Sitio Royalties (STR) Risk Analysis

The drilling by our operators involves a number of risks, including the risk of landing their well bore in the desired drilling zone, staying in the desired drilling zone while drilling horizontally through the formation, running their casing the entire length of the well bore and being able to run tools and other equipment consistently through the horizontal well bore. Risks that they will face while completing wells include, but are not limited to, being able to fracture stimulate the planned number of stages, being able to run tools the entire length of the well bore during completion operations and successfully cleaning out the well bore after completion of the final fracture stimulation stage. Furthermore, certain of the new techniques our operators may adopt, such as infill drilling and multi-well pad drilling, may cause irregularities or interruptions in production due to, in the case of infill drilling, offset wells being shut in and, in the case of multi-well pad drilling, the time required to drill and complete multiple wells before any such wells begin producing. The results of drilling in new or emerging formations are more uncertain initially than drilling results in areas that are more developed and have a longer history of established production. Newer or emerging formations and areas often have limited or no production history and consequently we will be less able to predict future drilling results in these areas. Ultimately, the success of these drilling and completion techniques can only be evaluated over time as more wells are drilled, and production profiles are established over a sufficiently long time period. If our operators' drilling results are less than anticipated or they are unable to execute their drilling program because of capital constraints, lease expirations, access to gathering systems, and/or declines in natural gas and oil prices, the return on our investment in these areas may not be as attractive as we anticipate.

The marketability of our operators' oil and natural gas production will depend in part upon the availability, proximity, and capacity of transportation facilities, including gathering systems, trucks and pipelines, owned by third parties. Neither we nor our operators control these third-party transportation facilities and our operators' access to them may be limited or denied. Insufficient production from the wells on the acreage underlying our royalties to support the construction of pipeline facilities by our purchasers or a significant disruption in the availability of third-party transportation facilities or other production facilities could adversely impact our operators' ability to deliver to market or produce oil and natural gas and thereby cause a significant interruption in our operators' operations. If they are unable, for any sustained period, to implement acceptable delivery or transportation arrangements or encounter production related difficulties, they may be required to shut in or curtail production. In addition, the amount of oil and natural gas that can be produced and sold may be subject to curtailment in certain other circumstances outside of our control, such as pipeline interruptions due to maintenance, excessive pressure, ability of downstream processing facilities to accept unprocessed gas, physical damage to the gathering or transportation system or lack of contracted capacity on such systems. The curtailments arising from these and similar circumstances may last from a few days to several months, and in many cases, we and our operators are provided with limited, if any, notice as to when these circumstances will arise and their duration. Any such shut in or curtailment, or an inability to obtain favorable terms for delivery of the oil and natural gas produced from the acreage underlying our royalty fields, could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our operators' drilling activities will be subject to many risks. For example, we will not be able to assure you that wells drilled by our operators will be productive. Drilling for oil and natural gas often involves unprofitable efforts, not only from dry wells but also from wells that are productive but do not produce sufficient oil or natural gas to return a profit at then realized prices after deducting drilling, operating and other costs. The seismic data and other technologies used do not provide conclusive knowledge prior to drilling a well that oil or natural gas is present or that it can be produced economically. The costs of exploration, exploitation and development activities are subject to numerous uncertainties beyond our control and increases in those costs can adversely affect the economics of a project. Further, our operators' drilling and producing operations may be curtailed, delayed, canceled or otherwise negatively impacted as a result of other factors, including: - unusual or unexpected geological formations;- loss of drilling fluid circulation;- title problems;- facility or equipment malfunctions;- unexpected operational events;- shortages or delivery delays of equipment and services;- compliance with environmental and other governmental requirements; and - adverse weather conditions. Any of these risks can cause substantial losses, including personal injury or loss of life, damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment, pollution, environmental contamination or loss of wells and other regulatory penalties. In the event that planned operations, including the drilling of development wells, are delayed, or cancelled, or existing wells or development wells have lower than anticipated production due to one or more of the factors above or for any other reason, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Producing oil and natural gas reservoirs generally are characterized by declining production rates that vary depending upon reservoir characteristics and other factors. Unless our operators conduct successful ongoing development and exploration activities or we continually acquire properties containing proved reserves, our proved reserves will decline as those reserves are produced. Our future natural gas reserves and production, and therefore our future cash flow and results of operations, are highly dependent on our operators' success in efficiently developing and exploiting our current reserves and we economically finding or acquiring additional recoverable reserves. We may not be able to find or acquire sufficient additional reserves to replace our current and future production. If we are unable to replace our current and future production, the value of our reserves will decrease, and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be adversely affected.

