EQT: 10-K Risk Factor Changes

Our operations, projects and growth opportunities require us to have strong relationships with various key stakeholders, including our shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, local communities and others. However, opposition towards oil and natural gas drilling and pipeline construction generally has been growing globally. Failure to successfully manage expectations across these varied stakeholder interests could erode our stakeholder trust and thereby affect our reputation. Negative public perception regarding us and/or our industry may adversely affect our ability to successfully carry out our operations and business strategy. Such negative perception could, for example, adversely affect our access to and cost of capital and lead to increased litigation and regulatory, legislative and judicial scrutiny, which may, in turn, lead to new local, state and federal laws, regulations, guidelines and enforcement interpretations in safety, environmental, royalty and surface use areas. These actions may cause operational delays or restrictions, increased operating costs, additional regulatory burdens and increased risk of litigation. Moreover, governmental authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance and the public may engage in the permitting process, including through intervention in the courts. Negative public perception could cause the permits we need to conduct our operations to be withheld, delayed, challenged or burdened by requirements that restrict our ability to profitably conduct our business. In addition, anti-development activists are working to, among other things, reduce access to federal and state government lands and delay or cancel certain operations, such as drilling and pipeline construction. If activism against oil and natural gas exploration and development persists or increases, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, while we publish voluntary disclosures regarding ESG and sustainability matters from time to time, some of the statements in those voluntary disclosures may be based on hypothetical expectations and assumptions that may or may not be representative of current or actual risks or events or forecasts of expected risks or events, including the costs associated therewith. Such expectations and assumptions are necessarily uncertain and may be prone to error or subject to misinterpretation given the long timelines involved and the lack of an established single approach to identifying, measuring and reporting on many ESG and sustainability matters. In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG and sustainability matters. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Unfavorable ESG or sustainability ratings could lead to increased negative investor sentiment towards us and our industry and to the diversion of investment to other industries, which could have a negative impact on our stock price and our access to and cost of capital. In addition, failure or a perception (whether or not valid) of failure to implement our sustainability strategy or achieve sustainability goals and targets we have set, could damage our reputation, causing our investors or consumers to lose confidence in our company, and negatively impact our operations. Our continuing efforts to research, establish, accomplish and accurately report on the implementation of our sustainability strategy, including any climate or other sustainability goals, may also create additional operational risks and expenses and expose us to reputational, legal and other risks. For example, growing interest on the part of investors and regulators in ESG factors and increased demand for, and scrutiny of, ESG and sustainability-related disclosure by stakeholders has also increased the risk that companies could be perceived as, or accused of, making inaccurate or misleading statements regarding their ESG and sustainability-related claims, goals, targets, efforts or initiatives, often referred to as "greenwashing." Such perception or allegation could damage our reputation and result in litigation or regulatory actions. In addition, regulations requiring the disclosure of GHG emissions and other climate-related information or information substantiating climate-related claims are being adopted or proposed at the state level (e.g., although subject to ongoing legal challenges and certain requirements are currently enjoined, California has enacted legislation that will ultimately require certain companies that do business in California to disclose certain climate-related information, with third-party assurance of such data, and climate-related financial risks and related mitigation measures). If we become subject to such regulations, we may incur additional compliance and reporting costs, which may adversely affect our future business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. 50 50 50 Table of Contents Table of Contents

Our operations, projects and growth opportunities require us to have strong relationships with various key stakeholders, including our shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, local communities and others. However, opposition towards oil and natural gas drilling and pipeline construction generally has been growing globally and is particularly pronounced in the U.S. Failure to successfully manage expectations across these varied stakeholder interests could erode our stakeholder trust and thereby affect our reputation. Negative public perception regarding us and/or our industry may adversely affect our ability to successfully carry out our operations and business strategy. Such negative perception could, for example, adversely affect our access to and cost of capital and lead to increased litigation and regulatory, legislative and judicial scrutiny, which may, in turn, lead to new local, state and federal laws, regulations, guidelines and enforcement interpretations in safety, environmental, royalty and surface use areas. These actions may cause operational delays or restrictions, increased operating costs, additional regulatory burdens and increased risk of litigation. Moreover, governmental authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance and the public may engage in the permitting process, including through intervention in the courts. Negative public perception could cause the permits we need to conduct our operations to be withheld, delayed, challenged or burdened by requirements that restrict our ability to profitably conduct our business. In addition, anti-development activists are working to, among other things, reduce access to federal and state government lands and delay or cancel certain operations, such as drilling and pipeline construction. If activism against oil and natural gas exploration and development persists or increases, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. 48 48 48 Table of Contents Table of Contents Moreover, while we publish voluntary disclosures regarding ESG matters from time to time, some of the statements in those voluntary disclosures may be based on hypothetical expectations and assumptions that may or may not be representative of current or actual risks or events or forecasts of expected risks or events, including the costs associated therewith. Such expectations and assumptions are necessarily uncertain and may be prone to error or subject to misinterpretation given the long timelines involved and the lack of an established single approach to identifying, measuring and reporting on many ESG matters. In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Unfavorable ESG ratings could lead to increased negative investor sentiment towards us and our industry and to the diversion of investment to other industries, which could have a negative impact on our stock price and our access to and cost of capital. In addition, failure or a perception (whether or not valid) of failure to implement our ESG strategy or achieve sustainability goals and targets we have set, could damage our reputation, causing our investors or consumers to lose confidence in our company, and negatively impact our operations. Our continuing efforts to research, establish, accomplish and accurately report on the implementation of our ESG strategy, including any climate or other ESG goals, may also create additional operational risks and expenses and expose us to reputational, legal and other risks. For example, growing interest on the part of investors and regulators in ESG factors and increased demand for, and scrutiny of, ESG-related disclosure by stakeholders has also increased the risk that companies could be perceived as, or accused of, making inaccurate or misleading statements regarding their ESG-related claims, goals, targets, efforts or initiatives, often referred to as "greenwashing." Such perception or allegation could damage our reputation and result in litigation or regulatory actions. At the state level, California enacted legislation in October 2023 that will ultimately require certain companies that do business in California to publicly disclose their GHG emissions, with third-party assurance of such data, and issue public reports summarizing their climate-related financial risk and related mitigation measures, as well as legislation that requires companies operating in California to disclose information that supports certain climate-related claims. Compliance with these and any other federal, state or local disclosure requirements may cause us to incur additional (and potentially accelerate) compliance and reporting costs, certain of which could be material, including related to monitoring, collecting, analyzing and reporting new metrics and implementing systems and procuring additional necessary attestation. Such costs may adversely affect our future business, financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.