The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 20182019 relating to our gross and net developed and undeveloped leasehold acreage. Developed acreage consists of acres spaced or assigned to productive wells and does not include undrilled acreage held by production under the terms of the lease. Undeveloped acreage is defined as acres on which wells have not been drilled or completed to a point that would permit the production of commercial quantities of oil or natural gas, regardless of whether such acreage contains proved reserves.

The following table sets forth the gross and net undeveloped acreage, as of December 31, 2018,2019, that will expire over the next five years unless production is established within the spacing units covering the acreage, the lease is renewed or extended under continuous drilling provisions prior to the primary term expiration dates, or pursuant to other terms of the lease agreements.

The following table sets forth the results of our drilling activity, as defined by wells placed on production, for the periods indicated. Productive wells are exploratory, development or extension wells that produce, or are capable of producing, commercial quantities of hydrocarbons, regardless of whether they produce a reasonable rate of return. Dry wells are exploratory, development or extension wells that prove to be incapable of producing hydrocarbons in sufficient quantities to justify completion.incurring the costs associated with completion as an oil or gas well.

In 2018, the Company entered intoThe table below summarizes our firm sales agreements for both crude oil and natural gas, both of which provide for gross firm sales over the contractual terms as shown below:terms:

We believe that we have satisfactory title to substantially all of our producing properties in accordance with generally accepted industry standards. Individual properties may be subject to burdens such as royalty, overriding royalty, working and other outstanding interests customary in the industry. In most cases, we investigate title and obtain title opinions from counsel only when we acquire producing properties or before commencement of drilling operations.

We market the majority of ourthe production from properties we operate foron account of both our accountourselves and the accountthat of the other working interest owners in these properties. We generally sell our oil, natural gas and NGL production to purchasers at prevailing market prices. We sell all of our NGLs under contracts with terms of greater than twelve monthsprices, and the majority of our natural gas and all of our oil underrevenue contracts withhave terms of lessgreater than twelve months.

We normally sell production to a relatively small number of customers, as is customary in our business. The tables below present percentages by purchaser that accounted for 10% or more of our net revenues for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016.periods presented:

During these periods, no other purchaser accounted for 10% or more of our net revenue.revenues. The loss of any of our major purchasers could materially and adversely affect our revenues in the near-term. However, since crude oil and natural gas are

The oil and natural gas industry is a highly competitive environment. We compete with both major integrated and other independent oil and natural gas companies in all aspects of our business including exploring, developing and operating our properties as well as transporting and marketing our production. Competitive conditions may be affected by future legislation and regulations as the United States develops new energy and climate-related policies. In addition, some of our competitors may have a competitive advantage when responding to factors that affect the supply and demand for oil and natural gas production, such as price fluctuations (including basis differentials), domestic and foreign political conditions, weather conditions, the proximity and capacity of natural gas pipelines and other transportation facilities. basis differentialsfacilities and overall economic conditions. We also face indirect competition from alternative energy sources, including wind, solar and electric power. Our ability to acquire additional prospects and to find and develop reserves in the future will depend on our ability to evaluate and select suitable properties and to consummate transactions in a highly competitive environment.

During the initial development of our fields, we consider all gathering and delivery infrastructure options in the areas of our production. The majority of our oil production is sold at the lease as it enters third-party gathering pipelines. The purchaser then transports the oil by pipeline or truck to a tank farm, another pipeline or a refinery. Our natural gas is generally transported by gathering lines from the wellhead to a central delivery point and is then gathered by third-party lines to a gas processing facility.

Our operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations. All of the jurisdictions in which we own or operate producing properties have statutory provisions regulating the development and production of oil and natural gas, including, but not limited to, provisions related to permits for the drilling of wells, bonding requirements to drill or operate wells, the location of wells, the method of drilling and casing wells, the surface use and restoration of properties upon which wells are drilled, sourcing and disposal of water used in the drilling and completion process, and the abandonment of wells. Our operations are also subject to various conservation laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the regulation of the size of drilling and spacing units or proration units, the number of wells which may be drilled in an area, and the unitization or pooling of crude oil or natural gas wells, as well as regulations that generally prohibit the venting or flaring of natural gas and impose certain requirements regarding the ratability or fair apportionment of production from fields and individual wells.

Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations can result in substantial penalties. The regulatory burden on the industry increases the cost of doing business and affects profitability. Although we believe we are in substantial compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, such laws and regulations are frequently amended or reinterpreted. Therefore, we are unable to predict the future costs or impact of compliance. Additional proposals and proceedings affecting the oil and natural gas industry are regularly considered by Congress, the states, regulatory authorities, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), and the courts. We cannot predict when or whether any such proposals may become effective.

We believe we are in substantial compliance with currently applicable laws and regulations and that continued substantial compliance with existing requirements will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. However, current regulatory requirements may change, currently unforeseen environmental incidents may occur or past non-compliance with environmental laws or regulations may be discovered.

The production of oil, natural gas and NGLs is subject to regulation under a wide range of local, state and federal statutes, rules, orders and regulations. Federal, state and local statutes and regulations require permits for drilling operations, drilling bonds and reports concerning operations. We own interests in properties located in New Mexico and Texas, which regulate drilling and operating activities by, among other things, requiring permits for the drilling of wells, maintaining bonding requirements in order to drill or operate wells, and regulating the location of wells, the method of drilling and casing wells, the surface use and restoration of properties upon which wells are drilled and the plugging and abandonment of wells. The laws of New Mexico and Texas also govern a number of conservation matters, including provisions for the unitization or pooling of oil and natural gas properties, the establishment of maximum allowable rates of production from oil and natural gas wells, the regulation of well spacing or density, and plugging and abandonment of wells. The effect of these regulations is to limit the amount of oil, natural gas and NGLs that we can produce from our wells and to limit the number of wells or the locations at whichwhere we can drill, although we can apply for exceptions to such regulations or to have reductions in well spacing or density. Moreover, New Mexico and Texas impose a production or severance tax with respect to the production and sale of oil, natural gas and NGLs within their jurisdiction.

Our competitors in the oil and natural gas industry are subject to the same regulatory requirements and restrictions that affect our operations.operations, and as a result we do not expect compliance with such regulatory requirements to affect our operations in any way that is of material difference from our competitors who are similarly situated. However, the failure to comply with these rules and regulations can result in substantial penalties.

Sales of oil, condensate and NGLs from our producing wells are not currently regulated and are made at negotiated prices. Nevertheless, Congress could enact price controls in the future.

Sales of oil are affected by the availability, terms and conditions and cost of transportation services. The transportation of oil in common carrier pipelines is also subject to rate and access regulation. FERC regulates the transportation in interstate commerce of crude oil, petroleum products, NGLs and other forms of liquid fuel under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Intrastate oil pipeline transportation rates are subject to regulation by state regulatory commissions. The basis for intrastate oil pipeline regulation, and the degree of regulatory oversight and scrutiny given to intrastate oil pipeline rates, varies from state to state. We rely on third-party pipelinespipeline systems to transport the majority of crude oil produced by ours wells. Insofar as effective interstate and intrastate rates and regulations regarding access are equally applicable to all comparable shippers, we believe that the regulation of oil transportation will not affect our operations in any way that is of material difference from those of our competitors who are similarly situated.

Changes in FERC or state policies and regulations or laws may adversely affect the availability and reliability of firm and/or interruptible transportation service on interstate and intrastate pipelines, and we cannot predict what future action that FERC or state regulatory bodies will take. We do not believe, however, that any regulatory changes will affect us in a way that materially differs from the way they will affect other oil producers and marketers with which we compete.

Historically, the transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce have been regulated by agencies of the U.S. federal government, primarily FERC. In the past, the federal government regulated the prices at which natural gas could be sold. While sales by producers of natural gas can currently be made at uncontrolled market prices, Congress could reenact price controls in the future. Deregulation of wellhead natural gas sales began with the enactment of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (the “NGPA”) and culminated in adoption of the Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act, which removed controls affecting wellhead sales of natural gas effective January 1, 1993. The transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce is regulated primarily under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (the “NGA”), and by regulations and orders promulgated under the NGA by FERC. In certain limited circumstances, intrastate transportation and wholesale sales of natural gas may also be affected directly or indirectly by laws enacted by Congress and by FERC regulations.

The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the “EP Act of 2005”) is a comprehensive compilation of tax incentives, authorized appropriations for grants and guaranteed loans, and significant changes to the statutory policy that affects all segments of the energy industry. Among other matters, the EP Act of 2005 amendsamended the NGA to add an anti-market manipulation provision whichthat makes it unlawful for any entity to engage in prohibited behavior to be prescribed by FERC, and furthermore provides FERC with additional civil penalty authority. The EP Act of 2005 provided FERC with the power to assess civil penalties of up to $1,000,000$1.0 million per day for violations of the NGA and increased FERC’s civil penalty authority under the NGPA from $5,000 per violation per day to $1,000,000$1.0 million per violation per day. In January 2018,2020, FERC increased theissued a final rule increasing its maximum civil penalty amountsauthority under the NGA and NGPA to adjust for inflation. FERC may now assess civil penalties under the NGA and NGPA of $1,238,271$1,291,894 per violation per day. The civil penalty provisions are applicable to entities that engage in the sale of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce. On January 19, 2006, FERC issued Order No. 670, a rule implementing the anti-market manipulation provision of the EP Act of 2005, and subsequently denied rehearing. The rules make it unlawful, in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas or the

We are required to observe such anti-market manipulation laws and related regulations enforced by FERC under the EP Act of 2005 and those enforced by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the “CEA”) and CFTC regulations promulgated thereunder. The CEA prohibits any person from manipulating or attempting to manipulate the price of any commodity in interstate commerce, as well as the market for financial instruments on

Natural gas gathering service, which occurs upstream of jurisdictional transmission services, is regulated by the states. Section 1(b) of the NGA exempts companies that provide natural gas gathering services from regulation by FERC as a “natural gas company” under the NGA. Although FERC has set forth a general test for determining whether facilities perform a non-jurisdictional gathering function or a jurisdictional transmission function, FERC’s determinations as to the classification of facilities are done on a case-by-case basis. To the extent that FERC issues an order that reclassifies certain jurisdictional transmission facilities as non-jurisdictional gathering facilities, or vice versa, and depending on the scope of that decision, our costs of delivering gas to point-of-sale locations may increase. We believe that the natural gas pipelines in our gathering systems meet the traditional tests FERC has used to establish a pipeline’s status as a gatherer not subject to regulation as a natural gas company. However, the distinction between FERC-regulated transmission services and federally unregulated gathering services is the subject of ongoing litigation, so the classification and regulation of our gathering facilities are subject to change based on future determinations by FERC, the courts or Congress. State regulation of natural gas gathering facilities generally includes various occupational safety, environmental and, in some circumstances, nondiscriminatory-take requirements. Although such regulation has not generally been affirmatively applied by state agencies, natural gas gathering may receive greater regulatory scrutiny in the future.