The majority of our properties are geographically concentrated in Karnes, DeWitt, and Gonzales Counties in the Eagle Ford Shale region of South Texas. As a result of this concentration, we may be disproportionately exposed to the impact of regional supply and demand factors, delays, or interruptions of production from wells in this area caused by governmental regulation, processing or transportation capacity constraints, availability of equipment, facilities, personnel or services market limitations or interruption of the processing or transportation of crude oil, natural gas, or natural gas liquids. In addition, the effect of fluctuations on supply and demand may become more pronounced within specific geographic oil and natural gas producing areas such as the Eagle Ford Shale region, which may cause these conditions to occur with greater frequency or magnify the effects of these conditions. Due to the concentrated nature of our properties, they could experience any of the same conditions at the same time, resulting in a relatively greater impact on our results of operations than they might have on other companies that have a more diversified portfolio of properties. Such delays or interruptions could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

SEC rules and regulations require that, subject to limited exceptions, proved undeveloped reserves may only be booked if they relate to wells scheduled to be drilled within five years after the date of booking. This requirement has limited and may continue to limit our ability to book additional proved undeveloped reserves as our operators pursue their drilling programs. Moreover, we may be required to write down our proved undeveloped reserves if those wells are not drilled within the required five-year time frame.

Water is an essential component of deep shale oil and natural gas production during both the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes. During the last several years, Texas has experienced extreme drought conditions. As a result of this severe drought, some local water districts have begun restricting the use of water subject to their jurisdiction for hydraulic fracturing to protect local water supply. If our operators are unable to obtain water to use in their operations from local sources, or our operators are unable to effectively utilize flowback water, they may be unable to economically drill for or produce oil and natural gas, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Hydraulic fracturing is an important and common practice that is used to stimulate production of oil and/or natural gas from dense subsurface rock formations. The hydraulic fracturing process involves the injection of water, sand, and chemicals under pressure into targeted subsurface formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production. Hydraulic fracturing is typically regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions. However, in February 2014, the EPA published permitting guidance under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA") addressing the use of diesel fuels in certain hydraulic fracturing activities, and in May 2014, the EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on the development of regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act to require companies to disclose information regarding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Further, in March 2015, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") of the U.S. Department of the Interior published a final rule imposing requirements for hydraulic fracturing activities on federal and Indian lands, including new requirements relating to public disclosure, wellbore integrity and handling of flowback water. Following years of litigation, the BLM rescinded the rule in December 2017. However, in January 2018, California and several environmental groups filed lawsuits challenging BLM's rescission of the rule; those lawsuits are pending. In addition, Congress has from time to time considered legislation to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA and to require disclosure of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. If enacted, these or similar laws could result in additional permitting requirements for hydraulic fracturing operations as well as various restrictions on those operations. These permitting requirements and restrictions could result in delays in operations and increased costs on the acreage underlying our royalties. There may be other attempts to further regulate hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA, TSCA and/or other statutory or regulatory mechanisms. In December 2016, the EPA released its 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 under certain circumstances. At the state level, several states have adopted or are considering legal requirements that could impose more stringent permitting, disclosure and well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities. Local governments also may seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular or prohibit the performance of well drilling in general or hydraulic fracturing in particular. If new or more stringent federal, state or local legal restrictions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where we hold royalties, the operators of the acreage underlying our royalties could incur potentially significant added costs to comply with such requirements, experience delays or curtailment in the pursuit of development activities, and perhaps even be precluded from drilling wells. In some instances, the operation of underground injection wells has been alleged to cause earthquakes. Such issues have sometimes led to orders prohibiting continued injection or the suspension of drilling in certain wells identified as possible sources of seismic activity. For example, the TRRC recently issued a notice to operators in the Midland area to reduce daily injection volumes following multiple earthquakes above a 3.5 magnitude over an 18-month period. The notice also required disposal well operators to provide injection data to TRRC staff to further analyze seismicity in the area. Such concerns also have resulted in stricter regulatory requirements in some jurisdictions relating to the location and operation of underground injection wells. Future orders or regulations addressing concerns about seismic activity from well injection could affect operations on the acreage underlying our royalties. New environmental initiatives and regulations could include restrictions on the ability to conduct certain operations such as hydraulic fracturing or disposal of waste, including, but not limited to, produced water, drilling fluids and other wastes associated with the development or production of natural gas.  Also, the threat of climate change has resulted in increasing political risks in the United States.  