Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies The Company also enters into commitments for capital expenditures in advance of the expenditures being made. As of December 31, 2025, our commitments for capital expenditures were $3.8 million related to drilling costs. Litigation In 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against a contractor regarding alleged non-performance while running casing in a well. The Company is seeking damages due to its inability to complete the Leavitt Fed 2-9-4MH well. The Company is in the process of scheduling arbitration The Company has intervened as a defendant-intervenor in litigation challenging BLM’s issuance of federal oil and gas leases acquired by the Company in 2017, 2018, and 2020. Plaintiffs allege deficiencies in BLM’s environmental review under NEPA. The Company intervened to protect its leasehold interests. Management does not believe the outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. Between September 30, 2025 and October 28, 2025, we received multiple demand letters on behalf of purported Epsilon stockholders (the “Demands”). The Demands primarily alleged that the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on September 19, 2025 or the Definitive Proxy Statement filed on October 10, 2025, as applicable, failed to disclose certain material information with respect to the acquisition of Peak Exploration and Production, LLC, and Peak BLM Lease LLC. On October 16, 2025, we received a copy of a complaint filed against Epsilon and certain members of Epsilon’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of purported Epsilon stockholder Anthony Morgan (the “Morgan Complaint”). On October 17, 2025, we received a copy of a complaint filed against Epsilon and certain members of Epsilon’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of purported Epsilon stockholder Richard Lawrence (the “Lawrence Complaint,” and together with the Morgan Complaint, the “Complaints”). The Complaints allege, among other things, that Epsilon and the other named defendants (the “Epsilon Defendants”) violated New York common law based on claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation and concealment. Specifically, the Complaints allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement or the Definitive Proxy Statement, as applicable, failed to disclose, among other things, certain details regarding the background of the Transactions. Among other remedies, the Complaints sought an injunction against consummating the Transactions, rescission or actual and punitive damages if the Transactions are consummated, costs and attorneys’ fees. To date, we have not been served with the Complaints, and the Plaintiffs have not taken any additional steps in furtherance of prosecuting the Complaints. While we believe that the disclosures set forth in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, to moot certain of the claims made in the Demands and Complaints, to avoid nuisance and potential expense and delay, we voluntarily supplemented the Definitive Proxy Statement with certain disclosures in our Supplemental Disclosures to Definitive Proxy Statement filed on October 31, 2025. Nothing in our Supplemental Disclosures was an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the disclosures set forth in the Preliminary Proxy Statement or the Definitive Proxy Statement. To the contrary, we deny all allegations in the Demands and Complaints that any additional disclosure was required.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company also enters into commitments for capital expenditures in advance of the expenditures being made. As of December 31, 2025, our commitments for capital expenditures were $3.8 million related to drilling costs.

Litigation

In 2025, the Company filed a lawsuit against a contractor regarding alleged non-performance while running casing in a well. The Company is seeking damages due to its inability to complete the Leavitt Fed 2-9-4MH well. The Company is in the process of scheduling arbitration

The Company has intervened as a defendant-intervenor in litigation challenging BLM’s issuance of federal oil and gas leases acquired by the Company in 2017, 2018, and 2020. Plaintiffs allege deficiencies in BLM’s environmental review under NEPA. The Company intervened to protect its leasehold interests. Management does not believe the outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position.

Between September 30, 2025 and October 28, 2025, we received multiple demand letters on behalf of purported Epsilon stockholders (the “Demands”). The Demands primarily alleged that the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on September 19, 2025 or the Definitive Proxy Statement filed on October 10, 2025, as applicable, failed to disclose certain material information with respect to the acquisition of Peak Exploration and Production, LLC, and Peak BLM Lease LLC.

On October 16, 2025, we received a copy of a complaint filed against Epsilon and certain members of Epsilon’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of purported Epsilon stockholder Anthony Morgan (the “Morgan Complaint”). On October 17, 2025, we received a copy of a complaint filed against Epsilon and certain members of Epsilon’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on behalf of purported Epsilon stockholder Richard Lawrence (the “Lawrence Complaint,” and together with the Morgan Complaint, the “Complaints”).

The Complaints allege, among other things, that Epsilon and the other named defendants (the “Epsilon Defendants”) violated New York common law based on claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation and concealment. Specifically, the Complaints allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement or the Definitive Proxy Statement, as applicable, failed to disclose, among other things, certain details regarding the background of the Transactions. Among other remedies, the Complaints sought an injunction against consummating the Transactions, rescission or actual and punitive damages if the Transactions are consummated, costs and attorneys’ fees. To date, we have not been served with the Complaints, and the Plaintiffs have not taken any additional steps in furtherance of prosecuting the Complaints.

While we believe that the disclosures set forth in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, to moot certain of the claims made in the Demands and Complaints, to avoid nuisance and potential expense and delay, we voluntarily supplemented the Definitive Proxy Statement with certain disclosures in our Supplemental Disclosures to Definitive Proxy Statement filed on October 31, 2025. Nothing in our

Supplemental Disclosures was an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the disclosures set forth in the Preliminary Proxy Statement or the Definitive Proxy Statement. To the contrary, we deny all allegations in the Demands and Complaints that any additional disclosure was required.