Intrastate natural gas transportation is also subject to regulation by state regulatory agencies. The basis for intrastate regulation of natural gas transportation and the degree of regulatory oversight and scrutiny given to intrastate natural gas pipeline rates and services varies from state to state. Insofar as such regulation within a particular state will generally affect all intrastate natural gas shippers within the state on a comparable basis, we believe that the regulation of similarly situated intrastate natural gas transportation in any states in which we operate and ship natural gas on an intrastate basis will not affect our operations in any way that is of material difference from those of our competitors. Like the regulation of interstate transportation rates, the regulation of intrastate transportation rates affects the marketing of natural gas that we produce, as well as the revenues we receive for sales of our natural gas.

Changes in FERC or state policies and regulations or laws may adversely affect the availability and reliability of firm and/or interruptible transportation service on interstate and intrastate pipelines, and we cannot predict what future action that FERC or state regulatory bodies will take. We do not believe, however, that any regulatory changes will affect us in a way that materially differs from the way they will affect other natural gas producers and marketers with which we compete.

Our operations are subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the occupational safety and health aspects of our operations, the discharge of materials into the environment, and protection of the environment and natural resources (including threatened and endangered species and their habitats). Numerous governmental entities, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and analogous state agencies, have the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and the permits issued under them, often requiring difficult and costly actions. These laws and regulations may, among other things, (i) require the acquisition of permits to conduct drilling and other regulated activities; (ii) restrict the types, quantities and concentrations of various substances that can be released into the environment or injected into formations in connection with drilling and production activities; (iii) limit or prohibit drilling activities on certain lands lying within wilderness, wetlands, and other protected areas; (iv) require remedial measures to prevent or mitigate pollution from former and ongoing operations, such as requirements to close pits and plug abandoned wells; (v) apply specific health and safety criteria addressing worker protection; and (vi) impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from drilling and production operations. Any

The following is a summary of the more significant existing and proposed environmental and occupational safety and health laws, as amended from time to time, to which our business operations are or may be subject, and for which compliance may have a material adverse impact on our capital expenditures, results of operations or financial position.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and comparable state laws regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes. Pursuant to rules issued by the EPA, the individual states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements. Drilling fluids, produced waters and other wastes associated with the exploration, development and production of oil, natural gas and NGLs, if properly handled, are currently exempt from regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA and,

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), also known as the Superfund law, and comparable state laws impose joint and several liability, without regard to fault or the legality of conduct, on classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the release of a hazardous substance into the environment. These persons include the current and former owners or operators of the site where the release occurred and anyone who disposed or arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance released at the site. Under CERCLA, such persons may be subject to joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources, and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA also authorizes the EPA and, in some instances, third parties to act in response to threats to the public health or the environment, and to seek to recover from the responsible classes of persons the costs they incur. 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. We may generate materials in the course of our operations that may be regulated as hazardous substances.

We currently own, lease or operate numerous properties that have been used for oil, natural gas and NGL exploration, production and processing for many years. Although we believe that we have utilized operating and waste disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hazardous substances, wastes, or petroleum hydrocarbons may have been released on, under or from the properties owned or leased by us, or on, under or from other locations, including off-site locations, where such substances have been taken for treatment or disposal. In addition, some of our properties have been operated by third parties or by previous owners or operators whose treatment and disposal of hazardous substances, wastes or petroleum hydrocarbons was not under our control. These properties and the substances disposed or released on, under or from them may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and analogous state laws. Under such laws, we could be required to undertake response or corrective measures, which could include removal of previously disposed substances and wastes, cleanup of contaminated property or performance of remedial plugging or pit closure operations to prevent future contamination, the costs of which could be substantial.

The Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) and comparable state laws impose restrictions and strict controls with respect to the discharge of pollutants, including spills and leaks of hazardous substances, into state waters and waters of the United States. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by the EPA or an analogous state agency. Spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan requirements imposed under the CWA require appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination of navigable waters in the event of a petroleum hydrocarbon tank spill, rupture or leak. In addition, the CWA and analogous state laws require individual permits or coverage under general permits for discharges of storm water runoff from certain types of facilities. Federal and state regulatory

The CWA also prohibits the discharge of dredge and fill material into regulated waters, including wetlands, unless authorized by permit. The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued final rules attempting to clarify the federal jurisdictional reach over Waters of the United States in 2015 (the “WOTUS rule”), but this rule has been stayed nationwide by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit while the appellate court and numerous federal district courts ponder lawsuits opposing implementation of the rule. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue of which court has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the WOTUS rule, and in January 2018 concluded that jurisdiction rests with the federal district courts. In addition,. However, in 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the WOTUS rule and, if the agencies’ reviews find that the rule does not meet the executive order’s goal of promoting economic growth while reducing regulatory uncertainty, to initiate a new rulemaking to repeal or revise the rule. Pursuant to the executive order, in June 2017, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers formally proposed to rescind the WOTUS rule. In January 2018, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized a rule that would delay applicability of the WOTUS rule for two years, but a federal judge barred the agencies’

The primary federal law related specifically to oil spill liability is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (the “OPA”), which amends and augments the oil spill provisions of the CWA and imposes certain duties and liabilities on certain “responsible parties” related to the prevention of oil spills and damages resulting from such spills in or threatening waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. For example, operators of certain oil and natural gas facilities must develop, implement and maintain facility response plans, conduct annual spill training for certain employees and provide varying degrees of financial assurance. Owners or operators of a facility, vessel or pipeline that is a source of an oil discharge or that poses the substantial threat of discharge is one type of “responsible party” who is liable. The OPA applies joint and several liability, without regard to fault, to each liable party for oil removal costs and a variety of public and private damages. Although defenses exist, they are limited. As such, a violation of the OPA has the potential to adversely affect our operations.

In the course of our operations, we produce water in addition to natural gas, crude oil and NGLs. Water that is not recycled may be disposed of in disposal wells, which inject the produced water into non-producing subsurface formations. Underground injection operations are regulated pursuant to the Underground Injection Control (the “UIC”) program established under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (the “SDWA”) and analogous state laws. The UIC program requires permits from the EPA or an analogous state agency for the construction and operation of disposal wells, establishes minimum standards for disposal well operations, and restricts the types and quantities of fluids that may be disposed. A change in UIC disposal well regulations or the inability to obtain permits for new disposal wells in the future may affect our ability to dispose of produced water and ultimately increase the cost of our operations. For example, in response to recent seismic events near below-ground disposal wells used for the injection of natural gas- and oil-related wastewaters, federal and some state agencies have begun investigating whether such wells have caused increased seismic activity, and some states have shut down or imposed moratoria on the use of such disposal wells. In response to these concerns, regulators in some states have adopted, and other states are considering adopting, additional requirements related to seismic safety. These seismic events have also led to an increase in tort lawsuits filed against exploration and production companies, as well as the owners of underground injection wells. Increased costs associated with the transportation and disposal of produced water, including the cost of complying with regulations concerning produced water disposal, may reduce our profitability; however, these costs are commonly incurred by all oil, natural gas and NGL producers, and we do not believe that the costs associated with the disposal of produced water will affect our operations in any way that is of material difference from those of our competitors who are similarly situated.

The federal Clean Air Act (the “CAA”) and comparable state laws restrict the emission of air pollutants from many sources, such as tank batteries, through air emissions standards, construction and operating permitting programs and the imposition of other compliance standards. These laws and regulations may require us to obtain pre-approval for the construction or modification of certain projects or facilities expected to produce or significantly increase air emissions, obtain and strictly comply with stringent air permit requirements or utilize specific equipment or technologies to control emissions of certain pollutants. The need to obtain permits has the potential to delay the development of our projects. Recently, there has been increased regulation with respect to air emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. For example, the EPA promulgated rules in 2012 under the CAA that subject oil and natural gas production, processing, transmission and storage operations to regulation under the New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”), and a separate set of requirements to address certain hazardous air pollutants frequently

In June 2016, the EPA published final rules establishing new air emission controls for methane emissions from certain new, modified or reconstructed equipment and processes in the oil and natural gas source category, including production, processing, transmission and storage activities. The EPA’s final rules include NSPS to limit methane emissions from equipment and processes across the oil and natural gas source category. The rules also extend limitations on volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions to sources that were unregulated under the previous NSPS at Subpart OOOO. Affected methane and VOC sources include hydraulically fractured (or re-fractured) oil and natural gas well completions, fugitive emissions from well sites and compressors, and pneumatic pumps. Several states and industry groups have filed suit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) challenging the EPA’s implementation of the methane rule and the EPA’s legal authority to issue the methane

The Bureau of Land Management (the “BLM”) also finalized rules (the “BLM methane rule”) in November 2016 that seek to limit methane emissions from exploration and production activities on federal lands by imposing limitations on venting and flaring of natural gas, as well as requirements for the implementation of leak detection and repair programs for certain processes and equipment. However, PresidentAfter attempts by the Trump issued an executive order directing the BLM to review and potentially repeal or revise the BLM methane rule. In June 2017 and October 2017, the BLM announced its intentionadministration to delay compliance with the requirementsimplementation of the BLM methane rule, until the agency can issue a revised rule. Also in October 2017, a federal magistrate judge found thatand legal challenges both to the BLM did not havemethane rule and the authority to cease enforcing the rule. In December 2017, the BLM petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review and overturn the magistrate judge’s decision. Also in December 2017,delays, the BLM issued a final rule postponing compliance dates for portionsin September 2018 rescinding many of the provisions of the 2016 BLM methane rule, until January 17, 2019. In September 2018,including the requirement to implement leak detection and repair programs, and imposing certain new requirements in a manner the BLM issued a final rule rescindingconsidered would reduce unnecessary compliance obligations on the agency’s November 2016 methane rule in its entirety.industry.

