BETA OFFSHORE — Notice of Amendment

party submissionOfficial PDF52023041NOA_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_04212025_(22-232644).pdf#

52023041NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02042025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDate: February 4, 2025 From: Joseph St. Peter To: File Re: Continuance of Informal Hearing in CPF No.’s 5-2023-041-NOA & 5-2023-042-NOPV (Beta Offshore (Amplify Energy Corp.)) By electronic mail on January 29, 2025, Kathleen Maitland and Alexandra Iorio, Counsel for Western Region, and Brianne Kurdock, counsel for Amplify Energy Corp., submitted a status update indicating that the parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions and requested to postpone the current hearing date of February 20, 2025. The request is granted, and the informal hearing in this case will be held on Thursday May 8, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time at Western Region’s office in Lakewood, Colorado. Pre-hearing submissions under 49 CFR § 190.211(d) are due no later than April 28, 2025.#

52023041NOA_Closure Letter_04082026_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 340 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: martyn.willsher@amplifyenergy.com April 8, 2026 Mr. Martyn Willsher President and Chief Executive Officer Amplify Energy Corporation. 111 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1240 Long Beach, CA 90802 CPF No’s. 5-2023-041-NOA & 5-2023-042-NOPV Closure Letter Dear Mr. Willsher: On April 16, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Amplify Energy Corporation (Amplify) a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between PHMSA and Amplify in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Terms requirement for Amplify to take certain corrective actions. Per the terms of the Consent Agreement, the Consent Agreement would terminate once the Compliance Terms of Section V were deemed satisfied. After a review of the documents Amplify provided on July 15, 2025 and August 14, 2025, it has been determined that the Compliance Terms have been satisfied. Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is terminated, and this case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Dustin Hubbard Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#

52023041NOA_Closure Letter_04082026_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 2cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 J. Dunphy (#22-232644)#

52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF AMENDMENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Martyn.Willsher@amplifyenergy.com December 26, 2023 Mr. Martyn Willsher President and Chief Executive Officer Amplify Energy Corp. 111 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1240 Long Beach, CA 90802 CPF 5-2023-041-NOA Dear Mr. Willsher: From November 28 through December 2, 2022, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected Amplify Energy’s Beta Offshore procedures (Beta) and records for control room management in Long Beach, California. Based on the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Beta’s procedures and records, as described below: 1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. …#

52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 2Beta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, Pipeline Specific Operations and Maintenance Manual (PSOM), Section 19 - Control Room Management1 does not contain instructions for conducting and documenting the annual review. Therefore, Beta must amend its procedure to provide instructions for conducting and documenting the required procedure review once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months. 2. §195.446 Control room management. (a) . . . . (b) Roles and responsibilities. Each operator must define the roles and responsibilities of a controller during normal, abnormal, and emergency operating conditions. To provide for a controller's prompt and appropriate response to operating conditions, an operator must define each of the following: (1) A controller's authority and responsibility to make decisions and take actions during normal operations; … Beta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedures fail to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of controllers during normal operating conditions. Beta’s procedure BPS-005 -- Start Up Pipeline Beta Shipping Pipeline 3, fails to adequately define the roles and responsibilities of the on-shore Pipeline Technicians and the Elly Control Room Operators when making on-shore deliveries to the Crimson Pipeline. BPS-005 – Start-Up Pipeline Beta Shipping Pipeline 3 is unclear as to whether the Beta Pump Station or the Elly Control Room controls the delivery to Crimson Pipeline. Additionally, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management2, does not require controllers to stay at the console to verify all SCADA commands that have been initiated are fulfilled and that commands given via verbal communications are acknowledged before leaving the console for any reason. Therefore, Beta must amend its procedure to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the controllers during normal operating conditions as detailed above. 3. §195.446 Control room management. (a) . . . . (c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its controllers with the information, tools, processes, and procedures necessary for the controllers to 1 See page 32 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, under “Annual Review of the Fatigue Management Program to Achieve Continuous Improvement”. 2 See page 15-16 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, Section 304 - R&Rs Shift Change Information & Accountability.#

