Hello, welcome to the Sable Offshore Corp investor update call. All participants will be in listen only during the prepared remarks. We will go into a Q&A session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today. If you have any objections, please disconnect at this time. Harrison Breaux, you may begin. Good morning, everyone. My name is Harrison Breaux, and I'm the Vice President of Finance and Investor Relations for Sable Offshore Corp. It is my privilege to welcome you to this investor call this morning. At this time, I would like to introduce our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Jim Flores, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Gregory Patrinely, and Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Anthony Duenner, who are all with me on this call, along with various other members of the Sable team. On this call, we will provide updates to our investors on recent events pertaining to Sable Offshore and take questions from analysts and investors. Our sell-side analyst community is welcome to raise their hand in the webcast to ask live questions. Our investors are welcome to submit questions in writing during the webcast as well. Sable will not announce the names of the investors who submit questions in writing. We recommend that investors reference our most recent investor presentation posted to our corporate website on June 1st, 2026 during the call today. That presentation may also be referenced by management by page number throughout the call. Please reference the disclaimers page on page two and read them as well as the additional disclaimers throughout the presentation for your protection. I will now hand it over to Jim Flores to begin his prepared remarks. Jim? Thanks, Harrison. Good morning, everyone. We've been out talking to investors at an energy conference and throughout incoming phone calls and so forth. We've been going through our business, and we've had several updates to give everybody. Instead of trying to do it piecemeal, we're going to do it in this conference call. There's some confusion around our offtake strategy at SYU and Las Flores Canyon we want to clear up because we're producing at high rates out of Platform Harmony and Heritage. We've got Platform Hondo coming on. Operationally, fields performing spectacularly. We're not seeing any decline rates. We will see some at some point in time, but our engineering forecasts are proving way too conservative. We're very proud of that. When talking about value to the company and security, there's a lot of concern in the investment community about our offtake options. Obviously, our SIFS pipeline being federally authorized by the Department of Transportation and PHMSA, is proving to be our best route, we're continuing to use that in getting our oil down to Chevron's refinery at El Segundo. The aspect of that is based on the DPA, the Defense Production Act, that Trump administration authorized for the Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, to sign and keep that production going, it's working just fine. There's a concern if something happens in the DPA that what are our options? I want to reiterate that the DPA orders us to use the SIFS pipeline. That's the only authorization the DPA does. If the DPA falls away and the SIFS pipeline, for some reason, a bad legal ruling or something, is unavailable to us, then the OSNT permit is automatically activated. That was the deal Exxon, our previous operator, cut with the state, is that as long as the pipeline's available, the OSNT permit just sits there. If the pipeline is not available, the OSNT permit is immediately active. We have that in our back pocket. This is a $10 billion-$30 billion value oil field. We're going to produce every barrel we can out of this oil field, especially for many years and decades. Having that backup plan is real important to us. Again, that OSNT plan costs about $500 million. The OSNT plan is about hookup and logistics of a facility that process all the crude offshore instead of currently sending it into Las Flores Canyon, where it's processed onshore. By doing that, there's a lot of smaller FPSO OSNT vessels around the world that are constantly coming off production. They're used. They can be put in service with some minor modifications. We know that's a fast-track situation of 10 - 12 months as far as getting that done if it's required. Although it would be an interruption, it would not be a door slammed in our face with no opportunity for production. It does cost $500 million. In the interim, we also came up with our buoy marketing strategy, where we would have to lay a sales line from our Las Flores Canyon midstream processing facility offshore to our Platform Harmony, then eventually to a sales buoy that would be located south of Platform Harmony For offtake of tankers of processed crude. That crude will be processed just like it's being done today at Las Flores Canyon, basically water separated and so forth, and gas being diverted. We would use our existing onshore facility and go to the buoy. The key on that is that the acreage from the beach out three miles, the state waters would require a right of way permit, and we think that would be difficult to attain with our relationship with the state at this point in time. We think we can take advantage of a designation of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve back up at Pentland and Bakersfield, we have proposed that idea to the administration and DOE, I'll cover that a little later, that would give the ability for the federal government to give us rights of way across state lands and state recreational areas that would secure the pipelines for the buoy strategy that would