The EPA also finalized separate rules under the CAA in June 2016 regarding criteria for aggregating multiple sites into a single source for air-quality permitting purposes applicable to the oil and natural gas industry. This rule could cause small facilities (such as tank batteries), on an aggregate basis, to be deemed a major source, thereby triggering more stringent air permitting requirements, which in turn could result in operational delays or require us to install costly pollution control equipment. In addition, in October 2015, the EPA issued a final rule under the CAA lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone from the current standard of 75 parts per billion (“ppb”) for the current 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards to 70 ppb for both standards. The final rule became effective on December 28, 2015. The EPA issued its anticipated area designations in November and December 2017. States are expected to implement more stringent permitting and pollution control requirements as a result of this new final rule, which could apply to our operations.

Compliance with one or more of these and other air pollution control and permitting requirements and rules has the potential to delay the development of natural gas, oil and NGL projects and increase our costs of development and production, which costs could be significant.

In response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) endanger public health and the environment, the EPA has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the CAA that, among other things, establish Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) preconstruction and Title V operating permit reviews for certain large stationary sources that are already potential major sources of certain principal, or criteria, pollutant emissions. Facilities required to obtain PSD permits for their GHG emissions will also be required to meet “best available control technology” standards that will typically be established by state agencies. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from large GHG emission sources in the United States, including certain onshore and offshore natural gas, oil and NGL production sources, which include certain of our operations. As discussed above, federal regulatory action regarding GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector has focused on methane emissions; however, federal implementation of the finalized 2016 methane rule is uncertain at this time (as also discussed above).

Although it is not possible at this time to predict how new laws or regulations that may be adopted or issued to address GHG emissions would impact our business, any such future laws, regulations or legal requirements imposing reporting or permitting obligations on, or limiting emissions of GHGs from, our equipment and operations could require us to incur costs to reduce emissions of GHGs associated with our operations, as well as delay or restrict our ability to permit GHG emissions from new or modified sources. In addition, substantial limitations on GHG emissions could adversely affect demand for the natural gas, oil and NGLs we produce and lower the value of our reserves. Finally, it should be noted that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods, droughts and other extreme climatic events; if any such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our exploration and production operations.

Hydraulic fracturing is an important and common practice that is used to stimulate production of oil, natural gas and NGLs from dense subsurface rock formations. We regularly use hydraulic fracturing as part of our operations. Hydraulic fracturing is typically regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions. However, several federal agencies have asserted regulatory authority over certain aspects of the process. For example, the EPA published final CAA regulations in 2012 and, more recently, in June 2016, establishing performance standards, including standards for the capture of air emissions released during oil and natural gas hydraulic fracturing, leak detection, and permitting;permitting (which are subject to revision, as discussed above); published in June 2016 an effluent limitation guideline final rule prohibiting the discharge of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and natural gas extraction facilities to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants; and issued in 2014 a prepublication version of its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) reporting of the chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. Also, in March 2015, the BLM adopted rules establishing stringent standards relating to hydraulic fracturing on federal and American Indian lands. In June 2016, a federal district court judge in Wyoming struck down this final rule, finding that the BLM lacked authority to promulgate the rule. That ruling was appealed, but in September 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal and remanded with directions to vacate the lower court’s opinion, leaving the final rule in place. However, following the issuance of an executive order by President Trump to review rules related to the energy industry, the BLM initiated a rulemaking to rescind the final rule in December 2017. Shortly after the final rulemaking was issued, the state of California and several environmental groups filed lawsuits against the BLM, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, seeking an injunction and a declaration that the repeal violated numerous federal statutes. After the suits were filed, multiple industry groups and the state of Wyoming sought to intervene and transfer the case to federal court in Wyoming, which decided the initial legal challenge to the Obama administration’s fracking regulations. ThoseA hearing was held in January 2020 to consider a motion for summary judgment in the case. However, those legal challenges are still pending. Also, in December 2016, the EPA released its final report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The final report concluded that “water cycle” activities associated with hydraulic fracturing may impact drinking water resources “under certain limited circumstances.”

From time to time, legislation has been introduced, but not enacted, in Congress to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing and to require disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracturing process. Meanwhile, the regulation of hydraulic fracturing has continued at the state level. For example, Wyoming has promulgated rules related to the public disclosure of substances used in hydraulic fluid, testing requirements for water wells near drilling sites and leak detection and repair requirements for fugitive emissions from oil and gas production facilities.

In the event that a new, federal level of legal restrictions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process is adopted in areas where we operate, we may incur additional costs to comply with such federal requirements that may be significant in nature, and also could become subject to additional permitting requirements and experience added delays or curtailment in the pursuit of exploration, development, or production activities.

Oil and natural gas exploration, development and production activities on federal lands, including American Indian lands and lands administered by the BLM, are frequently subject to permitting delays. Operations on these lands are also subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). NEPA requires federal agencies, including the BLM, to evaluate major actions having the potential to significantly impact the environment. In the course of such evaluations, an agency will prepare an

In addition, the New Mexico state legislature recently proposedconsidered House Bill 206, which, if passed, would enacthave enacted an Environmental Review Act comparable to NEPA. Specifically, the Environmental Review Act would require state governmental agencies at all levels to consider the qualitative, technical and economic factors relating to a project that may impact public health, ecosystems and the environment, the long-term as well as short-term benefits and costs of the proposed project, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, and reasonable alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment, communities or public health. If reconsidered and enacted in the future, the process contemplated by the Environmental Review Act has the potential, like NEPA, to delay or limit, or increase the cost of, the development of natural gas, oil and NGL projects in New Mexico, which costs could be substantial.

The federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and comparable state laws were established to protect endangered and threatened species. Pursuant to the ESA, if a species is listed as threatened or endangered, restrictions may be imposed on activities adversely affecting that species’ habitat. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We may conduct operations on oil and natural gas leases in areas where certain species that are listed as threatened or endangered are known to exist and where other species that potentially could be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA may exist. Moreover, as a result of a 2011 settlement agreement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “FWS”) was required to make a determination on listing of numerous species as endangered or threatened under the ESA by no later than completion of the agency’s 2017 fiscal year. The FWS did not meet that deadline. If we were to have a portion of our leases designated as critical or suitable habitat, it could adversely impact the value of our leases. In addition, the federal government recently has issued indictments under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to several oil and natural gas companies after migratory birds were found dead near reserve pits associated with drilling activities. The identification or designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered in areas where underlying property operations are conducted could cause us to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures, time delays or limitations on our exploration and production activities, which could have an adverse impact on our ability to develop and produce reserves. If we were to have a portion of our leases designated as critical or suitable habitat, it could adversely impact the value of our leases.

We are subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and comparable state statutes whose purpose is to protect the health and safety of workers. In addition, OSHA’s hazard communication standard, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, comparable state statutes and any implementing regulations require that we organize and/or disclose information about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local governmental authorities and citizens.

Many environmental laws require us to obtain permits or other authorizations from state and/or federal agencies before initiating certain drilling, construction, production, operation or other activities and to maintain these permits and compliance with their requirements for ongoing operations. These permits are generally subject to protest, appeal or litigation, which can in certain cases delay or halt projects and cease production or operation of wells, pipelines and other operations.

We maintain insurance against some risks associated with above or underground contamination that may occur as a result of our development activities. However, this insurance is limited to activities at the well site and there can be no assurance that this insurance will continue to be commercially available or that this insurance will be available at premium levels that justify its

As of December 31, 2018,2019, we had 178195 full-time employees. We hire independent contractors on an as needed basis and have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees.

Our principal executive offices are located at 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado 80202, and our telephone number is (720) 499-1400. We also have office space in Jal, New Mexico; Midland, Texas; Sugar Land, Texas; Pecos, Texas; and Pecos, Texas.Jal, New Mexico.

Our internet website address is www.cdevinc.com. We routinely post important information for investors on our website. Within our website’s investor relations section, we make available free of charge our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the SEC under applicable securities laws. These materials are made available as soon as reasonably practical after we electronically file such materials with or furnish such materials to the SEC. Information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report and should not be considered part of this document.

The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

The prices we receive for our oil, natural gas and NGLs production heavily influence our revenue, cash flows, profitability, access to capital, future rate of growth and carrying value of our properties. Oil, natural gas and NGLs are commodities, and their prices may fluctuate widely in response to relatively minor changes in the supply of and demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs and market uncertainty. Historically, oil, natural gas and NGL prices have been volatile and are subject to fluctuations in response to changes in supply and demand, market uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are beyond our control, including:

These factors and the volatility of the energy markets make it extremely difficult to predict future oil, and natural gas and NGL price movements with any certainty. During the past five years,From 2015 through 2019, the WTI spot price for oil hasaveraged $53.05 per Bbl, which is down substantially from the $60.21 average for the prior five-year period. The Henry Hub average spot price from 2015 through 2019 of $2.77 per MMBtu similarly declined from a high of $107.95 per Bbl in June 2014 to $26.19 per Bbl in February 2016, and the Henry Hub spot price for natural gas has declined from a high of $8.15$3.12 per MMBtu, in February 2014 to a low of $1.49 per MMBtu in March 2016.which was the average for the prior five-year period. Likewise,

The oil and natural gas industry is capital-intensive. We make and expect to continue to make substantial capital expenditures related to development and acquisition projects. We have funded our capital expenditures with cash generated by operations, borrowings under CRP’s revolving credit facility and the net proceeds from CRP’s issuance of senior notes. We intend to finance our capital expenditures with cash flow from operations, proceeds received from the contemplated divestiture of our saltwater disposal assets, borrowings under CRP’s revolving credit facility and proceeds from offerings of debt and equity securities. The issuance of additional indebtedness would require that a portion of our cash flow from operations be used for the payment of interest and principal on our indebtedness, thereby reducing our ability to use cash flow from operations to fund working capital, capital expenditures and acquisitions. The actual amount and timing of our future capital expenditures may differ materially from our estimates as a result of, among other things, oil, natural gas and NGL prices; actual drilling results; the availability of drilling rigs and other services and equipment; and regulatory, technological and competitive developments. A reduction in commodity prices from current levels may result in a decrease in our actual capital expenditures, which would negatively impact our ability to grow production.