For example, the Biden Administration has issued orders temporarily suspending the issuance of new authorizations and suspending the issuance of new leases pending completion of a review of current practices, for oil and gas development on federal lands and waters (but not tribal lands that the federal government merely holds in trust). Any of these environmental initiatives and regulations, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The United States Congress and some states where we have operations may consider legislation or regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions, including methane emissions, which may compel reductions of such emissions. In addition, there have been international conventions and efforts to establish standards for the reduction of greenhouse gases globally, including the Paris accords in December 2015. While the Trump administration had begun the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, in January 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order directing that the United States rejoin the Paris Agreement. In April 2021, the Biden administration announced a goal of reducing the United States' emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030. In November 2021, the international community gathered again in Glasgow at the 26th Conference to the Parties on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ("COP26"), during which multiple announcements were made, including a call for parties to eliminate certain fossil fuel subsidies and pursue further action on non-carbon dioxide GHGs. Relatedly, the United States and European Union jointly announced the launch of the "Global Methane Pledge," which aims to cut global methane pollution at least 30% by 2030 relative to 2020 levels, including "all feasible reductions" in the energy sector. Legislative proposals have included or could include limitations, or caps, on the amount of greenhouse gas that can be emitted, as well as a system of emissions allowances. For example, legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, which was not taken up by the Senate, would have placed the entire burden of obtaining allowances for the carbon content of NGLs on the owners of NGLs at the point of fractionation. In June 2013, President Obama announced a climate action plan that targeted methane emissions from the oil and gas industry as part of a comprehensive interagency methane reduction strategy, and in June 2016, the EPA expanded the NSPS regulations for new or modified sources of VOCs to include methane emissions, which, among other things, imposes leak detection and repair requirements for VOCs and methane on producer well site equipment and on midstream equipment such as compressor and booster stations, imposes additional emission reduction requirements on specific pieces of oil and gas equipment, and is a regulatory pre-condition to the EPA acting to regulate existing oil and gas methane sources in the future under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The Trump administration targeted many of these actions. For example, in September 2020, the EPA finalized amendments to the 2012 and 2016 regulations that, among other things, removed the transmission and storage segment of the oil and gas industry from regulation and rescinded emissions standards for that sector and rescinded methane standards. However, in January 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order directing all federal agencies to review and take action to address any federal regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and similar agency actions promulgated during the prior administration that may be inconsistent with the current administration's policies. The executive order specifically called on the EPA to consider a proposed rule suspending, revising or rescinding the September 2020 deregulatory amendments by September 2021. In response, the U.S. Congress has approved, and President Biden has signed into law, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to repeal the September 2020 revisions to the methane standards, effectively reinstating the prior standards. In November 2021, as required by President Biden's executive order, the EPA proposed new regulations to establish comprehensive standards of performance and emission guidelines for methane and volatile organic compound emissions from new and existing operations in the oil and gas sector, including the exploration and production, transmission, processing, and storage segments. The EPA hopes to finalize the standards by the end of 2022. As a result, future implementation of the standards is uncertain at this time. Relatedly, the D.C. Circuit Court challenge to the October 2015 EPA regulation reducing the ambient ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion under the Clean Air Act was put in abeyance temporarily while the EPA reviewed the regulation. The EPA later indicated it will not revise the rule, and challenges from industry and environmental groups moved forward. In August 2019, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the health-based ozone standards but remanded to the EPA the secondary, public welfare standards designed to protect environmental values. The 2015 Ozone standard is being implemented pursuant to the December 2018 final implementation rule. Separately, in 2011 the EPA issued permitting rules for sources of greenhouse gases; however, in June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had upheld these rules and struck down the EPA's greenhouse gas permitting rules to the extent they impose a requirement to obtain a permit based solely on emissions of greenhouse gases. Under the Court ruling and the EPA's subsequent proposed rules, major sources of other air pollutants, such as VOCs or nitrogen oxides, could still be required to implement process or technology controls and obtain permits regarding emissions of greenhouse gases. These proposed rules have not been finalized. The EPA has issued rules requiring reporting of greenhouse gases, on an annual basis, for certain onshore natural gas and oil production facilities, and in October 2015, the EPA amended and expanded those greenhouse gas reporting requirements to all segments of the oil and gas industry effective January 1, 2016. Similarly, some states can initiate and promulgate regulations affecting oil and gas operations and associated greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of their own statutory authority and programs. For example, in 2019, the Colorado legislature passed House Bill 19-1261, the "Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution" that sets greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the state. Subsequently, the governor issued the Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Roadmap, which identifies pathways to meet the reduction targets. The Roadmap identifies the oil and gas sector as one of the larger contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the state and asserts that deep reductions in methane emissions from the oil and gas industry will be required to meet the targets. Judicial challenges to new regulatory measures are likely and we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges. New regulatory suspensions, revisions, or rescissions, as well as new regulations and conflicting state and federal regulatory mandates may inhibit our ability to accurately forecast the costs associated with future regulatory compliance. To the extent legislation is enacted or additional regulations are promulgated that regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it could significantly increase our costs to (i) acquire allowances; (ii) permit new large facilities; (iii) operate and maintain our facilities; (iv) install new emission controls or institute emission reduction measures; and (v) manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. If such legislation becomes law or additional rules are promulgated in the United States or any states in which we have operations and we are unable to pass these costs through as part of our services, it could have an adverse effect on our business and cash available for distributions.

