Prairie Operating Co (PROP) Risk Factors

The threat of climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the United States and around the world. 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 emissions of GHGs. These efforts have included consideration of cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes, GHG disclosure obligations and regulations that directly limit GHG emissions from certain sources. President Biden has identified addressing climate change as a priority under his administration and has issued, and may continue to issue, executive orders related to that goal. For example, in January 2024, the Biden administration announced a temporary pause on the U.S. Department of Energy's ("DOE") review of pending applications for authorization to export LNG to countries that have not entered into free trade agreements ("FTAs") with the United States (so-called non-FTA countries) until the DOE updates its underlying analyses for such authorizations using more current data to account for considerations like potential energy cost increases for consumers and manufacturers or the latest assessment of the impact of GHG emissions. While this pause may not directly impact our exploration, production and development activities, it may affect the demand for our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial position. Also at the federal level, 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 system sources, and impose new standards reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations through limitations on venting and flaring and the implementation of enhanced emission leak detection and repair requirements. 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. Under the final rules, states have two years to prepare and submit their plans to impose methane emission controls on existing sources. The presumptive standards established under the final rules are generally the same for both new and existing sources and 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, zero-emission requirements for certain devices, and the establishment of a "super emitter" response program that would allow third parties to make reports to the EPA of large methane emission events, triggering certain investigation and repair requirements. Fines and penalties for violations of these rules can be substantial. In addition, the U.S. Congress may continue to consider and pass legislation related to the reduction of GHG emissions, including methane and carbon dioxide. For example, the IRA, which appropriates significant federal funding for renewable energy initiatives and, for the first time ever, imposes a fee on GHG emissions from certain facilities, was signed into law in August 2022. The methane emissions charge would start in calendar year 2024 at $900 per ton of methane, increase to $1,200 in 2025, and be set at $1,500 for 2026 and each year after. Calculation of the fee is based on certain thresholds established in the IRA. In January 2024, the EPA issued a proposed rule to implement the waste emissions charge with a proposed effective date in 2025 for reporting year 2024 emissions. The methane charge and the incentives for renewable energy infrastructure development could impose additional costs on our operations and further accelerate the transition of the economy away from the use of oil and natural gas towards lower- or zero-carbon emissions alternatives. Furthermore, on March 6, 2024, the SEC finalized a rule requiring the reporting of climate-related risks and financial impacts, as well as GHG emissions for larger companies. Compliance dates under the final rule are phased in by registrant category. Smaller reporting companies will be required to incorporate climate-related disclosures into their filings beginning in fiscal year 2027. Accelerated filers will be required to incorporate the disclosures in fiscal year 2026, as well as disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, if material, in fiscal year 2028, and limited assurance attestation reports related to the same by fiscal year 2031. Large accelerated filers will be required to incorporate the disclosures in fiscal year 2025, with Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions disclosures, if material, in fiscal year 2026, and attestation reports by fiscal year 2029. While we are still assessing our obligations under the rule, complying with such obligations may result in increased costs. States have also implemented or are considering implementing laws and regulations that would require climate-related disclosures, which could result in additional costs to comply with disclosure requirements as well as increase costs of and restrictions on access to capital. Separately, enhanced climate related disclosure requirements could lead to reputational or other harm with customers, regulators, investors or other stakeholders and could also increase our litigation risks relating to alleged climate-related damages resulting from our operations, statements alleged to have been made by us or others in our industry regarding climate change risks, or in connection with any future disclosures we may make regarding reported emissions, particularly given the inherent uncertainties and estimations with respect to calculating and reporting GHG emissions. From time to time, the SEC has also focused additional scrutiny on existing climate-change related disclosures in public filings, increasing the potential for enforcement if the SEC were to allege an issuer's existing climate disclosures were misleading or deficient. These ongoing regulatory actions and the emissions fee and funding provisions of the IRA could increase operating costs within the oil and gas industry