Our cash flow from operations and access to capital are subject to a number of variables, including:

If our revenues or the borrowing base under CRP’s revolving credit facility decrease as a result of lower oil, natural gas and NGL prices, operating difficulties, declines in reserves or for any other reason, we may have limited ability to obtain the capital necessary to sustain our operations at current levels. If additional capital is needed, we may not be able to obtain debt or equity financing on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If cash flow generated by our operations or available borrowings under CRP’s revolving credit facility are not sufficient to meet our capital requirements, the failure to obtain additional financing could result in a curtailment of our operations relating to development of our properties. This, in turn, could lead to a decline in our reserves and production, and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations involve utilizing some of the latest drilling and completion techniques as developed by us and our service providers. Risks that we face while drilling horizontal wells include the following:

Risks that we face while completing wells include the following:

In addition, certain of the new techniques we are adopting, such as infilling drilling and multi-well pad drilling, may cause irregularities or interruptions in production due, in the case of infill drilling, to 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. Furthermore, the results of our 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 have limited or no production history and, consequently, we are more limited in assessing future drilling results in these areas. If our drilling results are less than anticipated, the return on our investment for a particular project may not be as attractive as anticipated, and we could incur material write-downs of unevaluated properties and the value of our undeveloped acreage could decline in the future.

Our future financial condition and results of operations will depend on the success of our development, acquisition and production activities, which are subject to numerous risks beyond our control, including the risk that drilling will not result in commercially viable oil and natural gas production.

Further, many factors may curtail, delay, cancel or otherwise negatively impact our scheduled drilling projects, including the following:

The process of estimating oil and natural gas reserves is complex. It requires interpretations of available technical data and many assumptions, including assumptions relating to current and future economic conditions and commodity prices. Any significant inaccuracies in these interpretations or assumptions could materially affect the estimated quantities and present value of our reserves. In order to prepare reserve estimates, we must project production rates and timing of development expenditures. We must also analyze available geological, geophysical, production and engineering data. The extent, quality and reliability of this data can vary. The process also requires economic assumptions about matters such as oil and natural gas prices, drilling and operating expenses, capital expenditures, taxes and availability of funds.

Actual future production, oil and natural gas prices, revenues, taxes, development expenditures, operating expenses and quantities of recoverable oil and natural gas reserves may vary from our estimates. For instance, initial production rates reported by us or other operators may not be indicative of future or long-term production rates, our recovery efficiencies may be worse than expected, and production declines may be greater than our estimates and may be more rapid and irregular when compared to initial production rates. In addition, we may adjust reserve estimates to reflect additional production history, results of development activities, current commodity prices and other existing factors. Any significant variance could materially affect the estimated quantities and present value of our reserves.

You should not assume that the present value of future net revenues from our reserves is the current market value of our estimated reserves. We generally base the estimated discounted future net cash flows from reserves on prices and costs on the date of the estimate. Actual future prices and costs may differ materially from those used in the present value estimate. For example, ourOur estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 2018,2019, and related standardized measure were calculated under rules of the SEC using twelve-month trailing average benchmark prices of $62.04$52.19 per barrel of oil (WTI Posted) and $3.10$2.58 per MMBtu (Henry Hub spot), which may be substantially higher or lower than the available spot prices in 2019. If spot2020. For example, if the crude oil and natural gas prices are below such calculated amounts, using more recent pricesused in estimatingour year-end reserve estimates were to increase or decrease by 10%, our proved reserve quantities at December 31, 2019 would increase by 4.4 MMBoe (1%) or decrease by 22.3 MMBoe (7%), respectively, and the pre-tax PV10% of our proved reserves may result in a reduction in proved reserve volumes due to economic limits.would increase by $509.4 million (23%) or decrease by $503.1 million (23%), respectively.

As of December 31, 2018,2019, we have leased or acquired approximately 80,22378,195 net acres, approximately 89%93% of which we operate. As of December 31, 2018,2019, we operated 263349 gross producing horizontal wells. We will have limited ability to exercise influence over the operations of the drilling locations operated by our partners, and there is the risk that our partners may at any time have economic, business or legal interests or goals that are inconsistent with ours. Furthermore, the success and timing of

This limited ability to exercise control over the operations and associated costs of some of our drilling locations could prevent the realization of targeted returns on capital in drilling or acquisition activities.

Many of our properties are in areas that may have already been partially depleted or drained by earlier offset drilling. The owners of leasehold interests adjoining any of our properties could take actions, such as drilling and completing additional wells, which could adversely affect our operations. When a new well is completed and produced, the pressure differential in the vicinity of the well causes the migration of reservoir fluids toward the new wellbore (and potentially away from existing wellbores). As a result, the drilling and production of these potential locations could cause a depletion of our proved reserves and may inhibit our ability to further develop our proved reserves. In addition, completion operations and other activities conducted on adjacent or nearby wells could cause production from our wells to be shut in for indefinite periods of time, could result in increased lease operating expenses and could adversely affect the production and reserves from our wells after they re-commence production. We have no control over the operations or activities of offsetting operators.

We have specifically identified and scheduled certain drilling locations as an estimation of our future multi-year drilling activities on our existing acreage. These drilling locations represent a significant part of our growth strategy. Our ability to drill and develop these locations depends on a number of uncertainties, including oil and natural gas prices, the availability and cost of capital, drilling and production costs, availability of drilling services and equipment, drilling results, lease expirations, gathering system and pipeline transportation constraints, access to and availability of water sourcing and distribution systems, regulatory approvals, including permitting, and other factors. Because of these uncertain factors, we do not know if the numerous identified drilling locations will ever be drilled or if we will be able to produce natural gas or oil from these or any other drilling locations. In addition, unless production is established within the spacing units covering the undeveloped acres on which some of the drilling locations are obtained, the leases for such acreage will expire. As such, our actual drilling activities may materially differ from those presently identified.

As of December 31, 2018,2019, over 76%87% of our total net acreage was held by production. The leases for our net acreage not held by production will expire at the end of their primary term unless production is established in paying quantities under the units containing these leases, the leases are held beyond their primary terms under continuous drilling provisions or the leases are renewed. Some of our leases also expire as to certain depths if continuous drilling obligations are not met. If our leases expire in whole or in part and we are unable to renew the leases, we will lose the right to develop the related properties. Our ability to drill and develop these locations depends on a number of uncertainties, including oil and natural gas prices, the availability and cost of capital, drilling and production costs, availability of drilling services and equipment, drilling results, lease expirations, gathering system and pipeline transportation constraints, access to and availability of water sourcing and distribution systems, regulatory approvals and other factors.

Water is an essential component of deep shale oil and natural gas production during both the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes. Drought conditions have persisted in Texas in past years. These drought conditions have led some local water districts to restrict the use of water subject to their jurisdiction for hydraulic fracturing to protect local water supplies. If we are unable to obtain water to use in our operations, we may be unable to economically produce oil and natural gas, which could have a material and adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

All of ourOur producing properties are geographically concentrated in the Delaware Basin, a sub-basin of the Permian Basin, primarily in West Texas.Texas and New Mexico. At December 31, 2018,2019, all of our total estimated proved reserves were attributable to properties located in this area. 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, market limitations, availability of equipment and personnel, water shortages or other drought or extreme weather related conditions or interruption of the processing or transportation of oil, natural gas or NGLs. 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 Permian Basin, which may cause these conditions to occur with greater frequency or magnify the effects of these conditions. 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. Such delays or interruptions could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The use of derivatives may, in some cases, require the resulting volumes have begunposting of cash collateral with counterparties. If we enter into derivative instruments that require cash collateral and commodity prices or interest rates change in a manner adverse to exceedus, our cash otherwise available for use in our operations would be reduced, which could limit our ability to make future capital expenditures and make payments on our indebtedness, and which could also limit the pipeline takeaway capacitysize of CRP’s borrowing base. Future collateral requirements will depend on arrangements with our counterparties, highly volatile oil and natural gas prices and interest rates. In addition, derivative arrangements could limit the benefit we would receive from the Permian Basin. This constraintincreases in pipeline takeaway capacity led to lower prevailing marketthe prices for oil and natural gas, which could also have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Our commodity derivative contracts expose us to risk of financial loss if a counterparty fails to perform under a contract. Disruptions in the Permian Basinfinancial markets could lead to sudden decreases in 2018, witha counterparty’s liquidity, which could make the differential between Permian pricing

During periods of declining commodity prices, our derivative contract receivable positions generally increase, which increases our counterparty credit exposure. If the broader Henry Hub spot price of natural gas exceeded $2.35 per MMBtu in November. Becausecreditworthiness of our concentrationcounterparties deteriorates and results in the Permian Basin, the realized pricestheir nonperformance, we received for all of our unhedged volumes of oil and natural gas were negatively affected by these regional price differentials. Pipeline capacity for oil and natural gas from the Permian Basin is expected to increase in 2019 and 2020, but until those projects are completed, prevailing prices in the Permian Basin may remain suppressed or decline further, which could negatively affect the realized price we receive for the sale of our oil and natural gas volumes, increase counterparty risk associatedincur a significant loss with the firm transportation agreements we have put in place relatingrespect to our oil and natural gas volume sales and overall increase the risk of us being able to transport all of our oil and natural gas volumes to market.commodity derivative contracts.

The marketability of our oil and natural gas production depends in part upon the availability, proximity and capacity of transportation facilities owned by third parties. Our oil production is generally transported from the wellhead by gathering systems that are either owned by us or third-party midstream companies, although some of our oil is initially transported by truck to a transportation facility. Our natural gas production is generally transported by gathering lines that are owned either by us or third-party midstream companies from the wellhead to a gas processing facility. In general, we do not control these trucks and other third-party transportation facilities and our access to them may be limited or denied. In some instances, we have contractual guarantees relating to the transportation of our production through firm transportation arrangements, but third-party systems may be temporarily unavailable due to market conditions, mechanical failures, accidents or other reasons. Insufficient production from our wells to support the construction of pipeline facilities by our purchasers or third-party midstream companies or a significant disruption in the availability of our or third-party transportation facilities or other production facilities could adversely impact our ability to deliver to market or produce our oil and natural gas and thereby cause a significant interruption in our operations. If, in the future, we are unable, for any sustained period, to implement acceptable delivery or transportation arrangements or encounter production related difficulties, we may be required to shut in or curtail production or flare our natural gas. If we were required to shut-in wells, we might also be obligated to pay certain demand charges for gathering and processing services and firm transportation charges for pipeline capacity we have reserved. Any such shut-in or curtailment, or an inability to obtain favorable terms for delivery of the oil and natural gas produced from our fields, would materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The existence of a material title deficiency can render a lease worthless and can adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. While we typically obtain title opinions prior to commencing drilling operations on a lease or in a unit, the failure of title may not be discovered until after a well is drilled, in which case we may lose the lease and the right to produce all or a portion of the minerals under the property.

