Developed Acreage

Acreage related to royalty, overriding royalty and other similar interests is excluded from this summary. As of December 31, 2015, substantially all of our leasehold acreage was held by production. The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2015 relating to our leasehold acreage.

Undeveloped Acreage

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2015 relating to our undeveloped leasehold acreage (including the remaining terms of leases and concessions).

Marketing and Major Customers

The following individual customers each accounted for 10% or more of total reported revenues for the period indicated:

The production sales agreements covering our properties contain customary terms and conditions for the oil and natural gas industry and provide for sales based on prevailing market prices. A majority of those agreements have terms that renew on a month-to-month basis until either party gives advance written notice of termination.

If we were to lose any one of our customers, the loss could temporarily delay production and sale of a portion of our oil and natural gas in the related producing region. If we were to lose any single customer, we believe we could identify a substitute customer to purchase the impacted production volumes. However, if one or more of our larger customers ceased purchasing oil or natural gas altogether, the loss of any such customer could have a detrimental effect on our production volumes in general and on our ability to find substitute customers to purchase our production volumes.

Title to Properties

Prior to completing an acquisition of producing oil and natural gas properties, we perform title reviews, or obtain indemnification with respect to title, on significant leases, and depending on the materiality of properties, we may obtain a title opinion or review previously obtained title opinions. As a result, title examinations have been obtained on a significant portion of our properties. After an acquisition, we review the assignments from the seller for scrivener’s and other errors and execute and record corrective assignments as necessary.

As is customary in the oil and natural gas industry, we initially conduct only a cursory review of the titles to our properties on which we do not have proved reserves. Prior to the commencement of drilling operations on those properties, we conduct a thorough title examination and perform curative work with respect to significant defects. To the extent title opinions or other investigations reflect title defects on those properties, we are typically responsible for curing any title defects at our own expense. We generally will not commence drilling operations on a property until we have cured any material title defects on such property.

20

We believe that we have satisfactory title to all of our material assets. Alth ough title to these properties is subject to encumbrances in some cases, such as customary interests generally retained in connection with the acquisition of real property, customary royalty interests and contract terms and restrictions, liens under operat ing agreements, liens related to environmental liabilities associated with historical operations, liens for current taxes and other burdens, easements, restrictions and minor encumbrances customary in the oil and natural gas industry, we believe that none of these liens, restrictions, easements, burdens or encumbrances will materially detract from the value of these properties or from our interest in these properties or materially interfere with our use of these properties in the operation of our business. In addition, we believe that we have obtained sufficient rights-of-way grants and permits from public authorities and private parties for us to operate our business in all material respects as described in this report.

Derivative Activities

We enter into commodity derivative contracts with unaffiliated third parties, generally lenders under our revolving credit facility or their affiliates, to achieve more predictable cash flows and to reduce our exposure to fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices. Our outstanding commodity derivative contracts currently consist of floating-for-fixed swaps and basis swaps.

Periodically, we enter into interest rate swaps to mitigate exposure to market rate fluctuations by converting variable interest rates (such as those in our revolving credit facility) to fixed interest rates. Conditions sometimes arise where actual borrowings are less than notional amounts hedged which has and could result in over-hedged amounts from an economic perspective. From time to time we enter into offsetting positions to avoid being economically over-hedged.

It is our policy to enter into derivative contracts, including interest rate swaps, only with creditworthy counterparties, which generally are financial institutions, deemed by management as competent and competitive market makers. Some of the lenders, or certain of their affiliates, under our credit facility are counterparties to our derivative contracts. We will continue to evaluate the benefit of employing derivatives in the future. See “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for additional information.

Competition

We operate in a highly competitive environment for acquiring properties, leasing acreage, contracting for drilling equipment and securing trained personnel. Many of our competitors possess and employ financial, technical and personnel resources substantially greater than ours, which can be particularly important in the areas in which we operate. As a result, our competitors may be able to pay more for productive oil and natural gas properties and exploratory prospects, as well as evaluate, bid for and purchase a greater number of properties and prospects than our financial or personnel resources permit. Our ability to acquire additional properties and to find and develop reserves will depend on our ability to evaluate and select suitable properties and to consummate transactions in a highly competitive environment. In addition, there is substantial competition for capital available for investment in the oil and natural gas industry and many of our competitors have access to capital at a lower cost than that available to us.

Seasonal Nature of Business

The price we receive for our natural gas production is impacted by seasonal fluctuations in demand for natural gas. The demand for natural gas typically peaks during the coldest months and tapers off during the warmest months, with a slight increase during the summer to meet the demands of electric generators. The weather during any particular season can affect this cyclical demand for natural gas. Seasonal anomalies such as mild winters or hot summers can lessen or intensify this fluctuation. In addition, certain natural gas users utilize natural gas storage facilities and purchase some of their anticipated winter requirements during the summer. This can also lessen seasonal demand fluctuations.

Hydraulic Fracturing

We use hydraulic fracturing as a means to maximize the productivity of almost every well that we drill and complete. Hydraulic fracturing is a necessary part of the completion process because our properties are dependent upon our ability to effectively fracture the producing formations in order to produce at economic rates. Nearly all of our proved non-producing and proved undeveloped reserves associated with future drilling, recompletion, and refracture stimulation projects, or approximately 38% of our total estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 2015, require hydraulic fracturing.