and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, which could in turn adversely affect our business and results of operations. At the international level, the United Nations-sponsored Paris Agreement, though non-binding, calls for signatory nations to limit their GHG emissions through individually-determined reduction goals every five years after 2020. In February 2021, President Biden recommitted the United States to long-term international goals to reduce emissions, including those under the Paris Agreement. President Biden announced in April 2021 a new, more rigorous nationally determined emissions reduction level of 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels in economy-wide net GHG emissions by 2030. Moreover, the international community convenes annually at the Conference of the Parties to negotiate further pledges and initiatives, such as the Global Methane Pledge (a collective goal to reduce global methane emissions by 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030). The impacts of these orders, pledges, agreements and any legislation or regulation promulgated to fulfill the United States' commitments under the Paris Agreement or other international agreements cannot be predicted at this time. In December 2023, at the 28th Conference of the Parties, the parties signed onto an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems and increase renewable energy capacity, though no timeline for doing so was set. While non-binding, the agreements coming out of these conferences could result in increased pressure among financial institutions and various stakeholders to reduce or otherwise impose more stringent limitations on funding for, and increase potential opposition to, the exploration and production of fossil fuels. Litigation risks are also increasing, as a number of states, municipalities, environmental organizations and other plaintiffs have sought to bring suits against oil and natural gas exploration and production companies in state or federal court, alleging, among other things, that such energy companies created public nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to global warming effects, such as rising sea levels, and therefore, are responsible for roadway and infrastructure damages as a result, or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. Involvement in such a case, regardless of the substance of the allegations, could have adverse reputational and financial impacts and an unfavorable ruling in any such case could significantly impact our operations and could have an adverse impact on our financial condition or operations. There are also increasing financial risks for oil and gas producers as certain shareholders, bondholders and lenders may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into non-fossil fuel energy related sectors. Certain institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil-fuel energy companies have shifted their investment practices to those that favor "clean" power sources, such as wind and solar, making those sources more attractive, and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies in the short or long term. Many of the largest U.S. banks have made "net zero" carbon emission commitments and have announced that they will be assessing financed emissions across their portfolios and taking steps to quantify and reduce those emissions. Additionally, there is also the possibility that financial institutions will be pressured or required to adopt policies that limit funding for fossil fuel energy companies. For example, in 2021 the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero ("GFANZ") announced that commitments from over 450 firms across 45 countries had resulted in over $130 trillion in capital committed to net zero goals. The various sub-alliances of GFANZ generally require participants to set short-term, sector-specific targets to transition their financing, investing, and/or underwriting activities to net zero by 2050. Additionally, there is the possibility that financial institutions will be required to adopt policies that limit funding for fossil fuel energy companies. In late 2020, the Federal Reserve joined the Network for Greening the Financial System, a consortium of financial regulators focused on addressing climate-related risks in the financial sector. More recently, in November 2021, the Federal Reserve issued a statement in support of the efforts of the Network for Greening the Financial System to identify key issues and potential solutions for the climate-related challenges most relevant to central banks and supervisory authorities. In September 2022, the Federal Reserve announced that six of the largest U.S. largest banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise, which took place throughout 2023, to enhance the ability of firms and supervisors to measure and manage climate-related financial risk. While we cannot predict what policies may result from these developments, such efforts could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration and production business activities on favorable terms, or at all. Although there has been recent political support to counteract these initiatives, these and other developments in the financial sector could lead to some lenders restricting access to capital for or divesting from certain industries or companies, including the oil and gas sector, or requiring that borrowers take additional steps to reduce their GHG emissions. Any material reduction in the capital available to us or our fossil fuel-related customers could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration, development, production, transportation, and processing activities, which could reduce the demand for our products and services.