As of December 31, 2018, 56%2019, 51% of our total estimated proved reserves were classified as proved undeveloped. Development of these proved undeveloped reserves may take longer and require higher levels of capital expenditures than we currently anticipate. Delays in the development of our reserves, increases in costs to drill and develop such reserves or decreases in commodity prices will reduce the value of our estimated PUDs and future net revenues estimated for such reserves and may result in some projects becoming uneconomic. In addition, delays in the development of reserves could cause us to have to reclassify our PUDs as unproved reserves. Further, we may be required to write-down our PUDs if we do not drill those wells within five years after their respective dates of booking.

Accounting guidance requires that we periodically review the carrying value of our properties for possible impairment. Based on prevailing commodity prices and specific market factors and circumstances at the time of prospective impairment reviews, and the continuing evaluation of development plans, production data, economics and other factors, we may be required to write-down the carrying value of our properties. A write-down constitutes a non-cash charge to earnings. Recently,Over the last several years, commodity prices have declined significantly. LowerA sustained or further extended decline in commodity prices in the future could result in impairments of our properties, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for the periods in which such charges are taken.

Producing oil and natural gas reservoirs generally are characterized by declining production rates that vary depending upon reservoir characteristics and other factors. Unless we conduct successful ongoing exploration and development activities or continually acquire properties containing proved reserves, our proved reserves will decline as those reserves are produced. Our future reserves and production, and therefore our future cash flows and results of operations, are highly dependent on our success in efficiently developing our current reserves and economically finding or acquiring additional recoverable reserves. We may not be able to develop, 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 materially and adversely affected.

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 could reduce demand for oil and natural gas. The impact of the changing demand for oil and natural gas may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our operations are subject to stringent, complex and complexevolving federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment, health and safety aspects of our operations or otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and regulations may impose numerous obligations applicable to our operations, including the acquisition of a permit or other approval before conducting regulated activities; the restriction of types, quantities and concentration of materials that can be released into the environment; the limitation or prohibition of drilling activities on certain lands lying within wilderness, wetlands and other protected areas; the application of specific health and safety criteria addressing worker protection; and the imposition of substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from our operations. Numerous governmental authorities, such as the EPA and analogous state agencies, have the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and the permits issued under them. Such enforcement actions often involve taking difficult and costly compliance measures or corrective actions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions, including administrative, civil or criminal penalties, natural resource damages, the imposition of investigatory or remedial obligations, and the issuance of orders limiting or prohibiting some or all of our operations. In addition, we may experience delays in obtaining, or be unable to obtain, required permits, which may delay or interrupt our operations and limit our growth and revenue.

Certain environmental laws impose strict joint and several liability for costs required to remediate and restore sites where hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or solid wastes have been stored or released. We may be required to remediate contaminated properties currently or formerly operated by us or facilities of third parties that received waste generated by our operations regardless of whether such contamination resulted from the conduct of others or from consequences of our own actions that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time those actions were taken. In connection with certain acquisitions, we could acquire, or be required to provide indemnification against, environmental liabilities that could expose us to material losses. In addition, claims for damages to persons or property, including natural resources, may result from the environmental, health and safety impacts of our operations. Our insurance may not cover all environmental risks and costs or may not provide sufficient coverage if an environmental claim is made against us. Moreover, public interest in the protection of the environment has

We are not insured against all risks. Losses and liabilities arising from uninsured and underinsured events could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our development activities are subject to all of the operating risks associated with drilling for and producing oil and natural gas, including the possibility of:

Any of these risks could adversely affect our ability to conduct operations or result in substantial loss to us as a result of claims for:

We may elect not to obtain insurance for any or all of these risks if we believe that the cost of available insurance is excessive relative to the risks presented. In addition, pollution and environmental risks generally are not fully insurable. The occurrence of an event that is not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Properties that we decide to drill that do not yield oil or natural gas in commercially viable quantities will adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. There is no way to predict in advance of drilling and testing whether any particular prospect will yield oil or natural gas in sufficient quantities to recover drilling or completion costs or be economically viable. The use of micro-seismic data and other technologies and the study of producing fields in the same area will not enable us to know conclusively prior to drilling whether oil or natural gas will be present or, if present, whether oil or natural gas will be present in commercial quantities. We cannot assure you that the analogies we draw from available data from other wells, more fully explored prospects or producing fields will be applicable to our drilling prospects.

We utilize multi-well pad drilling where practical. Because wells drilled on a pad are not brought into production until all wells on the pad are drilled and completed and the drilling rig is moved from the location, multi-well pad drilling delays the commencement of production from a given pad, which may cause volatility in our quarterly operating results. In addition, problems affecting one pad could adversely affect production from all wells on such pad. As a result, multi-well pad drilling can cause delays in the scheduled commencement of production or interruptions in ongoing production.

In the future we may make acquisitions of assets or businesses that complement or expand our current business. The successful acquisition of producing properties requires an assessment of several factors, including:

The accuracy of these assessments is inherently uncertain. In connection with these assessments, we perform a review of the subject properties that we believe to be generally consistent with industry practices. Our review will not reveal all existing or potential problems, nor will it permit us to become sufficiently familiar with the properties to fully assess their deficiencies and capabilities. Inspections may not always be performed on every well, and environmental problems, such as groundwater contamination, are not necessarily observable even when an inspection is undertaken. Even when problems are identified, the seller may be unwilling or unable to provide effective contractual protection against all or part of the problems. We often are not entitled to contractual indemnification for environmental liabilities and acquire properties on an “as is” basis.

The success of any completed acquisition will depend on our ability to integrate effectively the acquired business into our existing operations. The process of integrating acquired businesses may involve unforeseen difficulties and may require a disproportionate amount of our managerial and financial resources. In addition, possible future acquisitions may be larger and purchase prices higher than those paid for earlier acquisitions. No assurance can be given that we will be able to identify additional suitable acquisition opportunities, negotiate acceptable terms, obtain financing for acquisitions on acceptable terms or successfully acquire identified targets. Our failure to achieve consolidation savings, to integrate the acquired businesses and assets into our existing operations successfully or to minimize any unforeseen operational difficulties could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, debt agreements impose certain limitations on our ability to enter into mergers or combination transactions and our ability to incur certain indebtedness, which could indirectly limit our ability to engage in acquisitions of businesses.

Some of our reserves are located near urban areas, including the city of Pecos, Texas. If these urban areas expand and develop the area around our operations or the surface above our wells, or if we expand our operations closer to the urban areas, we may be exposed to additional operational and regulatory risk in that area.  In such event, we may incur additional expenses, including

The demand for drilling rigs, pipe and other equipment and supplies, as well as for qualified and experienced field personnel to drill wells and conduct field operations, geologists, geophysicists, engineers and other professionals in the oil and natural gas industry, can fluctuate significantly, often in correlation with oil and natural gas prices, causing periodic shortages. Our operations are concentrated in areas in which activity has increased rapidly, and as a result, demand for such drilling rigs, equipment and personnel, as well as access to transportation, processing and refining facilities in these areas, has increased, as have the costs for those items. In addition, to the extent our suppliers source their products or raw materials from foreign markets, the cost of such equipment could be impacted if the United States imposes tariffs on imported goods from countries where these goods are produced. For example, the steel we use for pipes, valve fittings and other equipment is generally imported from other countries, and the price for steel has risen significantly in 2018 due at least in part to the 25% tariff imposed by United States on imported steel. We cannot predict whether these conditions will exist in the future and, if so, what their timing and duration will be. Such shortages or cost increases could delay or cause us to incur significant expenditures that are not provided for in our capital budget, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Historically, our capital and operating costs have risen during periods of increasing oil, natural gas and NGL prices. These cost increases result from a variety of factors beyond our control, such as increases in the cost of electricity, steel and other raw materials that we and our vendors rely upon; increased demand for labor, services and materials as drilling activity increases; and increased taxes. Such costs may rise faster than increases in our revenue as commodity prices rise, thereby negatively impacting our profitability, cash flows and ability to complete development activities as scheduled and on budget. This impact may be magnified to the extent that our ability to participate in the commodity price increases is limited by our derivative activities.

Under the EP Act of 2005, FERC has civil penalty authority under the NGA and the NGPA to impose penalties for current violations of up to approximately $1.3 million per day for each violation and disgorgement of profits associated with any violation. While our operations have not been regulated by FERC as a natural gas company under the NGA, FERC has adopted regulations that may subject certain of our otherwise non-FERC jurisdictional operations to FERC annual reporting and posting requirements. We also must comply with the anti-market manipulation rules enforced by FERC. Additional rules and legislation pertaining to those and other matters may be considered or adopted by FERC from time to time. Failure to comply with those regulations in the future could subject us to civil penalty liability.