21

We have and continue to follow applicable industry standard practices and legal requirements for groundwater protection in our operations which are subject to supervision by state and federal regulators (including the Bureau of Land Management on federal a creage). These protective measures include setting surface casing at a depth sufficient to protect fresh water zones as determined by regulatory agencies, and cementing the well to create a permanent isolating barrier between the casing pipe and surroundin g geological formations. This aspect of well design essentially eliminates a pathway for the fracturing fluid to contact any aquifers during the hydraulic fracturing operations. For recompletions of existing wells, the production casing is pressure tested prior to perforating the new completion interval.

Injection rates and pressures are monitored instantaneously and in real time at the surface during our hydraulic fracturing operations. Pressure is monitored on both the injection string and the immediate annulus to the injection string. Hydraulic fracturing operations would be shut down immediately if an abrupt change occurred to the injection pressure or annular pressure.

Certain state regulations require disclosure of the components in the solutions used in hydraulic fracturing operations. Approximately 99% of the hydraulic fracturing fluids we use are made up of water and sand. The remainder of the constituents in the fracturing fluid are managed and used in accordance with applicable requirements.

Hydraulic fracture stimulation requires the use of a significant volume of water. Upon flowback of the water, we dispose of it in a way that minimizes the impact to nearby surface water by disposing into approved disposal or injection wells. We currently do not discharge water to the surface.

For information regarding existing and proposed governmental regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing and related environmental matters, please read “—Regulation of Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Matters—Hydraulic Fracturing.”

Onshore and Offshore Insurance Program. We and Memorial Resource maintain insurance coverage against potential losses that we believe is customary in the industry. As of December 31, 2015, we maintain commercial general liability insurance, automobile liability insurance and umbrella/excess liability insurance. Our commercial general liability insurance has limits of $1.0 million per occurrence/$2.0 million in the aggregate and a $250,000 self-insured retention. Our general liability insurance covers us for, among other things, legal and contractual liabilities arising out of third party property damage and bodily injury and for sudden and accidental pollution liability.  Our automobile liability insurance has limits of $1.0 million per occurrence. Our umbrella/excess liability limits for each occurrence is a minimum of $25.0 million. There is no deductible on our umbrella/excess liability insurance. Our umbrella/excess liability insurance is in addition to our general and automobile liability policy and may be triggered if the general or automobile liability insurance policy limits are exceeded and exhausted. In addition, we maintain an energy package policy that includes control of well coverage (“COW”) with per occurrence limits for COW ranging from $10.0 million to $100.0 million and retentions ranging from $100,000 to $500,000, with an additional annual aggregate retention of $1.0 million.  Specific to offshore operations, the energy package policy also includes loss of production income coverage insuring us against a loss up to $48.6 million due to a temporary interruption in the oil supply from our offshore facilities as a result of an insured physical loss to our offshore facilities. Our control of well policy insures us for blowout risks associated with drilling, completing and operating our wells.  We maintain two separate Pollution Legal Liability (“PLL”) policies, one for all U.S. onshore operations, excluding California and one for California only. Our PLL non-California insurance policy has limits of $10.0 million per pollution event with a $1.0 million deductible.  Our PLL California-only insurance policy has limits of $10.0 million with a $50,000 deductible per event.

22

As of December 31, 2015 , we have insurance policies in effect that are intended to provide coverage for pollution losses including those related to our hydraulic fracturing operations. These policies may not cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to government-mandated clean-up of pollution. In addition, these policies do not provide coverage for all liabiliti es. Our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover claims that may arise, and we may be unable to maintain adequate insurance at rates we consider reasonable. A loss not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

We or Memorial Resource enter into master services agreements, or MSAs, with various service providers. These MSAs allocate potential liabilities and risks between the parties. Under certain MSAs, we indemnify certain service providers, including hydraulic fracturing service providers, for pollution and contamination of any kind, damages to or losses from wells or underground formations and damages to property, including pipelines, storage or production facilities. Under certain other MSAs, the service providers indemnify us for pollution or contamination that originates above the surface and is caused by the service provider’s equipment or services, unless such pollution or contamination is caused by our gross negligence or willful misconduct, and we indemnify the service providers for all other pollution or contamination that may occur during operations (including that which may result from seepage or any other uncontrolled flow of oil, natural gas or other fluids from the well), unless such pollution or contamination is caused by the service provider’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. Generally, we also agree to indemnify the service providers against claims arising from our employees’ bodily injury or death to the extent that our employees are injured by or during service operations, unless resulting from the service provider’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. Similarly, the service providers generally agree to indemnify us for liabilities arising from bodily injury to or death of any of their employees, unless resulting from our gross negligence or willful misconduct. In addition, the service providers generally agree to indemnify us for loss or destruction of property or equipment that they own, unless resulting from our gross negligence or willful misconduct. In turn, we generally agree to indemnify the service providers for loss or destruction of property or equipment we own, unless resulting from the service provider’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Despite the general allocation of risk discussed above, we may not succeed in enforcing such contractual allocation of risk, we may be required to enter into a MSA with terms that vary from such allocation of risk and may incur costs or liabilities that fall outside any contractual allocation of risk. As a result, we may incur substantial losses that could materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety Matters and Regulations

General

Our oil and natural gas development and production operations are also subject to stringent and complex 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 before conducting regulated drilling 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, seismically active areas, 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or 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 compliance or corrective actions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions, including administrative, civil or criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory or remedial obligations, the suspension or revocation of necessary permits, licenses and authorizations, the requirement that additional pollution controls be installed and, in some instances, 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.