Past performance and operational experience of our management team and their affiliates is not a guarantee of the Company's ability to complete the NRO Acquisition nor, if consummated, a guarantee that the intended benefits of the NRO Acquisition will be achieved or that we will be able to successfully develop and operate the Genesis Assets. You should not rely on the historical record of our management team or their affiliates' performance as indicative of the future performance of the Company or of an investment in our common stock.

Following the acquisition and development of our existing and future E&P assets, our revenues, profitability and cash flows will depend upon the prices for oil, natural gas and NGLs. The prices we may receive for oil, natural gas and NGLs production are volatile and a decrease in prices can materially and adversely affect our financial results and impede our growth, including our ability to maintain or increase our borrowing capacity, to repay current or future indebtedness and to obtain additional capital on attractive terms. Changes in oil, natural gas and NGLs prices have a significant impact on the amount of oil, natural gas and NGLs that we can produce economically, the value of our reserves and on our cash flows. Historically, world-wide oil, natural gas and NGLs prices and markets have been subject to significant change and may continue to change in the future. During the year ended December 31, 2023, the average West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") spot price was $77.58, as compared to an average price of $94.90 for the year ended December 31, 2022 and $68.16 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The average Henry Hub natural gas spot price during the year ended December 31, 2023, was $2.54 as compared to an average of $6.42 for the year ended December 31, 2022 and $3.60 for the year ended December 31, 2021. Prices for oil, natural gas and NGLs may fluctuate widely in response to relatively minor changes in supply and demand, market uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are beyond our control, such as: - the domestic and foreign supply of and demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs;         - the price and quantity of foreign imports of oil, natural gas and NGLs;         - the ability of and actions taken by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ("OPEC") and Russia (together with OPEC and other allied producing countries, "OPEC+") and other oil-producing nations in connection with their arrangements to maintain oil prices and production controls;         - political and economic conditions and events in foreign oil and natural gas producing countries, including embargoes, continued hostilities in the Middle East and other sustained military campaigns, the armed conflict in Ukraine and associated economic sanctions on Russia, conditions in South America, Central America, China and Russia, and acts of terrorism or sabotage;         - the proximity of our production to and capacity of oil, natural gas and NGLs pipelines and other transportation and storage facilities;         - the level of consumer product demand;         - the value of the dollar relative to the currencies of other countries;         - the impact of energy consumption, supply, and conservation policies and activities by governmental authorities, international agreements, and non-governmental organizations to limit, restrict, suspend or prohibit the performance or financing of oil, natural gas and NGLs exploration, production, development or marketing activities;         - U.S. and non-U.S. governmental regulations, including environmental initiatives and taxation;         - overall domestic and global economic conditions;         - the impact on worldwide economic activity of an epidemic, outbreak or other public health events;- the price and availability of alternative fuels;         - technological advances affecting energy consumption, energy conservation and energy supply;         - stockholder activism or activities by non-governmental organizations to restrict the exploration, development and production of oil, natural gas and NGLs to minimize emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas; and         - weather conditions.

Our operations will require water for our planned oil and natural gas exploration during drilling and completion activities. Our access to water may be limited due to reasons such as prolonged drought, private third party competition for water in localized areas or our inability to acquire or maintain water sourcing permits or other rights as well as governmental regulations or restrictions adopted in the future. For example, the Governor of Colorado recently signed into law HB 1242 which places restrictions on the use of fresh water for oil and gas operations and requires oil and gas operators to report their water use. Any difficulty or restriction on locating or contractually acquiring sufficient amounts of water in an economical manner could adversely impact our planned operations. Additionally, we must dispose of the fluids produced during oil and natural gas production, including produced water. We may choose to dispose of produced water into deep wells by means of injection, either directly ourselves or through third party contractors. While we may seek to reuse or recycle produced water instead of disposing of such water, our costs for disposing of produced water could increase significantly as a result of increased regulation or if reusing and recycling water becomes impractical. Disposal wells are regulated pursuant to the UIC program established under the SDWA and analogous state laws. The UIC program requires permits from the EPA or an analogous state agency for construction and operation of such disposal wells, establishes minimum standards for disposal well operations, and restricts the types and quantities of fluids that may be disposed. In recent years, wells used for the disposal by injection of flowback water or certain other oilfield fluids below ground into non-producing formations have been associated with an increased number of seismic events, with research suggesting that the link between seismic events and wastewater disposal may vary by region and local geology. The U.S. geological survey has recently identified Colorado as one of six states with the most significant hazards from induced seismicity. Concerns by the public and governmental authorities have prompted several state agencies to require operators to take certain prescriptive actions or limit disposal volumes following unusual seismic activity. The CECMC requires operators to monitor and evaluate for seismicity risks in certain situations. Other states have from time to time suspended disposal well permits or otherwise restricted activity in certain areas in response to seismic activity. For example, in both New Mexico and Texas, state regulatory agencies have implemented seismicity response programs that have resulted in state regulators suspending or curtailing disposal well injection operations and imposing additional seismic monitoring and reporting requirements on disposal well operators. Restrictions on produced water disposal well injection activities or suspensions of such activities, whether due to the occurrence of seismic events or other regulatory actions could increase our costs to dispose of produced water and adversely impact our results of operations.