In response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment, the EPA has adopted regulations pursuant to the CAA that, among other things, require PSD preconstruction and Title V operating permits for certain large stationary sources. Facilities required to obtain PSD permits for their GHG emissions are also required to meet “best available control technology” standards that are being established by the states or, in some cases, by the EPA on a case-by-case basis. These regulatory requirements could adversely affect our operations and restrict or delay our ability to obtain air permits for new or modified sources. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions from specified onshore and offshore oil and natural gas production sources in the United States, which include certain of our operations. Furthermore, in June 2016, the EPA finalized rules that establish new controls for emissions of methane from new, modified or reconstructed sources in the oil and natural gas source category, including production, processing, transmission and storage activities. The rule includes first-time standards to address emissions of methane from equipment and processes across the source category, including hydraulically fractured oil and natural gas well completions. However, the EPA recently indicated that it intends to reconsider certain aspects of this rule, and in June 2017 issued a proposed rulemaking that would stay the requirements of the methane rule for a period of two years. In September 2018, the EPA proposed amendments to the 2016 standards that would reduce the rule’s fugitive emissions monitoring requirements and expand exceptions to controlling methane emissions from pneumatic pumps, among other charges. The EPA has also announced

While Congress has from time to time considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, there has not been significant activity in the form of adopted legislation to reduce GHG emissions at the federal level in recent years. In the absence of such federal climate legislation, a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing GHG emissions by means of cap-and-trade programs. These programs typically require major sources of GHG emissions to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting those GHGs. In addition, efforts have been made and continue to be made in the international community toward the adoption of international treaties or protocols that would address global climate change issues. The United States became one of almost 200 nations that, in December 2015, agreed to the Paris Agreement, which requires member countries to review and “represent a progression” in their intended nationally determined contributions, which set GHG emission reduction goals, every five years beginning in 2020. The Paris Agreement entered into force in November 2016. In June 2017, President Trump announced that the United States plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and to seek negotiations either to reenter the Paris Agreement on different terms or establish a new framework. In August 2017, the U.S. Department of State officially informed the United Nations of the United States’ intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unless it is renegotiated.renegotiated, and in November 2019 formally initiated the withdrawal process, which will result in an exit date of November 2020. Although it is not possible at this time to predict how legislation or new regulations that may be adopted to address GHG emissions would impact our business, any such future laws and regulations imposing reporting obligations on, or limiting emissions of GHGs from, our equipment and operations could require us to incur costs to reduce emissions of GHGs associated with our operations. Substantial limitations on GHG emissions could adversely affect demand for the oil and natural

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, proppants and chemicals under pressure into targeted subsurface formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production. We regularly use hydraulic fracturing as part of our operations. Hydraulic fracturing is typically regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions, but the EPA has asserted federal regulatory authority pursuant to the SDWA over certain hydraulic fracturing activities involving the use of diesel fuels and published permitting guidance in February 2014 addressing the performance of such activities using diesel fuels. The EPA has also issued final regulations under the CAA establishing performance standards, including standards for the capture of air emissions released during hydraulic fracturing (although those standards are currently subject to revisions proposed by the Trump Administration has indicated an intent to review this rule)Administration), and advanced notice of proposed rulemaking under the Toxic Substances Control Act to require companies to disclose information regarding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, and also finalized rules in 2016 that prohibit the discharge of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. In addition, the BLM finalized rules in March 2015 that impose new or more stringent standards for performing hydraulic fracturing on federal and American Indian lands (which was challenged in a U.S. federal trial court, resulting in a decision in June 2016 against the rule, an appeal of that decision, and a U.S. federal appeals court ruling in September 2017 dismissing the appeals and vacating the trial court decision); the rule is currently the subject of a December 2017 final rulemaking by the BLM to rescind it. Shortly after the final rulemaking was issued, the state of California and several environmental groups filed lawsuits against the BLM, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, seeking an injunction and a declaration that the repeal violated numerous federal statutes. After the suits were filed, multiple industry groups and the state of Wyoming sought to intervene and transfer the case to federal court in Wyoming, which decided the initial legal challenge to the Obama administration’s fracking regulations. ThoseA hearing was held in January 2020 to consider a motion for summary judgment in the case. However, those legal challenges are still 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. It is unclear how any additional federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing activities may affect our operations.

Certain governmental reviews are either underway or being proposed that focus on environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing practices. The White House Council on Environmental Quality is coordinating an administration-wide review of hydraulic fracturing practices. Additionally, in December 2016, the EPA released its final report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The EPA report concluded that hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States, although there are above-and-below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. Other governmental

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. For example, in May 2013, the Railroad Commission of Texas issued a “well integrity rule,” which updates the requirements for drilling, putting pipe down and cementing wells. The rule also includes new testing and reporting requirements, such as (i) the requirement to submit cementing reports after well completion or after cessation of drilling, whichever is later, and (ii) the imposition of additional testing on wells less than 1,000 feet below usable groundwater. The well integrity rule took effect in January 2014. 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. We believe that we follow applicable standard industry practices and legal requirements for groundwater protection in our hydraulic fracturing activities. Nonetheless, if new or more stringent federal, state or local legal restrictions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where we operate, we 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.

State and federal regulatory agencies recently have focused on a possible connection between the hydraulic fracturing related activities, particularly the underground injection of wastewater into disposal wells, and the increased occurrence of seismic activity, and regulatory agencies at all levels are continuing to study the possible linkage between oil and gas activity and induced seismicity. For example, in 2015, the United States Geological Study identified eight states, including Texas, with areas of increased rates of induced seismicity that could be attributed to fluid injection or oil and gas extraction. In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed in other states, most recently in Oklahoma, alleging that disposal well operations have caused damage to neighboring properties or otherwise violated state and federal rules regulating waste disposal. In response to these concerns, regulators in some states are seeking to impose additional requirements, including requirements in the permitting of saltwater disposal wells or otherwise to assess any relationship between seismicity and the use of such wells. For example, in October 2014, the Railroad Commission of Texas published a new rule governing permitting or re-permitting of disposal wells that would require, among other things, the submission of information on seismic events occurring within a specified radius of the disposal well location, as well as logs, geologic cross sections and structure maps relating to the disposal area in question. If the permittee or an applicant of a disposal well permit fails to demonstrate that the saltwater or other fluids are confined to the disposal zone or if scientific data indicates such a disposal well is likely to be or determined to be contributing to seismic activity, then the agency may deny, modify, suspend or terminate the permit application or existing operating permit for that well.

We dispose of large volumes of saltwater gathered from our drilling and production operations pursuant to permits issued to us by governmental authorities overseeing such disposal activities. While these permits are issued pursuant to existing laws and regulations, these legal requirements are subject to change, which could result in the imposition of more stringent operating constraints or new monitoring and reporting requirements, owing to, among other things, concerns of the public or governmental authorities regarding such gathering or disposal activities. Furthermore, regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance. It may be costly and time consuming to comply with requirements imposed by these authorities, and compliance may result in delays in the commencement or continuation of our exploration and production. The adoption and implementation of any new laws or regulations that restrict our ability to use hydraulic fracturing or dispose of saltwater gathered from our drilling and production activities by limiting volumes, disposal rates, disposal well locations or otherwise, or requiring us to shut down disposal wells, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to acquire additional prospects and to find and develop reserves in the future will depend on our ability to evaluate and select suitable properties and to consummate transactions in a highly competitive environment for acquiring properties, marketing oil and natural gas and securing trained personnel. Also, there is substantial competition for capital available for investment in the oil and natural gas industry. Many of our competitors possess and employ financial, technical and personnel resources substantially greater than ours. Those companies may be able to pay more for productive properties and exploratory prospects and to evaluate, bid for and purchase a greater number of properties and prospects than our financial or personnel resources permit. In addition, other companies may be able to offer better compensation packages to attract and retain qualified personnel than we are able to offer. The cost to attract and retain qualified personnel has increased over the past three years due to competition and may increase substantially in the future. We may not be able to compete successfully in the future in acquiring

We depend on the services of our senior management and technical personnel. We do not maintain, nor do we plan to obtain, any insurance against the loss of any of these individuals. The loss of the services of our senior management or technical personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business and operating results can be harmed by factors such as the availability, terms of and cost of capital, increases in interest rates or a reduction in credit rating. These changes could cause our cost of doing business to increase, limit our ability to pursue acquisition opportunities, reduce cash flow used for drilling and place us at a competitive disadvantage. At December 31, 2018,2019, we had $300.0$175.0 million in borrowings outstanding under our credit facility. Interest is calculated under the terms of CRP’s credit agreement based on a LIBOR spread. Recent and continuing disruptions and volatility in the global financial markets may lead to a contraction in credit availability impacting our ability to finance operations. We require continued access to capital. A

Even when properly used and interpreted, seismic data and visualization techniques are only tools used to assist geoscientists in identifying subsurface structures and hydrocarbon indicators and do not enable the interpreter to know whether hydrocarbons are, in fact, present in those structures. As a result, our drilling activities may not be successful or economical. In addition, the use of advanced technologies, such as 3-D seismic data, requires greater pre-drilling expenditures than traditional drilling strategies, and we could incur losses as a result of such expenditures.

Oil and natural gas operations in our operating areas may be adversely affected by seasonal or permanent restrictions on drilling activities designed to protect various wildlife. Seasonal restrictions may limit our ability to operate in protected areas and can intensify competition for drilling rigs, oilfield equipment, services, supplies and qualified personnel, which may lead to periodic shortages when drilling is allowed. These constraints and the resulting shortages or high costs could delay our operations or materially increase our operating and capital costs. Permanent restrictions imposed to protect endangered species could prohibit drilling in certain areas or require the implementation of expensive mitigation measures. The designation of previously unprotected species in areas where we operate as threatened or endangered could cause us to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures or could result in limitations on our activities that could have a material and adverse impact on our ability to develop and produce our reserves.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), enacted on July 21, 2010, established federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC, the SEC and the prudential regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the derivatives-related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. While most of these regulations are already in effect, the implementation process is still ongoing, and the CFTC continues to review and refine its initial rulemakings through additional interpretations and supplemental rulemakings. As a result, we cannot yet predict the ultimate effect of the regulations on our business and, while most of the regulations have been adopted, any new regulations or modifications to existing regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts, materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, and reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts, and increase our exposure to less creditworthy counterparties. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures. Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act was intended, in part, to reduce the volatility of oil and natural gas prices, which some legislators attributed to speculative trading in derivatives and commodity instruments related to oil and natural gas. Our revenues could therefore be adversely affected if a consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations is to lower commodity prices. Any of these consequences could have a material and adverse effect on us and our financial condition.

The CFTC has re-proposed position limits for certain futures and option contracts in the major energy markets and for swaps that are their economic equivalents, although certain bona fide hedging transactions would be exempt from these position limits

The Dodd-Frank Act requires that certain classes of swaps be cleared on a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) and traded on a regulated exchange, unless exempt from such clearing and trading requirements, which could result in the application of certain margin requirements imposed by DCOs and their members. The CFTC has designated certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps for mandatory clearing. The CFTC has not yet proposed rules designating any other classes of swaps, including physical commodity swaps, for mandatory clearing. In addition, certain banking regulators and the CFTC have adopted

In addition, the European Union and other non-U.S. jurisdictions have adopted and are implementing local regulations with respect to the derivatives market which are generally comparable to the reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act. Implementation and enforcement of these regulatory provisions may reduce our ability to hedge our market risks with counterparties in foreign jurisdictions and may make transactions involving cross-border swaps more expensive and burdensome. Additionally, the lack of regulatory equivalence across jurisdictions may increase compliance costs and make it more difficult to satisfy our regulatory obligations.