Under certain environmental laws that impose strict as well as joint and several liability, we may be required to remediate contaminated properties currently or formerly owned or 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 addition, claims for damages to persons or property, including natural resources, may result from the environmental, health and safety impacts of our operations. Moreover, public interest in the protection of the environment has increased dramatically in recent years. The trend of more expansive and stringent environmental legislation and regulations applied to the crude oil and natural gas industry could continue, resulting in increased costs of doing business and consequently affecting profitability. To the extent laws are enacted or other governmental action is taken that restricts drilling or imposes more stringent and costly operating, waste handling, disposal and cleanup requirements, our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

23

While we believe that we are in substantial compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations and that continued compliance with existing requ irements will not materially affect us, there is no assurance that this trend will continue in the future.

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

BOEM & BSEE

Our oil and gas operations associated with our Beta properties are conducted on offshore leases in federal waters. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, or BSEE have broad authority to regulate our oil and gas operations associated with our Beta properties.

The BOEM is responsible for managing environmentally and economically responsible development of the nation’s offshore resources. Its functions include offshore leasing, resource evaluation, review and administration of oil and gas exploration and development plans, renewable energy development, National Environmental Policy Act analysis and environmental studies. Lessees must obtain BOEM approval for exploration, development and production plans prior to the commencement of offshore operations. In addition, approvals and permits are required from other agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA.

The BSEE is responsible for safety and environmental oversight of offshore oil and gas operations. Its functions include the development and enforcement of safety and environmental regulations, permitting offshore exploration, development and production, inspections, offshore regulatory programs, oil spill response and newly formed training and environmental compliance programs. The BSEE has regulations requiring offshore production facilities and pipelines located on the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS, to meet stringent engineering and construction specifications, and has proposed and/or promulgated additional safety related regulations concerning the design and operating procedures of these facilities and pipelines, including regulations to safeguard against or respond to well blowouts and other catastrophes. BSEE regulations also restrict the flaring or venting of natural gas and prohibit the flaring of liquid hydrocarbons and oil without prior authorization. The BSEE has regulations governing the plugging and abandonment of wells located offshore and the installation and removal of all fixed drilling and production facilities. The BSEE generally requires that lessees have substantial net worth, post supplemental bonds or provide other acceptable assurances that the obligations will be met.

The BOEM and BSEE have adopted regulations providing for enforcement actions, including civil penalties, and lease forfeiture or cancellation for failure to comply with regulatory requirements for offshore operations. If we fail to pay royalties or comply with safety and environmental regulations, the BOEM and BSEE may require that our operations on the Beta properties be suspended or terminated, and we may be subject to civil or criminal liability.

On January 29, 2016, BOEM and BSEE entered into a settlement agreement with environmental groups promising to study the potential environmental impacts of well-stimulation practices on the Pacific OCS, including hydraulic fracturing and acid well stimulation. Pending completion of this study, which is expected by May 28, 2016, BSEE will withhold approvals of future permit applications involving hydraulic fracturing operations or acid well stimulation on the Pacific OCS. Delays in the approval or refusal of plans and issuance of permits by the BOEM or BSEE because of staffing, economic, environmental or other reasons (or other actions taken by the BOEM or BSEE) could adversely affect our offshore operations. The requirements imposed by the BOEM and BSEE regulations are frequently changed and subject to new interpretations.

Hazardous Substances and Waste Handling

Our operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations relating to the management and release of hazardous substances, solid and hazardous wastes and petroleum hydrocarbons. These laws generally regulate the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous waste and may impose strict and, in some cases, joint and several liability for the investigation and remediation of affected areas where hazardous substances may have been released or disposed. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, referred to as CERCLA or the Superfund law, and comparable state laws, impose liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons deemed “responsible parties.” These persons include current owners or operators of the site where a release of hazardous substances occurred, prior owners or operators that owned or operated the site at the time of the release or disposal of hazardous substances, and companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substances found at the site. Under CERCLA, these persons may be subject to strict and 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 the costs they incur from the responsible classes of persons. It is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file common law-based claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances or other pollutants released into the environment. Despite the “petroleum exclusion” of Section 101(14) of CERCLA, which currently encompasses natural gas, we

24

may nonetheless handle hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA, or similar state statutes, in the course of our ordinary operations and, as a result, may be j ointly and severally liable under CERCLA for all or part of the costs required to clean up sites at which these hazardous substances have been released into the environment. Also, comparable state statutes may not contain a similar exemption for petroleum. In addition, we may have liability for releases of hazardous substances at our properties by prior owners or operators or other third parties.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, is the primary federal law imposing oil spill liability. The OPA contains numerous requirements relating to the prevention of and response to petroleum releases into waters of the United States, including the requirement that operators of offshore facilities and certain onshore facilities near or crossing waterways must maintain certain significant levels of financial assurance to cover potential environmental cleanup and restoration costs. Under the OPA, strict, joint and several liability may be imposed on “responsible parties” for all containment and cleanup costs and certain other damages arising from a release, including, but not limited to, the costs of responding to a release of oil to surface waters and natural resource damages, resulting from oil spills into or upon navigable waters, adjoining shorelines or in the exclusive economic zone of the United States. A “responsible party” includes the owner or operator of an onshore facility. The OPA establishes a liability limit for onshore facilities, but these liability limits may not apply if: a spill is caused by a party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct; the spill resulted from violation of a federal safety, construction or operating regulation; or a party fails to report a spill or to cooperate fully in a clean-up. We are also subject to analogous state statutes that impose liabilities with respect to oil spills. For example, the California Department of Fish and Game's Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response have adopted oil-spill prevention regulations that overlap with federal regulations.