Increasing attention to climate change, increasing societal expectations on companies to address climate change, increasing investor and societal expectations regarding voluntary ESG disclosures, and potential increasing consumer demand for alternative forms of energy may result in increased costs, reduced demand for our products, reduced profits, increased investigations and litigation, and negative impacts on our access to capital markets. Increasing attention to climate change, for example, may result in demand shifts for oil and natural gas products and additional governmental investigations and private litigation against us. To the extent that societal pressures or political or other factors are involved, it is possible that such liability could be imposed without regard to the company's causation of or contribution to the asserted damage, or to other mitigating factors. In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Unfavorable ESG ratings and recent activism directed at shifting funding away from companies with energy-related assets could lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward the company and our industry and to the diversion of investment to other industries, which could have a negative impact on our stock price and our access to and costs of capital. Also, institutional lenders may, of their own accord, elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies based on climate change related concerns, which could affect our access to capital for potential growth projects.

Global or national health concerns, including the outbreak of pandemic or contagious disease, can negatively impact the global economy and, therefore, demand and pricing for oil and natural gas products. For example, there have been recent outbreaks in several countries, including the United States, of a highly transmissible and pathogenic coronavirus ("COVID-19"). The outbreak of communicable diseases, or the perception that such an outbreak could occur, could result in a widespread public health crisis that could adversely affect the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in an economic downturn that would negatively impact the demand for oil and natural gas products. Furthermore, uncertainty regarding the impact of any outbreak of pandemic or contagious disease, including COVID-19, could lead to increased volatility in oil and natural gas prices. The occurrence or continuation of any of these events could lead to decreased revenues and limit our ability to execute on our business plan, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.