From time to time, we may be involved in lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, governmental and other legal proceedings, such as title, royalty or contractual disputes, our oil and gas development activities, environmental liabilities, regulatory compliance matters, personal injury, property damage and employment litigation, in the ordinary course of our business. Many of these matters raise difficult and complicated factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties and complexities. The timing of the final resolutions to these types of matters is often uncertain. Additionally, the possible outcomes or resolutions to these matters could include adverse judgments or settlements, either of which could require substantial payments, adversely affecting our results of operations and liquidity. Irrespective of the outcome, legal proceedings or governmental investigations may adversely affect our business due to legal costs, diversion of resources and the attention of our management and employees, and other factors.

The ESA and comparable state laws protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. Under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may designate critical habitat areas that it believes are necessary for survival of species listed as threatened or endangered. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Such designations could require us to develop mitigation plans to avoid potential adverse effects to protected species and their habitats, and our oil and gas operations may be delayed, restricted or prohibited in certain locations or during certain seasons, such as breeding and nesting seasons, when those operations could have an adverse effect on the species. Moreover, the future listing of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered in areas where we are operating in the future could cause us to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures or could result in delays, restrictions or prohibitions on our planned development and production activities.

Terrorist attacks or cyberattacks may significantly affect the energy industry, including our operations and those of our suppliers and customers, as well as general economic conditions, consumer confidence and spending and market liquidity. Cyber incidents, including deliberate attacks, have increased in frequency globally. Strategic targets, such as energy related assets, may be at greater risk of future attacks than other targets in the United States. We depend on digital technology in many areas of our business and operations, including recording financial and operating data, oversight and analysis of our operations and communications with the employees supporting our operations and our customers or service providers. We also collect and store sensitive data in the ordinary course of our business, including personally identifiable information as well as our proprietary business information and that of our customers, suppliers, investors and other stakeholders. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of information is critical to our operations, and we monitor our key information technology systems in an effort to detect and prevent cyberattacks, security breaches or unauthorized access. Despite our security measures, our information technology systems may undergo cyberattacks or security breaches including as a result of employee error, malfeasance or other threat vectors, which could lead to the corruption, loss, or disclosure of proprietary and sensitive data, misdirected wire transfers, and an inability to: perform services for our customers; complete or settle transactions; maintain our books and records; prevent environmental damage; and maintain communications or operations. Significant liability to the Company or third parties may result. We are not able to anticipate, detect or prevent all cyberattacks, particularly because the methodologies used by attackers change frequently or may not be recognized until an attack is already underway or significantly thereafter, and because attackers are increasingly using technologies specifically designed to circumvent cybersecurity measures and avoid detection. Cybersecurity attacks are also becoming more sophisticated and include, but are not limited to, ransomware, credential stuffing, spear phishing, social engineering, use of deepfakes (i.e., highly realistic synthetic media generated by artificial intelligence), and other attempts to gain unauthorized access to data for purposes of extortion or other malfeasance. Our information and operational technologies, systems and networks, and those of our vendors, suppliers, customers and other business partners, may become the target of cyberattacks or information security breaches that result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of proprietary and other information, or adversely disrupt our business operations. Advances in computer capabilities, discoveries in the field of artificial intelligence, cryptography, or other developments may result in a compromise or breach of the technology we use to safeguard confidential, personal, or otherwise protected information. As cyberattacks continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. In particular, our implementation of various procedures and controls to monitor and mitigate security threats and to increase security for our personnel, information, facilities and infrastructure may result in increased capital and operating costs. A cyberattack or security breach could result in liability resulting from data privacy or cybersecurity claims, liability under data privacy laws, regulatory penalties, damage to our reputation, long-lasting loss of confidence in us, or additional costs for remediation and modification or enhancement of our information systems to prevent future occurrences, all of which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. To date, we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyberattacks; however, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future. No security measure is infallible. Consequently, it is possible that any of these occurrences, or a combination of them, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.