Standardized measure is a reporting convention that provides a common basis for comparing oil and natural gas companies subject to the rules and regulations of the SEC. Standardized measure requires the use of specific pricing as required by the SEC as well as operating and development costs prevailing as of the date of computation. Consequently, it may not reflect the prices ordinarily received or that will be received for oil and natural gas production because of varying market conditions, nor may it reflect the actual costs that will be required to produce or develop the oil and natural gas properties. As a result, estimates included herein of future net cash flow may be materially different from the future net cash flows that are ultimately received, and the standardized measure of our estimated reserves included in this Annual Report should not be construed as accurate estimates of the current fair value of our proved reserves.

The oil and natural gas industry is characterized by rapid and significant technological advancements and introductions of new products and services using new technologies. As others use or develop new technologies, we may be placed at a competitive disadvantage or may be forced by competitive pressures to implement those new technologies at substantial costs. In addition, other oil and natural gas companies may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to enjoy technological advantages and that may in the future allow them to implement new technologies before we can. We may not be able to respond to these competitive pressures or implement new technologies on a timely basis or at an acceptable cost. If one or more of the technologies we use now or in the future were to become obsolete, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Our ability to effectively manage and operate our business depends significantly on information technology systems. The failure of these systems to operate effectively and support our operations, challenges in transitioning to upgraded or replacement systems, difficulty in integrating new or updated systems, or a breach in security of these systems could adversely impact the operations of our business.

Moreover, we must comply with increasingly complex and rigorous regulatory standards enacted to protect business and personal data. Any failure to comply with these regulatory standards could subject us to legal and reputational risks. Misuse of or failure to secure personal information could also result in violation of data privacy laws and regulations, proceedings against us by governmental entities or others, damage to our reputation and credibility, and could have a negative impact on revenues and profits.

We are subject to laws, regulations and rules enacted by national, regional and local governments and NASDAQ. In particular, we are required to comply with certain SEC, NASDAQ and other legal or regulatory requirements. Compliance with, and monitoring of, applicable laws, regulations and rules may be difficult, time consuming and costly. Those laws, regulations and rules and their interpretation and application may also change from time to time and those changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, investments and results of operations. In addition, a failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and rules, as interpreted and applied, could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We are subject to income taxes in the United States, and our domestic tax liabilities are subject to the allocation of expenses in differing jurisdictions. Our future effective tax rates could be subject to volatility or adversely affected by a number of factors, including:

In addition, we may be subject to audits of our income, sales and other transaction taxes by U.S. federal and state authorities. Outcomes from these audits could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2018,2019, we had approximately $691.6 million$1.1 billion of total long-term debt and additional borrowing capacity of $499.2$624.2 million under CRP’s revolving credit facility (after giving effect to our elected commitment and $0.8 million of outstanding letters of credit). Our level of indebtedness could affect our operations in several ways, including the following:

Subject to the restrictions in the instruments governing CRP’s outstanding indebtedness (including CRP’s revolving credit facility and senior notes), CRP and its subsidiaries may incur substantial additional indebtedness (including secured indebtedness) in the future. Although the instruments governing CRP’s outstanding indebtedness do contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions will be subject to waiver and a number of significant qualifications and exceptions, and indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. As of December 31, 2018,2019, CRP had additional borrowing capacity of $499.2$624.2 million under its revolving credit facility (after giving effect to our elected commitment and $0.8 million of outstanding letters of credit), all of which would be secured if borrowed.

CRP’s ability to make scheduled payments on or to refinance its indebtedness depends on our financial condition and operating performance, which are subject to prevailing economic and competitive conditions and certain financial, business and other factors beyond our control. We may not be able to maintain a level of cash flows from operating activities sufficient to permit CRP to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on CRP’s indebtedness.

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund debt service obligations, we may be forced to reduce or delay investments and capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance indebtedness. Our ability to restructure or refinance CRP’s indebtedness will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of indebtedness could be at higher interest rates and may require CRP to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict business operations. The terms of existing or future debt instruments may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In addition, any failure to make payments of interest and principal on outstanding indebtedness on a timely basis would likely result in a reduction of our credit rating, which could harm CRP’s ability to incur additional indebtedness. In the absence of sufficient cash flows and capital resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations to meet debt service and other obligations. The agreements governing CRP’s indebtedness restrict CRP’s ability to dispose of assets and CRP’s use of the proceeds from such disposition. CRP may not be able to consummate those dispositions, and the proceeds of any such disposition may not be adequate to meet

CRP’s credit agreement and the indenture governing its senior notes contain a number of significant covenants, including restrictive covenants that may limit CRP’s ability to, among other things:

In addition, CRP’s credit agreement requires us to maintain certain financial ratios or to reduce our indebtedness if we are unable to comply with such ratios. As of December 31, 2018,2019, we were in full compliance with such financial ratios and covenants.

The restrictions in CRP’s debt agreements may also limit our ability to obtain future financings to withstand a future downturn in our business or the economy in general, or to otherwise conduct necessary corporate activities. We may also be prevented from taking advantage of business opportunities that arise because of the limitations that the restrictive imposed on CRP.

A breach of any covenant in CRP’s debt agreements would result in a default under the applicable agreement after any applicable grace periods. A default, if not waived, could result in acceleration of the indebtedness outstanding under CRP’s credit agreement and in a default with respect to, and an acceleration of, the indebtedness outstanding under other debt agreements. The accelerated indebtedness would become immediately due and payable. If that occurs, we may not be able to make all of the required payments or borrow sufficient funds to refinance such indebtedness. Even if new financing were available at that time, it may not be on terms that are acceptable to us.

Any default under the agreements governing CRP’s indebtedness that is not cured or waived by the required lenders, and the remedies sought by the holders of any such indebtedness, could make CRP unable to pay principal, premium, if any, and interest on such indebtedness. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow and are otherwise unable to obtain funds necessary to meet required payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on CRP’s indebtedness, or if CRP otherwise fails to comply with the various covenants, including financial and operating covenants, in the agreements governing CRP’s indebtedness, CRP could be in default under the terms of the agreements governing such indebtedness. In the event of such default:

If our operating performance declines, we may in the future need to obtain waivers under CRP’s revolving credit facility to avoid CRP being in default. If CRP breaches the covenants under its revolving credit facility and seeks a waiver, CRP may not be able to obtain a waiver from the required lenders. If this occurs, CRP would be in default under the revolving credit facility, the lenders could exercise their rights, as described above, and we could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation.

CRP’s revolving credit facility limits the amounts CRP can borrow up to a borrowing base amount, which the lenders, in their sole discretion, determine semiannually in the spring and fall. The borrowing base depends on, among other things, projected revenues from, and asset values of, the oil and natural gas properties securing the loan. The borrowing base will automatically be decreased by an amount equal to 25% of the aggregate notional amount of issued permitted senior unsecured notes. The lenders can unilaterally adjust the borrowing base and the borrowings permitted to be outstanding under CRP’s revolving credit facility. Any increase in the borrowing base requires the consent of the lenders holding 100% of the commitments. On November 2, 2018,In connection with the fall 2019 semi-annual borrowing base redetermination, the borrowing base under the revolving credit facility was increased from $800.0 million to $1.0reaffirmed at $1.2 billion and the lenders increased their aggregateamount of elected commitments from $600.0 million toremained at $800.0 million.

In the future, we may not be able to access adequate funding under CRP’s revolving credit facility (or a replacement facility) as a result of a decrease in the borrowing base due to the issuance of new indebtedness, the outcome of a subsequent borrowing base redetermination or an unwillingness or inability on the part of lending counterparties to meet their funding obligations and the inability of other lenders to provide additional funding to cover the defaulting lender’s portion. Declines in commodity prices could result in a determination to lower the borrowing base in the future and, in such case, CRP could be required to repay any indebtedness in excess of the redetermined borrowing base. As a result, we may be unable to implement our respective drilling and development plan, make acquisitions or otherwise carry out business plans, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and impair our ability to service CRP’s indebtedness.

Our ability to obtain financings and trade credit and the terms of any financings or trade credit is, in part, dependent on the credit ratings assigned to our debt by independent credit rating agencies. We cannot provide assurance that any of our current ratings will remain in effect for any given period of time or that a rating will not be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances so warrant. Factors that may impact our credit ratings include debt levels, planned asset purchases or sales and near-term and long-term production growth opportunities, liquidity, asset quality, cost structure, product mix and commodity pricing levels. A ratings downgrade could adversely impact our ability to access financings or trade credit and increase our borrowing costs.

We have no direct operations and no significant assets other than our current ownership of an approximate 96%99.6% membership interest in CRP. We will depend on CRP for distributions, loans and other payments to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations or to pay any dividends with respect to our Class A Common Stock. Subject to certain restrictions, CRP generally will be required to (i) make pro rata distributions to its members, including us, in an amount at least sufficient to allow us to pay our taxes and (ii) reimburse us for certain corporate and other overhead expenses. However, legal and contractual restrictions in agreements governing future indebtedness of CRP, as well as the financial condition and operating requirements of CRP may limit our ability to obtain cash from CRP. The earnings from, or other available assets of, CRP may not be sufficient to pay dividends or make distributions or loans to enable us to pay any dividends on our Class A Common Stock or satisfy our other financial obligations.

Certain segments of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If we fail to comply with the requirements of Section 404 or if we or our auditors identify and report material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, our investors may lose confidence in our reported information and our stock price may be negatively affected.

