Future environmental law developments, such as stricter laws, regulations or enforcement policies, could significantly increase the costs of production from our properties and reduce our cash flow. The following is a summary of some of the existing environmental laws, rules and regulations that apply to oil and natural gas operations, and that may indirectly affect our cash flow. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), also known as the Superfund law, and comparable state statutes impose strict liability (i.e., no showing of "fault" is required), and under certain circumstances, joint and several liability, on classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the release of a hazardous substance into the environment. The term "hazardous substance" is specifically defined to exclude petroleum, including crude oil and any fraction thereof, natural gas and natural gas liquids. Despite this exclusion, certain materials that are commonly used in connection with oil and natural gas operations are considered to be hazardous substances under CERCLA. Responsible persons include the current or former owner or operator of the site where the release occurred, and anyone who disposed of or arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance released at the site, regardless of whether the disposal of hazardous substances was lawful at the time of the disposal. Under CERCLA, such persons may be subject to strict, joint and several liabilities for the costs of investigating releases of hazardous substances, cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, damages to natural resources and certain health studies. In addition, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the hazardous substances released into the environment. The operators of our properties may be responsible under CERCLA for all or part of these costs. Although we are not an operator, our ownership of royalty interests could cause us to be responsible for all or part of such costs to the extent that CERCLA imposes such responsibilities on such parties as "owners." The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and comparable state statutes regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Drilling fluids, produced water and many other wastes associated with the exploration, development and production of oil or natural gas are currently excluded from regulation under RCRA's hazardous waste provisions. However, it is possible that certain oil and natural gas exploration and production wastes could be classified as hazardous wastes in the future. In addition, exploration and production wastes are regulated under state laws analogous to RCRA. Many of our properties have produced oil and/or natural gas for many years. We have no knowledge of current and prior operators' procedures with respect to the disposal of oil and natural gas wastes. Hydrocarbons or other solid or hazardous wastes may have been released on or under our properties by the operators or prior operators. Our properties and the materials disposed or released on, at, under or from them may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and analogous state laws, and removal or remediation of such materials could be required by a governmental authority. The Federal Clean Air Act ("CAA") and comparable state laws regulate emissions of various air pollutants through air emissions permitting programs and other requirements, such as emissions controls. Existing laws and regulations and possible future laws and regulations may require our operators to obtain pre-approval for the expansion or modification of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities expected to produce air emissions and may impose stringent air permit requirements or mandate the use of specific equipment or technologies to control emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") continues to develop New Source Performance standards for oil and natural gas facilities. On May 12, 2016, the EPA amended its regulations to impose new standards for methane and volatile organic compounds emissions for certain new, modified, and reconstructed equipment, processes, and activities across the oil and natural gas sector. However, on August 13, 2020, in response to an executive order by President Trump, the EPA amended the New Source Performance standards to ease regulatory burdens, including rescinding standards applicable to transmission or storage segments and eliminating methane requirements altogether. On June 30, 2021, President Biden signed into law a joint resolution of Congress disapproving the 2020 amendments, with the exception of some technical changes, thereby reinstating the prior standards. The EPA expects owners and operators of regulated sources to take "immediate steps" to comply with these standards. Additionally, on March 8, 2024, the EPA published a final rule that would expand and strengthen emission reduction requirements for both new and existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry by requiring increased monitoring of fugitive emissions, imposing new requirements for pneumatic controllers and tank batteries, and prohibiting venting of natural gas in certain situations. Federal changes will affect state air permitting programs in states that administer the federal CAA under a delegation of authority, including states in which we have operations. These new standards, to the extent implemented, as well as any future laws and their implementing regulations, may require our operators to obtain pre-approval for the expansion or modification of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities expected to produce air emissions, impose stringent air permit requirements, or mandate the use of specific equipment or technologies to control emissions. We cannot predict the final regulatory requirements or the cost to our operators to comply with such requirements with any certainty. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Clean Water Act" or "CWA") and analogous state laws impose restrictions and strict controls on the discharge of pollutants and fill material, including spills and leaks of oil and other substances into regulated waters, including wetlands. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by the EPA, an analogous state agency, or, in the case of fill material, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACOE"). The scope of waters regulated under the CWA has fluctuated in recent years. On June 29, 2015, the EPA and the USACOE jointly promulgated a final rule expanding the scope of "Waters of the United States" ("WOTUS"), which would have made additional waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. However, on October 22, 2019, the agencies published a final rule to repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule, and then, on April 21, 2020, the EPA and the USACOE published a final rule replacing the 2015 rule and significantly reducing the waters subject to federal regulation under the CWA. On August 30, 2021, a federal court struck down the replacement rule and, on January 18, 2023, the EPA and the USACOE published a final rule that would restore water protections that were in place prior to 2015. However, on May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an opinion substantially narrowing the scope of "waters of the United States" protected under the CWA. On September 8, 2023, the EPA and the USACOE published a final rule conforming their regulations to the decision. These recent actions have provided some clarity. To the extent the EPA and the USACOE broadly interpret their jurisdiction and expand the range of properties subject to the CWA's jurisdiction, our operators could face increased costs and delays with respect to obtaining permits for dredge and fill activities in wetland areas, which could cause delays in development and/or increase the cost of development and operation of those properties. Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure ("SPCC") regulations promulgated under the CWA and later amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 impose obligations and liabilities related to the prevention of oil spills and damages resulting from such spills into or threatening waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. For example, operators of certain oil and natural gas facilities that store oil in more than threshold quantities, the release of which could reasonably be expected to reach jurisdictional waters, must develop, implement, and maintain SPCC Plans. Federal and state regulatory agencies can impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance with discharge permits or other requirements of the CWA and analogous state laws and regulations. The EPA has also adopted regulations requiring certain oil and natural gas exploration and production facilities to obtain individual permits or coverage under general permits for storm water discharges. In addition, on June 28, 2016, the EPA published a final rule prohibiting the discharge of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and natural gas extraction facilities to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. Costs may be associated with the treatment of wastewater or developing and implementing storm water pollution prevention plans, as well as for monitoring and sampling the storm water runoff from certain of our facilities. Some states also maintain groundwater protection programs that require permits for discharges or operations that may impact groundwater conditions. Various federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and analogous state laws, restrict activities that may adversely affect listed endangered or threatened species or their habitat. If endangered or threatened species are located on our properties, operations on those properties could be prohibited or delayed or expensive mitigation may be required. Also, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") may designate critical habitat and suitable habitat areas that it believes are necessary for the survival of threatened or endangered species. A critical habitat or suitable habitat designation could result in further material restrictions to federal land use and private land use and could delay or prohibit land access, development or operations (including prevent oil and natural gas exploration or production). Additionally, the designation of previously unprotected species in areas where we operate as endangered or threatened could result in the imposition of restrictions on our operators and consequently have a material adverse effect on our business. Oil and natural gas operations are subject to the requirements of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA") and comparable state statutes and their implementing regulations. The OSHA hazard communication standard, the EPA community right-to-know regulations under Title III of CERCLA, the general duty clause and Risk Management Planning regulations promulgated under section 112(r) of the CAA and similar state statutes may require disclosure of information about hazardous materials used, produced or otherwise managed during operation. These laws also require the development of risk management plans for certain facilities to prevent accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances and to minimize the consequences of such releases should they occur.

Historically, there has been price volatility in the oil and natural gas markets, which have been impacted by a number of factors, including actions by oil producing nations. For example, after OPEC and a group of oil producing nations led by Russia failed in March 2020 to agree on oil production cuts, Saudi Arabia announced that it would cut oil prices and increase production, leading to a sharp decline in oil and natural gas prices. While OPEC, Russia and other oil producing countries reached an agreement in April 2020 to reduce production levels, and U.S. production declined, oil prices remained lower than in previous years on account of an oversupply of oil and natural gas, with a simultaneous decrease in demand as a result of the impact of COVID-19 on the global economy. Thereafter, in 2021, oil and natural gas prices significantly rebounded. However, global military conflicts, fluctuating interest rates, changes in tariff rates, global supply chain disruptions, concerns about a potential economic downturn or recession, recent measures to combat persistent inflation, and actions taken by OPEC and its non-OPEC allies, collectively OPEC+, continued to contribute to economic and pricing volatility during 2024. Oil and natural gas markets remain subject to price volatility, which may have a material adverse effect on our cash distributions in periods of lower prices. During periods of substantial declines in prices, such as in 2020, oil and natural gas operators on our properties may suspend drilling programs, which would impact our revenues and operating income. In the event that any wells on our properties are shut-in, restarting wells may require significant costs from our operators, and we cannot guarantee that they would be able to restart at the same level. Moreover, due to the extremely volatile market conditions, we are unable to predict the degree or duration of any adverse impact on our operations and financial condition and other risks in our industry may be enhanced by such conditions.

Recently, the U.S. has had periods of high inflation. These inflationary pressures may result in increases to the costs of the goods, services and labor used by our operators, which could cause their capital expenditures and operating costs to rise. Sustained levels of high inflation have likewise caused the U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks to increase interest rates, which could have the effects of raising the cost of capital and depressing economic growth, either of which, or the combination thereof, could hurt the financial and operating results of our operators' businesses. If our operators are unable to secure the goods, services and labor necessary for their operations at reasonable costs, their exploration and development activities could be delayed or restricted, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and free cash flow.