allow us to prosecute that as well. The buoy strategy has tremendous marketing upside. When we've disclosed to all our investors, our differentials right now are about $17 a barrel to sell oil from our Las Flores Canyon down to El Segundo, and additional $3 of transportation for a $20 all-in cost structure. The maritime discount is more like $7-$8, so we could pick up possibly $10 or more per barrel. When you multiply that times 20-some odd million barrels of annual production, talking about $200 million in additional cash flow. And the buoy strategy would cost us about $125 million. It breaks down to have $75 million worth of pipeline, $25 million worth of umbilical and buoy, and then $25 million worth of pumps, compression, valves, and et cetera. With that's a very economic marketing angle that we could take advantage of with the advent of the SPR up at Pentland that would give us the opportunity to get our right of ways from the federal government versus having to get them from the State of California. Pipeline first, everything's working great. Everything's going fine on that. We're processing a lot of crude. We have great infrastructure at Las Flores Canyon, and the pipelines are in good shape. We have a lot of capacity to fill up there as well as one all the way back to Pentland. Getting back to Pentland, we're proposing a Strategic Petroleum Reserve in conjunction with DOE and meeting with the Trump Administration. What we're trying to do is provide ample inventories for all the existing refineries. It's not a secret in California, all the refineries have been under siege in California, and there's a lot of stress on the system because there's no Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The reserves all have to be kept on their books commercially. For their excess for the refineries puts extra cost burden on the California refineries, say, versus the Gulf Coast refineries, and so they become non-competitive. With the six SPRs locations in the Gulf Coast supporting the huge number of refineries in the Gulf Coast, we could at least have one in California that would help support the six refineries that are out there. All the producers in California, us included, need customers to sell our crude. Right now, there's severe stress in the San Joaquin Valley onshore producers because of pipeline capacity and offtake and obviously lack of customers. The SPR will go a long way toward alleviating that. There's 560,000 barrels of pipeline capacity and truck capacity coming into Pentland Station, and there's 560,000 barrels of offtake and pipeline capacity coming out of Pentland to the refineries. Right now, I think we're somewhere around 140,000 barrels a day of utilization. There's a tremendous amount of uplift there that's going to take some work of connecting some pipelines, need some right of ways, need some permits, and so forth. That's why the SPR designation, which would give the Secretary of Energy full condemnation rights to prosecute a plan of having oil from the production point getting through the pipeline infrastructure, getting to Pentland, and then the oil from Pentland getting through the pipeline infrastructure to the refinery and thus the customer. There's never been a comprehensive redo of the pipeline infrastructure back onshore at Pentland and delivery. This would give the opportunity for the industry to make it efficient and serve all customers, all the onshore producers, all the offshore producers, all the refineries, and make it much better on the California consumer and much more secure for the U.S. military. We're working very hard with that. We've gotten a great reception on all fronts. It's just a matter of getting everything done with as busy as everybody is up in D.C. We're looking forward to having a busy time period coming up here to try to get that over the line and work with all the stakeholders on that. I can't stress how positive that would be for the entire California energy system out there, from consumers to producers all the way across, and refineries as well. That takes care of it. Hope everybody saw the Erin Burnett show last night on CNN, where they documented our field trip with Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Chris Wright, and also Secretary Burgum, Doug Burgum of Interior. They came out to Las Flores Canyon and flew out to our SYU platform, Harmony. I thought the coverage was fairly fair there. Appreciate the CNN. On top of that, the next thing I want to update on is the court hearing on L.A. on Monday we just had in Judge Wilson's court. The transcripts are public, and they're out at www.cd.uscourts.gov/court-reporting-services/court-reporting-recorder/transcripts. They won't let me send it out, either way, you can look at it at www.cd.uscourts.gov/court, and you can figure it out from there to get it done. Please read those transcripts. They were very enlightening as far as some of the challenges, because we have two sets of litigation. We have the litigation where Sable is suing the Coastal Commission and Santa Barbara County for over $450 million of recovery. All the delays and all the roadblocks they put up when we're fully permitted, we're documented, Santa Barbara County acknowledges that, and so forth. We're operating on an existing coastal development plan that's valid. We're looking forward to prosecuting those cases against those two entities to the fullest of the recovery. There's the challenges of our federally administered asset pipeline that's under federal jurisdiction under Department of Transportation. PHMSA is being challenged by the state of California, where the pipeline is the definition of interstate pipeline. It goes from federal waters offshore onto