We also generate solid wastes, including hazardous wastes, which are subject to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, as amended, and comparable state statutes. Although RCRA regulates both solid and hazardous wastes, it imposes stringent requirements on the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. Certain petroleum production wastes are excluded from RCRA’s hazardous waste regulations. These wastes, instead, are regulated under RCRA's less stringent solid waste provisions, state laws or other federal laws. It is also possible that these wastes, which could include wastes currently generated during our operations, could be designated as “hazardous wastes” in the future and, therefore, be subject to more rigorous and costly disposal requirements. Indeed, legislation has been proposed from time to time in Congress to re-categorize certain oil and gas exploration and production wastes as “hazardous wastes.” Any such changes in the laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our maintenance capital expenditures and operating expenses.

It is possible that our oil and natural gas operations may require us to manage naturally occurring radioactive materials, or NORM. NORM is present in varying concentrations in sub-surface formations, including hydrocarbon reservoirs, and may become concentrated in scale, film and sludge in equipment that comes in contact with crude oil and natural gas production and processing streams. Some states have enacted regulations governing the handling, treatment, storage and disposal of NORM.

Administrative, civil and criminal penalties can be imposed for failure to comply with waste handling requirements. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with the requirements of CERCLA, RCRA, OPA and related state and local laws and regulations, and that we hold all necessary and up-to-date permits, registrations and other authorizations required under such laws and regulations. Although we believe that the current costs of managing our wastes as they are presently classified are reflected in our budget, any legislative or regulatory reclassification of oil and natural gas exploration and production wastes could increase our costs to manage and dispose of such wastes.

Water Discharges and Other Waste Discharges & Spills

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act), the State Drinking Water Act, or the SDWA, the OPA and analogous state laws, impose restrictions and strict controls with respect to the unauthorized discharge of pollutants, including oil and hazardous substances, into navigable waters of the United States, as well as state waters. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by EPA or an analogous state agency. These laws and regulations also prohibit certain activity in wetlands unless authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA has also adopted regulations requiring certain oil and natural gas exploration and production facilities to obtain individual permits or coverage under general permits for storm water discharges. Costs may be associated with the treatment of wastewater or developing and implementing storm water pollution prevention plans, as well as for monitoring and sampling the storm water runoff from certain of our facilities. Some states also maintain groundwater protection programs that require permits for discharges or operations that may impact groundwater conditions. The underground injection of fluids is subject to permitting and other requirements under state laws and regulation. Obtaining permits has the potential to delay the development of natural gas and oil projects. These same regulatory programs also limit the total volume of water that can be discharged, hence limiting the rate of development, and require us to incur compliance costs.

25

These laws and any implementing regulations provide for administrative, civil and criminal penalties for any unauthorized discharges of oil and other substances in report able quantities and may impose substantial potential liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages. Pursuant to these laws and regulations, we may be required to obtain and maintain approvals or permits for the discharge of wastewater or stor m water and the underground injection of fluids and are required to develop and implement spill prevention, control and countermeasure plans, also referred to as “SPCC plans,” in connection with on-site storage of significant quantities of oil. We maintain all required discharge permits necessary to conduct our operations, and we believe we are in substantial compliance with their terms.

Hydraulic Fracturing

We use hydraulic fracturing extensively in our operations. Hydraulic fracturing is an essential and common practice in the oil and gas industry used to stimulate production of natural gas and/or oil from low permeability subsurface rock formations. Hydraulic fracturing involves using water, sand, and certain chemicals to fracture the hydrocarbon-bearing rock formation to allow flow of hydrocarbons into the wellbore. While hydraulic fracturing has historically been regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions, the practice has become increasingly controversial in certain parts of the country, resulting in increased scrutiny and regulation. For example, the EPA has asserted federal regulatory authority over certain hydraulic-fracturing activities under the SDWA involving the use of diesel fuels and published permitting guidance in February 2014 addressing the use of diesel in fracturing operations. Also, in May 2014, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on its intent to develop and issue regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act regarding the disclosure of information related to the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The public comment period ended on September 18, 2014. The EPA plans to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by December 2016, which would describe a proposed mechanism – regulatory, voluntary, or a combination of both – to collect data on hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures. Also, on April 7, 2015, the EPA published a proposed rule establishing federal pre-treatment standards for wastewater discharged from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to publicly owned treatment works (“POTW”). The EPA asserts that wastewater from such facilities can be generated in large quantities and can contain constituents that may disrupt POTW operations and/or be discharged, untreated, from the POTW to receiving waters. If adopted, the new pre-treatment rule would require unconventional oil and gas facilities to pre-treat wastewater before transferring it to a POTW. The public comment period ended on July 17, 2015, and the EPA is expected to publish a final rule by August 2016. The EPA is also conducting a study of private wastewater treatment facilities (also known as centralized waste treatment, or CWT, facilities) accepting oil and gas extraction wastewater.  The EPA is collecting data and information related to the extent to which CWT facilities accept such wastewater, available treatment technologies (and their associated costs), discharge characteristics, financial characteristics of CWT facilities, and the environmental impacts of discharges from CWT facilities.