Although our Class A Common Stock is listed on The NASDAQ Capital Market, we cannot assure you that an active public market will continue for our Class A Common Stock. If an active public market for our Class A Common Stock does not continue, the trading price and liquidity of our Class A Common Stock will be materially and adversely affected. If there is a thin trading market or “float” for our Class A Common Stock, the market price for our Class A Common Stock may fluctuate significantly more than the stock market as a whole. Without a large float, our Class A Common Stock would be less liquid than the stock of companies with broader public ownership and, as a result, the trading prices of our Class A Common Stock may be more volatile. In addition, in the absence of an active public trading market, investors may be unable to liquidate their investment in us. Furthermore, the stock market is subject to significant price and volume fluctuations, and the price of our Class A Common Stock could fluctuate widely in response to several factors, including:

Factors affecting the trading price of our Class A Common Stock may include:

The stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations in recent years that have significantly affected the quoted prices of the securities of many companies, including companies in our industry. For example, in the last quarter of 2018, the closing price per share of our common stock as reported by The NASDAQ Capital Market ranged from a high of $22.75 per share in October 2018 to a low of $10.04$2.56 per share in December.February 2020. The changes often appear to occur without regard to specific operating performance. The price of our Class A Common Stock could fluctuate based upon factors that have little or nothing to do with our company and these fluctuations could materially reduce our stock price.

The trading market for our securities will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. Securities and industry analysts do not currently, and may never, publish research on us. If no securities or industry analysts commence coverage of us, our stock price and trading volume would likely be negatively impacted. If any of the analysts who may cover us change their recommendation regarding our securities adversely, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, the price of our securities would likely decline. If any analyst who may cover us were to cease coverage of us or fail to regularly publish reports on it, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Riverstone and its affiliates beneficially own approximately 28% of our voting common stock as of December 31, 2018.2019. As long as Riverstone and its affiliates own or control a significant percentage of outstanding voting power, they willmay have the ability to strongly influence all corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election and removal of directors and the size of our board of directors, any amendment of our second amended and restated certificate of incorporation (the “Charter”) or amended and restated bylaws (the “Bylaws”), or the approval of any merger or other significant corporate transaction, including a sale of substantially all of our assets.

The interests of Riverstone and its affiliates may not align with the interests of our other stockholders. Riverstone is in the business of making investments in companies and may acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us. Riverstone and its affiliates may also pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business, and, as a result, those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. In addition, our Charter provides that we renounce any interest or expectancy in the business opportunities of our officers and directors and their respective affiliates and each such party shall not have any obligation to offer us those opportunities unless presented to one of our directors or officers in his or her capacity as a director or officer.

Our Charter and Bylaws contain provisions that could have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in control or changes in our management without the consent of our board of directors. These provisions include:

These provisions, alone or together, could delay hostile takeovers and changes in control of the Company or changes in our board of directors and management.

We believe that we are a United States real property holding corporation. As a result, Non-U.S. holders (defined below in the section entitled “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations”) that own (or are treated as owning under constructive ownership rules) more than a specified amount of our Class A Common Stock during a specified time period may be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a sale, exchange, or other disposition of such Class A Common Stock and may be required to file a U.S. federal income tax return. If you are a Non-U.S. holder, we urge you to consult your tax advisors regarding the tax consequences of such treatment.

None.

From time to time, we are a party to ongoing legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including workers’ compensation claims and employment-related disputes. While the outcome of these proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe the results of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Not applicable.

Our Class A Common Stock is currently quoted on NASDAQ under the symbol “CDEV.” As of February 20, 2019,2020, there were 13 registered holders of record of our Class A Common Stock.

We have not paid any cash dividends on our Class A Common Stock or Class C Common Stock to date. Our board of directors may from time to time consider whether or not to institute a dividend policy. It is our present intention to retain any earnings for use in our business operations and, accordingly, we do not anticipate the board of directors declaring any dividends in the near future.

The following table shows selected historical financial information of the Company for the periods and as of the dates indicated. The term “Successor” refers to Centennial after itsthe acquisition of the outstanding membership interests in CRP on October 11, 2016 (the “Business Combination”) and the consolidation of CRP subsequent to the Business Combination. The term “Predecessor” refers to CRP for periods prior to the Business Combination.

The selected historical financial information for the periods presented may not be comparable either from the period to period or going forward as a result of the following transactions:

We are an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the development of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin. All of ourOur assets are concentrated exclusivelyprimarily in the Delaware Basin, a sub-basin of the Permian Basin. Our capital programs are specifically focused on projects that we believe provide the greatest potential for repeatable success andhighest return on capital.

The oil and natural gas industry is cyclical and commodity prices can be volatile. During 2016, global and domestic oil supply continued to outpace demand resulting in ongoing low realized oil and gas prices. In 2017 and 2018, commodity prices have improved yet remain volatile, and itIt is likely that commodity prices will continue to fluctuate due to global supply and demand, inventory supply levels, weather conditions, geopolitical events and other factors. For example, WTI spot prices for crude oil declined significantly to a low of $42.53 per barrel in the second quarter of 2017 but reached a high of $76.41 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2018, while the average quarterly crude oil price remained below $60 per barrel during the entirety of 2019.

The following table highlights the quarterly average NYMEX price trends for crude oil and natural gas since the first quarter of 2016:2017:

Although oil and natural gas prices have begun to recover from the lows experienced during the first quarter of 2016, forecast prices for both oil and natural gas have not rebounded to pre-2015 levels. A sustained drop in oil, natural gas and NGL prices may not only decrease our revenues on a per unit basis but may also reduce the amount of oil, natural gas and NGLs that we can produce economically and therefore potentially lower our oil, natural gas and NGL reserve quantities.

Lower commodity prices (including widerour realized differentials) in the future could result in impairments of our proved oil and natural gas properties or undeveloped acreage and may materially and adversely affect our future business, financial condition, results of operations, operating cash flows, liquidity or ability to finance planned capital expenditures. Lower realized prices may also reduce the borrowing base under CRP’s credit agreement, which is determined at the discretion of the lenders and is based on the collateral value of our proved reserves that have been mortgaged to the lenders. Upon a redetermination, if any borrowings in excess of the revised borrowing capacity were outstanding, we could be forced to immediately repay a portion of the debt outstanding under the credit agreement.

On May 4, 2018, the Company entered into an amended and restatedIn connection with our credit agreement (the “Amended Agreement”) with a syndicate of banks, the majority of which were lenders to the Company’s existing credit agreement. Under the Amended Agreement,facility’s spring 2019 semi-annual borrowing base redetermination, the borrowing base was increased from $575.0 million$1.0 billion to $800.0 million and aggregate$1.2 billion, but the amount of elected commitments increased from $475.0 million to $600.0remained at $800.0 million. The Amended Agreement also provided for lower ratesIn addition, CRP and fees compared to the existinglenders amended the credit agreement with varying ratesto reduce the applicable margin for LIBOR loans by 25 basis points to a range of 125 to 225 basis points and to reduce the applicable margin by 25 basis points for base rate loans to a range of 25 to 125 basis points, in each case depending on the percentage of the borrowing base utilized,utilized. These reductions in the applicable margins became effective in April 2019 and remain applicable as follows:long as CRP’s total leverage ratio is less than or equal to 3.0 to 1.0; otherwise, the LIBOR margin decreased from the range of 225 to 325 basis points to 150 to 250 basis points; the alternate base rate margin decreased from the range of 125 to 225 basis points to 50 to 150 basis points; and the commitment fees, which are paid on unused amounts of the revolving credit facility, were reduced from 50 basis points to a range of 37.5 to 50 basis points. The credit facility under the Amended Agreement has a term of five years.original applicable margins would be applied.

Net production volumes for oil, natural gas, and NGLs increased 81%23%, 79%32% and 158%21%, respectively, between periods. The oil volume increase between periods resulted primarily from drilling success in the Delaware Basin, as well as producing properties acquired in the GMT Acquisition, which added 301 MBbls of incremental oil production in 2018.Basin. During the year ended December 31, 2018, 802019, 84 gross operated wells were placed on production in the Delaware Basin, which added 5,6505,611 MBbls of net oil production during the year. The increase in the Company’s operated well count is attributable to our seven-rig drilling program during 2018. These oil volume increases were partially offset by normal production declines across our existing wells. Natural gas and NGLs are produced concurrently with our crude oil volumes, typically resulting in a high correlation between fluctuations in oil quantities sold and natural gas and NGL quantities sold. During the year ended December 31, 2018,As a result, our crude oil production was made up of 43% natural gasincreased 23% and NGL volumes as compared to 40% in 2017. This change in our commodity mix was due to the significant increase in NGL volumes (up 158%) between periods, which was primarily a result of the main processor of our wet gas switching from ethane-reject to ethane-recovery. This switch enabled us to recover a higher quantity of ethane volumes from our wet gas. The change to recover a higher portion of ethane started in the second quarter of 2018 and was initiated due to lower natural gas prices in the Permian basin and higher ethane prices, which in turn led to stronger ethane processing economics.

The increases in production volumes between periods were partially offset by lower average realized sales prices for oil, natural gas and NGLs for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. The average realized price for oil before the effects of hedging increased 16%decreased 7%, the average price for natural gas before the effects of hedging decreased 46% and the average realized price for NGLs increased 4%decreased 38% between periods. The 16% increase7% decrease in the average realized oil price was athe result of higherlower NYMEX crude prices between periods (average NYMEX oil prices increased 27%decreased 12%), which were partially offset by improved oil differentials (a decrease of $3.77 per Bbl) during 2019. The average realized sales price of natural gas between periods decreased 46% due to lower average NYMEX gas prices between periods (average NYMEX prices decreased 20%) and wider oilgas differentials (an increase of $6.07$0.27 per Bbl) during 2018.Mcf). The continued widening of natural gas differentials was due to natural gas pipeline takeaway capacity constraints impacting the Permian Basin, which has in turn depressed natural gas prices in West Texas and New Mexico. A new gas pipeline was placed into service late in the third quarter of 2019 in the Permian Basin, and continued construction of additional natural gas pipelines are planned through 2022. These third party pipelines are expected to provide relief from these wider natural gas differentials once they come online. The overall 4% increase38% decrease in average realized NGL prices between periods was primarily attributable to higherlower Mont Belvieu spot prices for plant products in 2018 as compared to 2017. Conversely, the average realized sales price of natural gas decreased by 28% from 2017 to 2018. This decrease was due to significantly wider gas differentials (an increase of $0.91 per Mcf) partially offset by average NYMEX prices that were 4% higher between periods. Both our oil and gas differentials widened during 2018 due to anticipated pipeline takeaway capacity constraints impacting the Permian Basin.2019.