Chord Energy CorpCHRD
Chord Energy Corp Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Included below is a discussion of various future commitments of the Company as of December 31, 2025. The commitments under these arrangements are not recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts disclosed represent undiscounted cash flows on a gross basis and no inflation elements have been applied. As of December 31, 2025, the Company’s material off-balance sheet arrangements and transactions include $32.8 million in outstanding letters of credit issued under the Credit Facility and $113.4 million in net surety bond exposure issued as financial assurance on certain agreements.
Volume commitment agreements. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had certain agreements with an aggregate requirement to deliver, transport or purchase a minimum quantity of approximately 40.6 MMBbl of crude oil, 10.6 MMBbl of NGL, 335.6 Bcf of natural gas and 12.0 MMBbl of water within specified timeframes, the majority of which have a remaining term of five years or less.
The estimable future commitments under these volume commitment agreements as of December 31, 2025 are as follows:
| (In thousands) | |||||
| 2026 | $ | 135,976 | |||
| 2027 | 118,675 | ||||
| 2028 | 74,315 | ||||
| 2029 | 41,856 | ||||
| 2030 | 34,466 | ||||
| Thereafter | 62,567 | ||||
| $ | 467,855 | ||||
The future commitments under certain agreements cannot be estimated and are therefore excluded from the table above as they are based on fixed differentials relative to a commodity index price under the agreements as compared to the differential relative to a commodity index price for the production month.
The Company enters into long-term contracts to provide production flow assurance in oversupplied areas with limited infrastructure, which provides for optimization of transportation and processing costs. As properties are undergoing development activities, the Company may experience temporary delivery or transportation shortfalls until production volumes grow to meet or exceed the minimum volume commitments. The Company recognizes any monthly deficiency payments in the period in which the under delivery takes place and the related liability has been incurred. The table above does not include any such deficiency payments that may be incurred under the Company’s physical delivery contracts, since it cannot be predicted with accuracy the amount and timing of any such penalties incurred.
Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation (“MHA Nation”) Title Dispute. This matter relates to certain leases acquired by the Company from QEP Energy Company (“QEP”) in October 2021. In June 2018, the MHA Nation notified QEP of its position that QEP has no valid lease covering certain minerals underlying the Missouri and Little Missouri River riverbeds on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. The MHA Nation also passed a resolution purporting to rescind those portions of QEP's Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 lease covering the disputed minerals underlying the Missouri River. QEP responded in September 2018 stating that the minerals underlying the Missouri River are properly leased. In May 2020, the Office of the Solicitor of the United States Department of the Interior (the “Department of the Interior”) issued an opinion (the “Missouri River Opinion”) finding that the State of North Dakota, not the MHA Nation, is the legal owner of the minerals underlying the Missouri River. The MHA Nation filed actions in two federal courts seeking to overturn the May 2020 decision, and in March 2021, the Department of the Interior withdrew the Missouri River Opinion and on February 4, 2022, the Department of the Interior issued a new opinion on the matter stating that the minerals beneath the Missouri River riverbed located on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation belong to the MHA Nation and not the State of North Dakota. Based on the new opinion from the Department of Interior, on June 21, 2022, the D.C. Federal District Court issued an order dismissing the MHA Nation’s claims relating to title of the riverbed as moot and denied the State of North Dakota’s motion to intervene on remaining counts. The D.C. Federal District Court did not address the substantive question of ownership at that time. On June 29, 2022, the State of North Dakota appealed this order to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 21, 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the D.C. Federal District Court’s denial of the State of North Dakota’s motion to intervene on the remaining counts.
The case is currently on remand before the D.C. Federal District Court. In 2025, the parties filed dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment, but on January 6, 2026, the Court denied these dispositive motions and ruled that factual determinations would need to be made, and would require a trial and full evidentiary record, in order to rule on the riverbed ownership and related issues. The parties are currently required to file a joint status report, informing the Court of the time required for expert testimony and exhibit production, beyond the documentation already filed with the prior motions. On January 30, 2026, the federal defendants filed a motion to extend the timeline for the joint status report by 90 days to allow sufficient time for an internal review. However, the Court denied that motion. The parties are now required to submit a joint status report by February 17, 2026.
Litigation. The Company is party to various legal and/or regulatory proceedings from time to time arising in the ordinary course of business. When the Company determines that a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, the Company accrues an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on its best estimate using information available at the time. The Company discloses contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, the matter should otherwise be disclosed. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had accrued a settlement obligation and offsetting insurance receivable in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. Such obligation and insurance claims were settled during the year ended December 31, 2025.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 26, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2020 | Mar 8, 2021 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.