Further, on August 16, 2012, the EPA published final rules that subject all oil and gas operations (production, processing, transmission, storage and distribution) to regulation under the new source performance standards (“NSPS”) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAPS”) programs. The rules include NSPS for completions of hydraulically fractured gas wells and establishes specific new requirements for emissions from compressors, controllers, dehydrators, storage vessels, natural gas processing plants and certain other equipment. The final rules seek to achieve a 95% reduction in VOCs emitted by requiring the use of reduced emission completions or “green completions” on all hydraulically-fractured wells constructed or refractured after January 1, 2015. The rules could require a number of modifications to our operations including the installation of new equipment. The EPA received numerous requests for reconsideration of these rules from both industry and the environmental community, and court challenges to the rules were also filed. In response, the EPA has issued, and will likely continue to issue, revised rules responsive to some of the requests for reconsideration. For example, in September 2013 and December 2014, the EPA amended its rules to extend compliance deadlines and to clarify the NSPS.  In addition, on September 18, 2015, the EPA published a suite of proposed rules to reduce methane and VOC emissions from oil and gas industry, including new “downstream” requirements covering equipment in the natural gas transmission segment of the industry that was not regulated by the 2012 rules. The public comment period closed on December 4, 2015. These standards, as well as any future laws and their implementing regulations, may require us to obtain pre-approval for the expansion or modification of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities expected to produce air emissions, impose stringent air permit requirements, or utilize specific equipment or technologies to control emissions. Compliance with such rules could result in significant costs, including increased capital expenditures and operating costs, and could adversely impact our business.

26

In addition, on M arch 26, 2015, the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, published a final rule governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands. The rule requires public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, implementation of a casing and cementing program, management of recovered fluids, and submission to the BLM of detailed information about the proposed operation, including wellbore geology, the location of faults and fractures, and the depths of all usable water. The rule took effect on June 24, 2015, although it is the subject of several pending lawsuits filed by industry groups and at least four states, alleging that federal law does not give the BLM authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. On September 30, 2015, the United States District C ourt for Wyoming issued a preliminary injunction preventing the BLM from implementing the rule nationwide. This order has been appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Also, on January 22, 2016, the BLM announced a proposed rule to reduce the flari ng, venting and leaking of methane from oil and gas operations on federal and Indian lands. The proposed rule would require operators to use currently available technologies and equipment to reduce flaring, periodically inspect their operations for leaks, and replace outdated equipment that vents large quantities of gas into the air. The rule would also clarify when operators owe the government royalties for flared gas.

Several states have also adopted, or are considering adopting, regulations requiring the disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and/or otherwise impose additional requirements for hydraulic fracturing activities. For example, in October 2011, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources adopted new rules requiring the public disclosure of the composition and volume of fracturing fluids used in hydraulic fracturing operations. Also, Texas requires oil and natural gas operators to disclose to the Railroad Commission of Texas (“Commission”) and the public the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process, as well as the total volume of water used. Also, in May 2013, the Commission 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, 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. Additionally, on October 28, 2014, the Commission adopted disposal well rule amendments designed, amongst other things, to require applicants for new disposal wells that will receive non-hazardous produced water and hydraulic fracturing flowback fluid to conduct seismic activity searches utilizing the U.S. Geological Survey. The searches are intended to determine the potential for earthquakes within a circular area of 100 square miles around a proposed, new disposal well. The disposal well rule amendments, which became effective on November 17, 2014, also clarify the Commission’s authority to modify, suspend or terminate a disposal well permit if scientific data indicates a disposal well is likely to contribute to seismic activity. The Commission has used this authority to deny permits for waste disposal wells. 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 exploration, development, or production activities, and perhaps even be precluded from drilling wells.

Certain governmental reviews have been conducted or are underway that focus on environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing practices, which could lead to increased regulation. For example, the EPA is currently evaluating the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. In June 2015, the EPA released its draft assessment report for peer review and public comment, finding that, while there are certain mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities could potentially impact drinking water resources, there is no evidence available showing that those mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts. Also, on February 6, 2015, the EPA released a report with findings and recommendations related to public concern about induced seismic activity from disposal wells. The report recommends strategies for managing and minimizing the potential for significant injection-induced seismic events. Other governmental agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, have evaluated or are evaluating various other aspects of hydraulic fracturing. In addition, as discussed above, BOEM and BSEE are studying the potential environmental impacts of well-stimulation practices on the Pacific OCS. These ongoing or proposed studies could spur initiatives to further regulate hydraulic fracturing, and could ultimately make it more difficult or costly for us to perform fracturing and increase our costs of compliance and doing business.

A number of lawsuits and enforcement actions have been initiated across the country alleging that hydraulic fracturing practices have induced seismic activity and adversely impacted drinking water supplies, use of surface water, and the environment generally. Several states and municipalities have adopted, or are considering adopting, regulations that could restrict or prohibit hydraulic fracturing in certain circumstances. In the event state, local, or municipal legal restrictions are adopted in areas where we are currently conducting, or in the future plan to conduct operations, we may incur additional costs to comply with such requirements that may be significant in nature, experience delays or curtailment in the pursuit of exploration, development, or production activities, and perhaps even be precluded from the drilling of wells. If new laws or regulations that significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing are adopted, such laws could make it more difficult or costly for us to perform fracturing to stimulate production from tight formations as well as make it easier for third parties opposing the hydraulic fracturing process to initiate legal proceedings based on allegations that specific chemicals used in the fracturing process could adversely affect groundwater.