California state. It's two parties. We've gotten all the approvals for that last year, prior to any kind of legislation that they tried to pass, as well as Chris Wright's DPA authorization and the aspect of DOT and PHMSA and then also the DPA are all being heard in Judge Wilson's court. We look forward to hopefully a resolution on that. It's the U.S. Justice Department defending us and the federal government against the state. We'll see where that goes. If for some reason, I'm sure, if whatever the hearing is, whatever the outcome is, it'll be quickly remanded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on an emergency basis. It'll move through the course pretty quickly either way, but that is in no way stopping our production at this point in time. In fact, Judge Wilson shot down two attempts to have a preliminary injunction on our production prior to the hearing on Monday, both with the Enviros and also with, who was it? The state? The state, Nancy Wright. Those two as well. We continue to roll along with the confusion out there. We wanted to make sure we had a chance to talk about what our plans forward are, but also what our solid footing is. Our refinancing efforts toward the Exxon note are going quite well, and JP Morgan's leading that effort. That's all I can say about that. You can talk to JP Morgan if you want any details on that. With that, I'll open it up for questions or any comments. Sure. We'll move to Q&A now. I think first we'll call on Charles Meade of Johnson Rice. Operator, if you could unmute his line, please. Thank you. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please click on the raise hand button, which can be found on the black bar at the bottom of your screen. When it is your turn, you'll receive a message on your screen from the host allowing you to talk, then you will hear your name called. Please accept, unmute your audio, and ask your question. Our first question will come from Charles Meade with Johnson Rice. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, Jim, and to your whole team there. Thanks for doing this call and providing this color. Sure. Can you hear me on that side? No. You said good morning and thanks for having the call, and then you're blank, Charles. Good to hear from you as well. I guess that was the important part, Jim. Let me ask. Thanks for laying out all this, the context on the SPR. One question, or this SPR strategy. The one question, how would you encourage us to think about the timeline for that to come to maturation? It really seems, once you identify that as a possibility, I think I, like a lot of other people, went back and looked at the EPCA, and it looks like it's a perfect match for what you guys are trying to do. I don't really have any sense for how long it might take you to mature that. Yeah. Great question. The DPA, which we had to go back and create the situation and validate it from the Department of War needs and the military readiness, preparedness, and the INDOPACOM requirements for making sure we got enough jet fuel in the South Pacific in case something kinetically happens, and so forth, all that justification. Going through the justice lawyers, the White House lawyers, and the DOE lawyers, that took about 9-10 weeks for the DPA. Okay? In this case, with the Strategic Petroleum Act of 1975, it's adjudicated law. Just following that law and applying it to California, it should take a lot less time, but this is still, we're in weeks and a month or two. Hopefully, we can have this resolved this summer. That would be the expectation. That we would immediately go into the work of the condemnation and granting, getting all the pipelines hooked up this year. Basically what the condemnation would do is we condemn a track like the Gaviota State Park, the appraisal on that was under $700,000. You would pay California $700,000, and the federal government would grant us perpetual lease for the same price. We pay $700,000 for it. Once condemnation is filed, it's condemned, we're just arguing about the price, and we've already done the appraisal on that stuff. We're not talking about a bunch of money. Around Pentland itself, it would be immediately connecting pipelines to tanks and making sure we have the most efficient system, and you could grow it to whatever you want. Right now, there's about 370,000 barrels of storage at Pentland. You can grow it to 30 or 300 million barrels if you needed all the surface. That's all to come. The first is the designation of the SPR condemnation, get everything done, and you would go to Congress for appropriations to actually construct additional tanks, and you'd obviously have to go to Congress just like you do in the existing SPR for fill to make sure you can purchase oil. It'd be an appropriations deal going forward. The initial impact to de-bottlenecking Pentland and the Bakersfield pipeline system for all producers onshore and offshore would be very quick, be this year. Got it. That is great additional detail. Jim, earlier this week, maybe it was yesterday, there was a news report that the California Coastal Commission had sent you guys another letter saying that you're moving towards holding Sable in contempt. Is this the sort of thing that would get rolled into the existing cases, or could this be some kind of new line of objection? No, it's exactly right. It's just a love note from Coastal Commission. It's all it is. It's rolled into our case. Which case is right here? Sable has sued the State of California, Pacific Pipeline Company versus the State of California. It's in federal court, United States District Court for the Central District of California. It's number seven on that list. Yeah. It's challenging the State's passage of It's called Senate Bill 237. We sued back in 2026. I'm sorry, back in 2025. Basically, the California Coastal Commission just sent us that letter. We don't have to reply to it because it's caught on this lawsuit, they're just trying to prosecute their administrative judgment. We're looking forward to taking depositions of the entire California Coastal Commission once we get in federal court and get through this, because remember, we're suing them for $350 million of damages. This is just their harassment back to us based on the reaction to that lawsuit, but it has no effect on operations. Got it. They may subsequently try to levy fines and stuff administratively, but it's not going to be anything we're going to be concerned with. Got it. I'll hop back to the queue. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question will come from Emma Schwartz with Jefferies. You can now unmute your line and ask your question. Hey, Jim and team. Thanks for taking my question, good to see you, Jim and Caldwell, earlier this week. Sure. What I wanted to ask a little bit about is the dynamic on the differential side. Could you talk about the relationship with the refineries and how that's impacting differentials across the board in California, where you see that going, is there any changes that we should be expecting there? Yeah. It's a great question, Emma, because I've had a long history in California and so forth, when all the Alaskan crude was coming into the West Coast and pounding it, differentials were even much wider than they are today. What happens is when you lose a couple refineries, like the Wilmington Phillips 66 refinery shut down, Valero shut down their Benicia refinery, that crude supply has to find a home with the remaining refineries. The benefit goes to those refiners and therefore to reallocate that crude, it's going to take some money and logistics moving around and also some testing and so forth. The difference has widened. That's the market working right there. I think when we de-bottleneck the mystery system with Pentland and the SPR and getting more of a stable platform where we might be able to reactivate those two refineries. We have a lot of entrepreneurs out there trying to figure something out on those. They're two fantastic plants, but you have to have a lot of cooperation from the federal government in the form of the SPR and also maybe working with the state to get it done. Having more refineries and more demand will bring those differentials in. That's why our buoy strategy is so exciting. We'll be able to market our crude around the world theoretically. Once you have that outlet, then even local refiners have to respect that to buy our crude. We have a strategy to bring those differentials in as long as we're going to be out there. We're thinking really long-term to make sure that we're in good shape. Again, I think the best opportunity for the onshore producers is the SPR de-bottlenecking, get more crude moving out of the basin into the market, so we can all level out. It's going to be a year or two getting this figured out, I think. We'll see what happens. Got you. That makes a lot of sense. It's just a second question. It's really good to see the transcript from Judge Wilson from the hearing earlier in the week. Could you walk me through the timeline for that case and where you think that one's going and on the DPA side, on the legal side related to that, where is that heading there? They're all in Judge Wilson's court, and the Justice Department did a phenomenal job defending the United States and also Sable, as well as our lawyers. I think all our lawyers are all ex Justice as well. It was quite a show of power, and it was very straightforward. The wonderful thing about federal court is you have to follow the law. We found a state court in California, there's a lot of interpretation on what the law meant and things like that, there's a lot of bending with political. They're all elected, and they're local, and so forth. We've been real pleased with the shakes in the federal side, and we're looking forward to continue to clear it up. I think we'll look around a year from now and go, "Wow, that was an interesting time." It's all about federal supremacy law and making sure that a federally operated pipeline under federal jurisdiction have federal laws applied to it. We're going to continue to press that mantle forward, I think it's going to eventually be the one. The timing, federal judges, weeks, months, on a ruling, then I'm sure there'll be appeals, everything will be done on an ex-parte basis. We're pretty happy about spring of next year, having a lot of the stuff behind us. The ones we're excited about is the ones where we're suing the Coastal Commission in Santa Barbara County to make sure we can prosecute those to get that money back for our shareholders. Sounds good. Thank you so much for taking my questions. Hey, thanks for the KeyBanc conference. That was spectacular. Thank you. Our next question will come from Michael Ferro with Pickering Energy Partners. Please unmute your line and go ahead. Hey, good morning. Thanks for doing this call and for taking our questions. Just one from me on the refi. I recognize you may be limited on what you can share at this time, but obviously it's topical given the quickly approaching maturity timeline. Jim, I agree with your comments that the transcript offered some potentially positive developments on some of Monday's court hearings. I'm not asking you to provide a legal opinion, but it does seem like an underwriter's risk tolerance could be impacted by the outcome of these cases. From what we can transcribe from the transcript, it seems like the next