52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 3carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each of the following: (1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) whenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced, unless the operator demonstrates that certain provisions of API RP 1165 are not practical for the SCADA system used; … Beta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management Rev#20014-1, fails to clearly define the types of changes to the SCADA system that constitute additions, expansions, or replacements. PSOM Section 19 subsection 402 Pipeline SCADA/Control Panel Displays paraphrases §195.446(c)(1) and API RP 1165 without providing guidance on what changes would trigger the requirement to implement API RP 1165. Therefore, Beta must amend its procedures to clearly identify and define the types of changes to the SCADA system that constitute additions, expansions, or replacements under the meaning of the CRM rule. 4. §195.446 Control room management. (a) . . . . (c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its controllers with the information, tools, processes, and procedures necessary for the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each of the following: (1) . . . . (2) Conduct a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment when field equipment is added or moved and when other changes that affect pipeline safety are made to field equipment or SCADA displays; … Beta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management3, does not define the terms 'point' or 'safety-related point', and in Section 608 - Operations, Maintenance, Assessment, and Monitoring. Upon review of the procedure, it was observed that the term point is used in multiple and inconsistent ways. Additionally, the procedure does not provide a process for establishing points on the pipeline, – including the process for selecting initial setpoint values for points on the pipeline. Therefore, Beta must amend its procedures to define the terms ‘point’ and ‘safety-related point’ and clearly identify the process for establishing points on the pipeline including how setpoint values are selected for points on the pipeline. 5. §195.446 Control room management. (a) . . . . 3 See page 34-51 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, Section 600 – Alarm Management Plan.#

52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 4(d) Fatigue mitigation. Each operator must implement the following methods to reduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that could inhibit a controller's ability to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined: (1) Establish shift lengths and schedule rotations that provide controllers off-duty time sufficient to achieve eight hours of continuous sleep; … Beta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 -- Control Room Management4 does not address methods to mitigate travel fatigue associated with controllers commuting long distances for their first controller shift at the duty station. Commuting to Beta Offshore Platform Elly, located off the southern California coast, can include a one or two-hour boat ride from shore to the platform in addition to the time it takes the controller to commute from their home to the crew boat pier. However, Beta’s procedures for creating schedule rotations does not take into consideration commuting time between shifts as part of its fatigue risk mitigation measures. Therefore, Beta must amend its procedures to address operator-specific fatigue risk and provide fatigue mitigation measures for this risk to assure pipeline controllers are able to safely operate the pipeline. Response to this Notice This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document, you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised procedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or procedures are found inadequate, as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good 4 See page 22-33 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, Section 500 – Fatigue Management.#