27

In addition, if hydraulic fracturing is further regulated at the federal, state or local level, our fracturing activities could become subject to additional permitting and financial assurance requirements, more stringent construction specifications, increased monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, plugging and abandonment requirements and also to attendant permitting delays and potential increases in costs. For example, the U.S. Congress has from time to time considered legislation to amend the SDWA, including legislation that would repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing from the definition of “underground injection” and require federal permitting and regulatory control of hydraulic fracturing, as well as legislative proposals to require disclosure of the chemical constituents of the fluids used in the fracturing process. Such leg islative changes could cause us to incur substantial compliance costs, and compliance or the consequences of any failure to comply by us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. At this time, it is not poss ible to estimate the impact on our business of newly enacted or potential federal or state legislation governing hydraulic fracturing, and any of the above risks could impair our ability to manage our business and have a material adverse effect on our oper ations, cash flows and financial position.

Air Emissions

The federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and comparable state laws restrict the emission of air pollutants from many sources, including compressor stations, through the issuance of permits and the imposition of other requirements. 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 oil and natural gas projects. Over the next several years, we may be required to incur certain capital expenditures for air pollution control equipment or other air emissions related issues. For example, on August 16, 2012, the EPA published final regulations under the CAA that establish new emission controls for oil and natural gas production and processing operations, which regulations are discussed in more detail above under the caption “Hydraulic Fracturing.”

The South Coast Air Quality Management District, or SCAQMD, is a political subdivision of the State of California and responsible for air pollution control within Orange County and designated portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Our Beta properties and associated facilities are subject to regulation by the SCAQMD.

We may be required to incur certain capital expenditures in the next few years for air pollution control equipment in connection with maintaining or obtaining operating permits addressing air emission related issues, which may have a material adverse effect on our operations. Obtaining permits also has the potential to delay the development of oil and natural gas projects. We believe that we currently are in substantial compliance with all air emissions regulations and that we hold all necessary and valid construction and operating permits for our current operations.

Regulation of “Greenhouse Gas” Emissions

In response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) present an endangerment to public health and the environment, in May 2010, the EPA adopted regulations under existing provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, or CAA, that, among other things, established Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) construction and Title V operating permit reviews for certain large stationary sources that are potential major sources of GHG emissions. The so-called Tailoring Rule established new GHG emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources must obtain permits under the PSD and Title V programs of the Clean Air Act. On June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court held that stationary sources could not become subject to PSD or Title V permitting solely by reason of their GHG emissions. The Court ruled, however, that the EPA may require installation of best available control technology for GHG emissions at sources otherwise subject to the PSD or Title V programs. On December 19, 2014, the EPA issued two memoranda providing initial guidance on GHG permitting requirements in response to the Court’s decision.  In its preliminary guidance, the EPA indicated that it would promulgate a rule to rescind any PSD permits issued under the portions of the tailoring rule that were vacated by the Court.  In the interim, the EPA issued a narrowly crafted “no action assurance” indicating it will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement of the terms and conditions relating to GHGs in an EPA-issued PSD permit, and for related terms and conditions in a Title V permit. On April 30, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule allowing permitting authorities to rescind PSD permits issued under the invalid regulations.

28

In September 2009, the EPA issued a final rule requiring the reporting of GHG emissions from specified large GHG emission sources in the United States, including natural gas li quids fractionators and local natural gas/distribution companies, beginning in 2011 for emissions occurring in 2010. In November 2010, the EPA published a final rule expanding the GHG reporting rule to include onshore oil and natural gas production, proces sing, transmission, storage and distribution facilities. This rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from such facilities on an annual basis, with reporting beginning in 2012 for emissions occurring in 2011. In October 2015, the EPA amended the GHG repor ting rule to add the reporting of GHG emissions from gathering and boosting systems, completions and workovers of oil wells using hydraulic fracturing, and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines. The adoption and implementation of any 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 or could adversely affect demand for the oil and natural gas we p roduce. Any one of these climate change regulatory and legislative initiatives could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the EPA has continued to adopt GHG regulations applicable to other industries, such as its August 2015 adoption of three separate, but related, actions to address carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, including final Carbon Pollution Standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants, a final Clean Power Plan to cut carbon dioxide pollution from existing power plants, and a proposed federal plan to implement the Clean Power Plan emission guidelines. Upon publication of the Clean Power Plan on October 23, 2015, more than two dozen States as well as industry and labor groups challenged the Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result of this continued regulatory focus, future GHG regulations of the oil and gas industry remain a possibility.

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, almost one-half of the states have taken legal measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases primarily through the planned development of greenhouse gas emission inventories and/or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade programs. In addition, the Obama Administration has announced in its Climate Action Plan that it intends to adopt additional regulations to reduce emissions of GHGs in the coming years, possibly including further restrictions on emissions of methane from oil and natural gas facilities.

In December 2015, the United States joined the international community at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, France. The resulting Paris Agreement calls for the parties to undertake “ambitious efforts” to limit the average global temperature, and to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of GHGs. The Agreement, if ratified, establishes a framework for the parties to cooperate and report actions to reduce GHG emissions.

