President Biden has made addressing the threat of climate change from GHG emissions a priority under his administration. Regulatory agencies under the Biden administration have issued proposed rulemakings and may issue new or amended rulemakings in support of President Biden's regulatory and political agenda, which include reducing dependence on, and use of, fossil fuels and curtailment of hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.
Numerous proposals have been made and are likely to continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit emissions of GHGs as well as to eliminate such future emissions. Accordingly, our operations are subject to a series of climate-related transition risks, including regulatory, political and litigation and financial risks associated with the production and processing of fossil fuels and emission of GHGs. See Part I, Item 1. Business – Other Regulation of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry for more discussion on the threat of climate change and restriction of GHG emissions.
The adoption and implementation of any international, federal, regional or state legislation, executive actions, regulations, policies or other regulatory initiatives that impose more stringent standards for GHG emissions on our operations or in areas where we produce oil and natural gas could result in increased compliance costs or costs of consuming fossil fuels, and thereby reduce demand for the oil and natural gas that we produce. Companies in the oil and natural gas industry are often the target of activist efforts from both individuals and non-governmental organizations regarding climate change and environmental and sustainability matters. Activism could materially and adversely impact our ability to operate our business and raise capital. The foregoing factors may cause operational delays or restrictions, increased operating costs and additional regulatory burden. Additionally, litigation risks to oil and natural gas companies are increasing, as a number of cities, local governments and other plaintiffs have sought to bring suit against oil and natural gas companies in state or federal court, alleging, among other things, that such 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 or customers by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. We are not currently a defendant in any of these lawsuits but could be named in actions making similar allegations.
Further, stockholders and bondholders currently invested in fossil fuel energy companies such as ours but concerned about the potential effects of climate change may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into non-fossil fuel energy related sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil-fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices, and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies. Many of the largest U.S. banks have made emission reduction commitments and have announced that they will be assessing financed emissions across their portfolios and are taking steps to quantify and reduce those emissions. 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, and more broadly, some investors, including investment advisors and certain sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, university endowments and family foundations, have stated policies to disinvest in the oil and natural gas sector based on their social and environmental considerations. Certain other stakeholders have also pressured commercial and investment banks to stop financing oil and gas production and related infrastructure projects. These and other developments in the financial sector could lead to some lenders and investors restricting access to capital for or divesting from certain industries or companies, including the oil and natural gas sector, or requiring that borrowers take additional steps to reduce their GHG emissions. Such developments could result in downward pressure on the stock prices of oil and natural gas companies, including ours. This could also result in an increase in our expenses and a reduction of available capital funding for potential development projects, impacting our future financial results.
Additionally, increasing attention from consumers and other stakeholders on combating climate change, together with changes in consumer and industrial/commercial preferences and behavior and societal pressure on companies to address climate change may result in increased availability of, and increased demand from consumers and industry for, energy sources other than oil and natural gas (including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and biofuels as well as electric vehicles) and development of, and increased demand from consumers and industry for, lower-emission products and services (including electric vehicles and renewable residential and commercial power supplies) as well as more efficient products and services. These developments may in the future adversely affect the demand for products manufactured with, or powered by, petroleum products, as well as the demand for, and in turn the prices of, oil and natural gas products.
Lastly, most scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHG in the Earth's atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and other climatic events. If any such effects were to occur, they could adversely affect or delay demand for oil or natural gas products or cause us to incur significant costs in preparing for or responding to the effects of climatic events themselves, which may not be fully insured. Potential adverse effects could include disruption of our production activities, including, for example, damages to our facilities from winds or floods, increases in our costs of operation, or reductions in the efficiency of our operations, impacts on our personnel, supply chain, or distribution chain, as well as potentially increased costs for insurance coverages in the aftermath of such effects. Any of these effects could have an adverse effect on our assets and operations. Our ability to mitigate the adverse physical impacts of climate change depends in part upon our disaster preparedness and response and business continuity planning. Due to the concentrated nature of our portfolio of properties, a number of our properties 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.
Each of these developments may in the future adversely affect the demand for products manufactured with, or powered by, petroleum products, as well as the demand for, and in turn the prices of, oil and natural gas products. Additionally, political, financial and litigation risks may result in us having to restrict, delay or cancel production activities, incur liability for infrastructure damages as a result of climatic changes, or impair the ability to continue to operate in an economic manner, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.