52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 5cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed. It is requested (not mandated) that BETA maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2023-041-NOA, and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Dustin Hubbard Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 J. Dunphy (#22-232644) Dan Steward - Dan.Steward@amplifyenergy.com Rick Armstrong - Rick.Armstrong@amplifyenergy.com#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFApril 16, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: martyn.willsher@amplifyenergy.com Mr. Martyn Willsher President and Chief Executive Officer Amplify Energy Corp. 111 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1240 Long Beach, CA 90802 CPF Nos. 5-2023-041-NOA & 5-2023-042-NOPV Dear Mr. Willsher: Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Beta Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Beta Offshore, which was executed on March 26, 2025. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49 CFR § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure: Consent Order and Consent Agreement#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 2cc: Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Brianne Kurdock, Esq., Counsel for Respondent, Babst Calland, bkurdock@babstcalland.com.#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 In the Matter of ) Beta Offshore, ) CPF Nos. 5-2023-041-NOA & a subsidiary of Amplify Energy, Inc., ) 5-2023-042-NOPV Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT ORDER By letters dated December 26, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order and a Notice of Amendment (Notices) to Beta Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Beta Offshore (Beta or Respondent). In response to the Notices, Respondent requested hearings on all Items, contesting the underlying violations, the proposed compliance order, and the alleged inadequacies within the Notices. Beta also asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the allegations in the Notices. Respondent and PHMSA (The Parties) subsequently met to discuss the issues raised in the Responses. As a result of those discussions, as explained in more detail below, the Parties have agreed to a Consent Agreement by which makes findings of violation and inadequacy, includes modified compliance terms, and acknowledges the corrective actions the Respondent has taken to resolve several of the allegations. Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this Consent Order. Beta is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement pursuant to its terms. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.223, or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 4U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 In the Matter of ) Beta Offshore ) CPF No. 5-2023-041-NOA & a subsidiary of Amplify Energy Corp. ) CPF No. 5-2023-042-NOPV Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT AGREEMENT From November 28 through December 2, 2022, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Beta Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Beta Offshore (Beta or Respondent) control room in Long Beach, California. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letters dated December 26, 2023, a Notice of Amendment (NOA) and Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (NOPV), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205. In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.206, PHMSA alleged inadequacies in Beta’s procedures. In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, PHMSA alleged that Beta had committed three violations of 49 CFR Part 195 (Items 1, 2, and 4), and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The NOPV also included a warning item (Item 3) and advised the operator to correct the probable violation or face potential future enforcement action. On January 19, 2024, Beta responded to the NOA and NOPV (the Notices). Beta requested an informal conference, or alternatively, an administrative hearing. Thereafter, Respondent and PHMSA (collectively, the Parties) met on several occasions to discuss the allegations. Between September and December 2024, the Parties discussed amendments of the relevant procedures. As a result, the Parties have agreed to resolve this matter via consent order and agreement. This Agreement will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the environment. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. and 49 CFR Part 190, and upon consent and agreement, the Parties hereby agree as follows:#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 5I. General Provisions 1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to the Notices, Respondent and its referenced pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent Agreement (Agreement), Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s actions in these proceedings and that the Notices state claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. 2. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s representative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement constitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement. 3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to contest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except for the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth herein. Respondent agrees to withdraw its requests for an administrative hearing in these matters upon receipt of the Consent Order. 4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement. 5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notices. 6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's authority to bring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law. 7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline system referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 6transferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the transfer to the Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs. 8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations. Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits. 9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third party, not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement. 10. Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegations or conclusions in the Notices. Respondent agrees for purposes of this Agreement to accept the allegations in the NOA and NOPV as findings and to comply with the terms of this Agreement. 11. This Agreement does not constitute a finding of violation of any other federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of a violation of any law, rule, regulation, or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. Findings of Inadequacy - NOA 12. Item 1 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The NOA alleged Beta’s Pipeline Specific Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual), Section 19 – Control Management, did not contain instructions for conducting and documenting the annual review required by the pipeline safety regulations. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Without admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate and has developed revised procedures which have been submitted to PHMSA for review. The Director has accepted these revised procedures as adequate, and no further action is necessary. 13. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.446(b)(1): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures failed to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of controllers during normal operating conditions including when making onshore deliveries to the Crimson Pipeline. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Beta is currently in the process of amending the procedures. PHMSA commends Beta’s prompt efforts to strengthen its procedures to ensure pipeline safety. Without admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate. II.#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 714. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(1): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures failed to clearly define the types of changes to the SCADA system that constitute additions, expansion and replacements that would require implementation of API RP 1165. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Without admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate and has developed revised procedures which have been submitted to PHMSA for review. The Director has accepted these revised procedures as adequate, and no further action is necessary. 15. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(2): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures did not define the terms “point” and “safety-related point” and did not define a process for establishing points on a pipeline including how to select initial setpoint values for points on the pipeline. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Without admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate and has developed revised procedures which have been submitted to PHMSA for review. The Director has accepted these revised procedures as adequate, and no further action is necessary. 16. Item 5 - 49 CFR § 195.446(d)(1): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures did not address methods to mitigate travel fatigue associated with controllers commuting long distances for their first controller shift at the duty station. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Without admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate and has developed revised procedures which have been submitted to PHMSA for review. The Director has accepted these revised procedures as adequate, and no further action is necessary. III. Findings of Violation - NOPV 17. Item 1 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The NOPV alleged Beta failed to test and verify its internal communication plan as required. Specifically, the NOPV alleged that during inspection, Beta failed to provide records demonstrating that Beta had tested and verified its internal communications plan at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, as required by its O&M Manual for the calendar years of 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOPV. Without admission, Beta accepts PHMSA’s finding of violation of 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3). 18. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4): The NOPV alleged that Beta failed to test its backup SCADA systems as required. Specifically, the NOPV alleged that during the inspection, Beta could not provide records to demonstrate that Beta had tested its backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, for the calendar years of 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOPV. Beta is currently in the process of amending the procedures. PHMSA commends Beta’s prompt efforts to strengthen its procedures to ensure pipeline safety Without admission, Beta accepts PHMSA’s finding of violation of 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4). 19. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(4): The NOPV alleged Beta failed to conduct a review of the alarm management plan at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine the effectiveness of the plan, as required. Specifically, the#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 8NOPV alleged that during the inspection, Beta could not provide any documentation demonstrating a review of its alarm management plan. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOPV. Without admission, Beta accepts PHMSA’s finding of violation of 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(4). 20. Items 1, 2, and 4 will be considered by PHMSA as prior offenses in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent for the five (5) year period following the Effective Date of this Agreement. IV. Warning Item: 21. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(3): The NOPV alleged that Beta failed to verify the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions when associated field instruments are calibrated or changed and at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, as required. Specifically, the NOPV alleged that a review of Beta’s records during the inspection revealed that the 2019 and 2020 reviews of safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions exceeded the 15-month maximum review interval as the 2019 review was dated May 19, 2019, and the 2020 review was dated September 20, 2020. This Item was brought as a warning item and does not constitute a finding of violation. 22. For Warning Item 3, if OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. V. Compliance Terms: 23. Item 2 (NOA) – 49 CFR § 195.446(b)(1): As stated above, the NOA alleged Beta’s procedures failed to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of controllers during normal operating conditions including when making onshore deliveries to the Crimson Pipeline. Beta must amend its procedures to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the controllers during normal operating conditions including when making onshore deliveries on the Crimson Pipeline within 90 days of the Effective Date. 24. Item 1 (NOPV) - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The NOPV proposed certain compliance actions to address the allegations in the NOPV. Beta contested the proposed actions and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the proposal. Respondent developed a revised internal communication plan and submitted it to PHMSA for review. PHMSA finds these revisions acceptable. Beta must conduct the required testing and verification of the amended internal communications plan within 120 days of the Effective Date. 25. Item 2 (NOPV) - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4): The NOPV proposed certain compliance actions to address the allegations in the NOPV. Beta contested the proposed actions and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the proposal. Beta is currently in the process of amending its procedures to allow for the testing of Elly personnel who, in an emergency, can#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 9make deliveries to downstream pipelines. Beta will also amend its procedures to allow for the testing of the backup SCADA system including the testing of the backup servers that were not in existence at the time of the inspection. Beta must complete those amendments and submit the revised procedures along with records demonstrating that the procedures have been tested within 120 days of the Effective Date. 26. Item 4 (NOPV) - 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(4): The NOPV proposed certain compliance actions to address the allegations in the NOPV. Beta contested the proposed actions and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the proposal. Respondent developed a revised Alarm Management Plan procedures and submitted it to PHMSA for review. PHMSA finds these revisions acceptable. Beta must conduct a review of the amended Alarm Management Plan and submit records of that review within 120 days of the Effective Date. VI. Enforcement: 27. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $266,015 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral of the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with the determinations made by the Director, or in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator if resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution process herein. The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223. All time frames to complete the compliance terms referenced in Section V (Compliance Terms) are automatically incorporated into this Agreement and are enforceable in the same manner. VII. Review and Approval Process: 28. With respect to any submission under Section V (Compliance Terms) of this Agreement that requires the approval of the Director, the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the submission; (b) approve the submission on specified, reasonable conditions; (c) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission; or (d) any combination of the foregoing. If the Director approves, approves in part, or approves with conditions, Respondent will take all actions as approved by the Director, subject to Respondent’s right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures with respect to any conditions the Director identifies. If the Director disapproves all or any portion of the submission, the Director will provide Respondent a written notice of the deficiencies. Respondent will correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit it for approval. VIII. Dispute Resolution: 29. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement, including any decision of the Director under the terms of Section V#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 10(Compliance Terms). If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to the Director, Respondent may submit a written request for a determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Such request must be made in writing and provided to the Director, counsel for the Western Region, and to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, no later than 10 calendar days from the 15-day deadline for informal resolution referenced in this paragraph. Along with its request, Respondent must provide the Associate Administrator with all information Respondent believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate Administrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process. IX. Effective Date: 30. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order is issued by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA, incorporating the terms of this Agreement. X. Recordkeeping and Information Disclosure: 31. Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, Respondent agrees to maintain records demonstrating compliance with all requirements of this Agreement for a period of at least five (5) years following completion of all work to be performed. For any reports, plans, or other deliverables required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement, Respondent may assert a claim of business confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by PHMSA, covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7. Respondent must mark the claim of confidentiality in writing on each page and include a statement specifying the grounds for each claim of confidentially. PHMSA determines release of any information submitted pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7, the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders. XI. Modification: 32. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties. XII. Termination: 33. This Agreement will remain in effect until the Compliance Terms in Section V are deemed satisfied, as determined by the Director. The Agreement shall not terminate until the Director confirms, in writing, that the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this paragraph. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement.#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 11XIII. Ratification: 34. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party to this document. 35. The Parties hereby agree to all findings, conditions, and terms of this Agreement. [Signature Lines on Following Page]#

52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf, page 12For Beta Operating Company, LLC: Date For PHMSA: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Date#