Restrictions on GHG emissions that may be imposed could adversely affect the oil and natural gas industry. Any GHG regulation could increase our costs of compliance by potentially delaying the receipt of permits and other regulatory approvals; requiring us to monitor emissions, install additional equipment or modify facilities to reduce GHG and other emissions; purchase emission credits; and utilize electric driven compression at facilities to obtain regulatory permits and approvals in a timely manner. While we are subject to certain federal GHG monitoring and reporting requirements, our operations are not adversely impacted by existing federal, state and local climate change initiatives and, at this time, it is not possible to accurately estimate how potential future laws or regulations addressing GHG emissions would impact our business.

In addition, claims have been made against certain energy companies alleging that GHG emissions from oil and natural gas operations constitute a public nuisance under federal and/or state common law. As a result, private individuals may seek to enforce environmental laws and regulations against us and could allege personal injury or property damages. While our business is not a party to this litigation, we could be named in actions making similar allegations. An unfavorable ruling in any such case could adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Finally, some scientists have concluded 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 and other climatic events; if any such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our development and production operations.

National Environmental Policy Act

Oil and natural gas exploration and production activities on federal lands are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies, including the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, to evaluate major agency actions having the potential to significantly impact the environment. In the course of such evaluations, an agency prepares an environmental assessment to evaluate the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed project. If impacts are considered significant, the agency will prepare a more detailed environmental impact study that is made available for public review and comment. All of our current development and production activities, as well as proposed development plans, on federal lands require governmental permits that are subject to the requirements of NEPA. This environmental impact assessment process has the potential to delay the development of oil and natural gas projects. Authorizations under NEPA also are subject to protest, appeal or litigation, which can delay or halt projects.

29

Endangered Species Act

The federal Endangered Species Act, or ESA, and analogous state statutes restrict activities that may adversely affect endangered and threatened species or their habitat. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The designation of previously unidentified endangered or threatened species in areas where we operate could cause us to incur additional costs or become subject to operating delays, restrictions or bans. Numerous species have been listed or proposed for protected status in areas in which we currently, or could in the future, undertake operations. For instance, the American burying beetle and the lesser prairie chicken both have habitat in some areas where we operate. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or FWS, identified the lesser prairie chicken, which inhabits portions of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, as candidate for listing in 1998 and has listed it as “threatened” in March 2014. However, the FWS also announced a final rule that will limit regulatory impacts on landowners and businesses from the listing if those landowners and businesses have entered into certain range-wide conservation planning agreements, such as those developed by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, pursuant to which such parties agreed to take steps to protect the lesser prairie chicken’s habitat and to pay a mitigation fee if its actions harm the lesser prairie chicken’s habitat. The threatened species status of the lesser prairie chicken is currently subject to at least three lawsuits. On September 1, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas overturned the listing of the lesser prairie chicken, holding that the FWS’s decision had been arbitrary and capricious and not consistent with its own policies. The FWS has requested that the Court amend its judgment to allow the agency to substantiate or reconsider its action. The presence of protected species in areas where we operate could impair our ability to timely complete or carry out those operations, lose leaseholds as we may not be permitted to timely commence drilling operations, cause us to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures, and, consequently, adversely affect our results of operations and financial position.

Occupational Safety and Health Act

We are also subject to the requirements of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition, OSHA’s hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the OSHA requirements.

Other Regulation of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry

The oil and natural gas industry is extensively regulated by numerous federal, state and local authorities. Legislation affecting the oil and natural gas industry is under constant review for amendment or expansion, frequently increasing the regulatory burden. Additionally, numerous departments and agencies, both federal and state, are authorized by statute to issue rules and regulations that are binding on the oil and natural gas industry and its individual members, some of which carry substantial penalties for failure to comply. Although the regulatory burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases our cost of doing business and, consequently, affects our profitability, these burdens generally do not affect us any differently or to any greater or lesser extent than they affect other companies in the oil and natural gas industry with similar types, quantities and locations of production.

Legislation continues to be introduced in Congress, and the development of regulations continues in the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies concerning the security of industrial facilities, including oil and natural gas facilities. Our operations may be subject to such laws and regulations. Presently, we do not believe that compliance with these laws will have a material adverse impact on us.

Drilling and Production

Our operations are subject to various types of regulation at federal, state and local levels. These types of regulation include requiring permits for the drilling of wells, drilling bonds and reports concerning operations. Most states, and some counties and municipalities, in which we operate also regulate one or more of the following:

30

State laws regulate the size and shape of drilling and spacing units or proration units governing the pooling of oil and natural gas properties. Some states allow forced pooling or integration of tracts to facilitate exploration, while other states rely on voluntary pooling of lands and leases. In some instances, forced pooling or unitization may be implemented by third parties and may reduce our interest in the unitized properties. In addition , state conservation laws establish maximum rates of production from oil and natural gas wells, generally prohibit the venting or flaring of natural gas and impose requirements regarding the ratability of production. These laws and regulations may limit th e amount of oil and natural gas we can produce from our wells or limit the number of wells or the locations at which we can drill. Moreover, each state generally imposes a production or severance tax with respect to the production and sale of oil, natural gas and NGLs within its jurisdiction.