hearing may not be until June 25th, which really doesn't give enough time to have incremental information be considered for the underwriting process. We know that Exxon's worked with the company in the past. If you could, I'd be curious to hear around the options that the company has at its disposal, specifically to the June 26 maturity date. Well, let's be clear. Exxon's been our biggest sponsor. Obviously, we've worked hand in hand with them. They granted us an extension in the Q4 last year till March 27th. With the accelerator being we have to pay them off after 90 days of sales and so forth, which we fully intend to do that. We couldn't have a better or more respectful relationship with Exxon. Appreciate everything they've done for our company. I'll turn it over to Gregory for the financial aspects of it. Yeah, Michael, thanks for the question. Look, as we discussed on our call last Monday, we are very much focused on debt capital markets solutions to handle all of our obligations, including the upcoming maturity on June 26th. We're making great progress on that front. Those efforts are led by JP Morgan, as Jim mentioned. As always the optimization of our balance sheet and the lowering of our cost of capital, that's going to be a focus, and that will remain a focus going forward. I think we've made a lot of progress on that front. Just for another fine point, Michael, we're not at full power in the fields. We don't have Platform Hondo on. That'd be a full blast by September 1. We're ramping up. We initially looked for a kind of a bridge loan situation. That's what this next finance hopefully will look like, some kind of bridge-like terms. Then we'll get on to possibly financing the balance sheet in a real advantageous showing reserves sometime next year. We're excited about our process and see what happens. All right. That's great details. Thank you for your time. Sure. Thank you. Our next question will come from Noel Parks with Tuohy Brothers Investment Research. You may now unmute your line and ask your question. Hey, good morning. Not being super familiar with the sort of legacy SPR operations in the country, I just wondered, would there be contractual terms of how the new SPR capacity that you're looking at, how that storage would be filled, or is it essentially discretionary at sort of the administrator's prerogative? Also, if you have any insight on pricing, I'd be curious about that as well. Yeah. No, the facility will be owned by the Department of Energy. It'll be authorized by the Department of Energy and paid for by the Department of Energy, all through Congress appropriations. They do have contractors for like a one percent fee that operate the six facilities in the Gulf Coast now. It's all deemed basically on funding available and how they want to fill it and what pricing. Since it won't be a refinery dip, it'll be attracting barrels. It'll be pretty tight pricing going forward. You're probably three years from now filling that by the time you get it appropriated and built, where you actually be able to put real I'm talking about new tanks and stuff like that. The existing tanks, we can work with them on. We can fill that sooner rather than later. I don't think it's going to be a big impact to the pricing market. The biggest thing it's going to do is by de-bottlenecking all the pipelines and coordinating. We've had this tremendous California oil industry for 100 years out here. There's kind of pipes going everywhere, but any one person or any one company had control of everything to make it all connect and make it all efficient. This would have the effect of having one group over it, and connecting all the pipes and the tanks for the common good and efficiency of market. It's going to help a lot as far as being able to get California-based crude oil to the refinery market. The refineries know that's out there, so you could restart Wilmington, you could restart Benicia based on the size of the SPR, knowing that you had a crude oil supply that didn't have to be integrated. The pluses there are all on the side toward the refiners from a standpoint of the marketing. The big impact to the producers is going to be the ability to get their crude to market versus trucking and that type of thing. Great, thanks. With the buoy option, I'm just wondering, given the, I guess, greater variety of off-take options you'd have from there, would there be any effect on your ability to hedge production if you were relying on the buoy option, either just in terms of the physical logistics on the physical side or just the financial coverage? No, there wouldn't be, because we'd be selling right there at the buoy. There's two buoys out offshore California now. There's one at Long Beach and one at El Segundo. I think they have a spread of three off-takes per buoy, and so forth. We'd hedge just like we would. The buoy would be a point of sale, just like our valve at Pendleton is a point of sale. We'd be hedging. Same thing. We'd have a better look at the world market or differentials versus the captured in-state market of California. We'd be picking up that differential uplift, but it operates to be the same, right, Greg? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Great. Thanks a lot. Sure. Thank you. This completes the allotted time for questions. I will now turn the call back over to Jim Flores for any closing remarks. Yeah. Thank you, operator. Thank you all. We thought it was important to get our plans. They're very definitive out in the market and continue to press forward, and we're looking forward to having a great year of Sable. Thanks so much. Bye. Thank you for joining the Sable Offshore Corp Investor update call. You may now disconnect.