Sale and Transportation of Gas and Oil

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or the FERC, approves the construction of interstate gas pipelines and the rates and service conditions for the interstate transportation of gas, oil and other liquids by pipeline. Although the FERC does not regulate the production of gas, the FERC exercises regulatory authority over wholesale sales of gas in interstate commerce through the issuance of blanket marketing certificates that authorize the wholesale sale of gas at market rates and the imposition of a code of conduct on blanket marketing certificate holders that regulate certain affiliate interactions. The FERC does not regulate the sale of oil or petroleum products or the construction of oil or other liquids pipelines. The FERC also has oversight of the performance of wholesale natural gas markets, including the authority to facilitate price transparency and to prevent market manipulation. In furtherance of this authority, the FERC imposed an annual reporting requirement on all industry participants, including otherwise non-jurisdictional entities, engaged in wholesale physical natural gas sales and purchases in excess of a minimum level. The agency’s actions are intended to foster increased competition within all phases of the gas industry. To date, the FERC’s pro-competition policies have not materially affected our business or operations. It is unclear what impact, if any, future rules or increased competition within the gas industry will have on our gas sales efforts.

The FERC and other federal agencies, the U.S. Congress or state legislative bodies and regulatory agencies may consider additional proposals or proceedings that might affect the gas or oil industries. We cannot predict when or if these proposals will become effective or any effect they may have on our operations. We do not believe, however, that any of these proposals will affect us any differently than other gas producers with which we compete.

The Beta properties include the San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company, which owns and operates an offshore crude pipeline. This pipeline is subject to regulation by the FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act, or ICA, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Tariff rates for liquids pipelines, which include both crude oil pipelines and refined products pipelines, must be just and reasonable and non-discriminatory. FERC regulations require that interstate oil pipeline transportation rates and terms of service be filed with the FERC and posted publicly. The FERC has established a formulaic methodology for petroleum pipelines to change their rates within prescribed ceiling levels that are tied to an inflation index. The FERC reviews the formula every five years. Effective July 1, 2011, the current index for the five-year period ending July 2016 is the producer price index for finished goods plus an adjustment factor of 2.65 percent. The San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company uses the indexing methodology to change its rates.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires that all pipelines operating on or across the OCS provide open access, non-discriminatory transportation service. BOEM/BSEE has established formal and informal complaint procedures for shippers that believe that have been denied open and nondiscriminatory access to transportation on the OCS.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, regulates all pipeline transportation in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, including pipeline facilities on the OCS. The San Pedro Bay pipeline is subject to regulation by PHMSA.

Anti-Market Manipulation Laws and Regulations

The FERC with respect to the purchase or sale of natural gas or the purchase or the purchase or sale of transmission or transportation services subject to FERC jurisdiction, the Federal Trade Commission with respect to petroleum and petroleum products, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with respect to commodity and futures markets, operating under various statutes have each adopted anti-market manipulation regulations, which prohibit, among other things, fraud and price manipulation in the respective markets. These agencies hold substantial enforcement authority, including the ability to assess substantial civil penalties, to order disgorgement of profits and to recommend criminal penalties. Should we violate the anti-market manipulation laws and regulations, we could also be subject to related third party damage claims by, among others, sellers, royalty owners and taxing authorities.

31

State Regulation

Various states regulate the drilling for, and the production, gathering and sale of, oil and natural gas, including imposing severance taxes and requirements for obtaining drilling permits. For example, the baseline Texas severance tax on oil and gas is 4.6% of the market value of oil produced and 7.5% of the market value of gas produced and saved. A number of exemptions from or reductions of the severance tax on oil and gas production is provided by the State of Texas which effectively lowers the cost of production. States also regulate the method of developing new fields, the spacing and operation of wells and the prevention of waste of natural gas resources. States may regulate rates of production and may establish maximum daily production allowables from natural gas wells based on market demand or resource conservation, or both. States do not regulate wellhead prices or engage in other similar direct economic regulation, but there can be no assurance that they will not do so in the future. The effect of these regulations may be to limit the amount of natural gas that may be produced from our wells and to limit the number of wells or locations we can drill.

The petroleum industry is also subject to compliance with various other federal, state and local regulations and laws. Some of those laws relate to resource conservation and equal employment opportunity. We do not believe that compliance with these laws will have a material adverse effect on us.

Employees

The directors and officers of our general partner manage our operations and activities. However, neither we, nor our subsidiaries, nor our general partner have employees. We and our general partner have entered into an omnibus agreement with Memorial Resource pursuant to which Memorial Resource performs services for us and our general partner, including the operation of our properties. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence — Related Party Agreements — Omnibus Agreement.”

As of December 31, 2015, Memorial Resource had 484 employees. None of these employees are represented by labor unions or covered by any collective bargaining agreement. We believe that Memorial Resource’s relations with its employees are satisfactory. Our general partner also contracts on our behalf for the services of independent consultants involved in land, engineering, regulatory, accounting, financial and other disciplines as needed.

Offices

Our principal executive office is located at 500 Dallas Street, Suite 1800, Houston, Texas 77002. Our main telephone number is (713) 588-8300.

Available Information

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 or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) are made available free of charge on our website at www.memorialpp.com as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports have been electronically filed with, or furnished to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These documents are also available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov or you may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.  Our website also includes our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the charter of our audit committee. The information contained on, or connected to, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K and should not be considered part of this or any other report that we file with or furnish to the SEC.

32