Permian Basin (PBT) Risk Analysis

Any operator developing any of the Underlying Properties may at any time transfer all or part of its interest in the Underlying Properties to another party. Neither the Trust nor the Unit holders are entitled to vote on any transfer of the properties underlying the Royalties, and the Trust will not receive any proceeds of any such transfer. Following any transfer, the transferred property will continue to be subject to the Royalties, but the net proceeds from the transferred property will be calculated separately and paid by the transferee. The transferee will be responsible for all of the transferor's obligations relating to calculating, reporting and paying to the Trust the Royalties from the transferred property, and the transferor will have no continuing obligation to the Trust for that property.

Under the terms of a typical operating agreement relating to oil and gas properties, the operator owes a duty to working interest owners to conduct its operations on the properties in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with its best judgment of what a prudent operator would do under the same or similar circumstances. Blackbeard is currently the operator of record of the Waddell Ranch overriding royalty interests and in such capacity owes the Trust a contractual duty under the conveyance agreement for that overriding royalty interest to operate the Waddell Ranch properties in good faith and in accordance with a prudent operator standard. The operators of the properties burdened by the Texas Royalty properties' overriding royalty interests, however, have no contractual or fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the Trust or the Unit holders other than indirectly through its duty of prudent operations to the unaffiliated owners of the working interests in those properties. In addition, even if an operator, including Blackbeard in the current case of the Waddell Ranch properties (as defined herein), concludes that a particular development operation is prudent on a property, it may be unable to undertake such activity unless it is approved by the requisite approval of the working interest owners of such properties (typically the owners of at least a majority of the working interests). Even if the Trust concludes that such activities in respect of any of its overriding royalty interests would be in its best interests, it has no right to cause those activities to be undertaken.

Neither the Trustee nor the Unit holders can influence or control the operations on, or future development of, the Underlying Properties. The failure of an operator to conduct its operations, discharge its obligations, deal with regulatory agencies or comply with laws, rules and regulations, including environmental laws and regulations, in a proper manner could have an adverse effect on the net proceeds payable to the Trust. The current operators developing the Underlying Properties are under no obligation to continue operations on the Underlying Properties. Neither the Trustee nor the Unit holders have the right to replace an operator.

The public trading price for the Units tends to be tied to the recent and expected levels of cash distribution on the Units. The amounts available for distribution by the Trust vary in response to numerous factors outside the control of the Trust, including prevailing prices for crude oil and natural gas produced from the Royalties. The market price is not necessarily indicative of the value that the Trust would realize if it sold those Royalties to a third-party buyer. In addition, such market price is not necessarily reflective of the fact that since the assets of the Trust are depleting assets, a portion of each cash distribution paid on the Units should be considered by investors as a return of capital, with the remainder being considered as a return on investment. There is no guarantee that distributions made to a Unit holder over the life of these depleting assets will equal or exceed the purchase price paid by the Unit holder.

The voting rights of a Unit holder are more limited than those of stockholders of most public corporations. For example, there is no requirement for annual meetings of Unit holders or for an annual or other periodic re-election of the Trustee. The Trust indenture and related trust law permit the Trustee and the Trust to sue Blackbeard, Riverhill Energy Corporation or any other future operators developing the Underlying Properties to compel them to fulfill the terms of the conveyance of the Royalties. If the Trustee does not take appropriate action to enforce provisions of the conveyance, the recourse of the Unit holders would likely be limited to bringing a lawsuit against the Trustee to compel the Trustee to take specified actions. Unit holders probably would not be able to sue Blackbeard, Riverhill Energy Corporation or any other future operators developing the Underlying Properties.

The Unit holders are not protected from the liabilities of the Trust to the same extent that a shareholder would be protected from a corporation's liabilities. The structure of the Trust does not include the interposition of a limited liability entity such as a corporation or limited partnership which would provide further limited liability protection to Unit holders. While the Trustee is liable for any excess liabilities incurred if the Trustee fails to insure that such liabilities are to be satisfied only out of Trust assets, under the laws of Texas, which are unsettled on this point, a holder of Units may be jointly and severally liable for any liability of the Trust if the satisfaction of such liability was not contractually limited to the assets of the Trust and the assets of the Trust and the Trustee are not adequate to satisfy such liability. As a result, Unit holders may be exposed to personal liability.

The voting rights of a Unit holder are more limited than those of stockholders of most public corporations. For example, there is no requirement for annual meetings of Unit holders or for an annual or other periodic re-election of the Trustee. The Trust indenture and related trust law permit the Trustee and the Trust to sue Blackbeard, Riverhill Energy Corporation or any other future operators developing the Underlying Properties to compel them to fulfill the terms of the conveyance of the Royalties. If the Trustee does not take appropriate action to enforce provisions of the conveyance, the recourse of the Unit holders would likely be limited to bringing a lawsuit against the Trustee to compel the Trustee to take specified actions. Unit holders probably would not be able to sue Blackbeard, Riverhill Energy Corporation or any other future operators developing the Underlying Properties.

Any operator developing any of the Underlying Properties may at any time transfer all or part of its interest in the Underlying Properties to another party. Neither the Trust nor the Unit holders are entitled to vote on any transfer of the properties underlying the Royalties, and the Trust will not receive any proceeds of any such transfer. Following any transfer, the transferred property will continue to be subject to the Royalties, but the net proceeds from the transferred property will be calculated separately and paid by the transferee. The transferee will be responsible for all of the transferor's obligations relating to calculating, reporting and paying to the Trust the Royalties from the transferred property, and the transferor will have no continuing obligation to the Trust for that property.

Under the terms of a typical operating agreement relating to oil and gas properties, the operator owes a duty to working interest owners to conduct its operations on the properties in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with its best judgment of what a prudent operator would do under the same or similar circumstances. Blackbeard is currently the operator of record of the Waddell Ranch overriding royalty interests and in such capacity owes the Trust a contractual duty under the conveyance agreement for that overriding royalty interest to operate the Waddell Ranch properties in good faith and in accordance with a prudent operator standard. The operators of the properties burdened by the Texas Royalty properties' overriding royalty interests, however, have no contractual or fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the Trust or the Unit holders other than indirectly through its duty of prudent operations to the unaffiliated owners of the working interests in those properties. In addition, even if an operator, including Blackbeard in the current case of the Waddell Ranch properties (as defined herein), concludes that a particular development operation is prudent on a property, it may be unable to undertake such activity unless it is approved by the requisite approval of the working interest owners of such properties (typically the owners of at least a majority of the working interests). Even if the Trust concludes that such activities in respect of any of its overriding royalty interests would be in its best interests, it has no right to cause those activities to be undertaken.

Neither the Trustee nor the Unit holders can influence or control the operations on, or future development of, the Underlying Properties. The failure of an operator to conduct its operations, discharge its obligations, deal with regulatory agencies or comply with laws, rules and regulations, including environmental laws and regulations, in a proper manner could have an adverse effect on the net proceeds payable to the Trust. The current operators developing the Underlying Properties are under no obligation to continue operations on the Underlying Properties. Neither the Trustee nor the Unit holders have the right to replace an operator.

The public trading price for the Units tends to be tied to the recent and expected levels of cash distribution on the Units. The amounts available for distribution by the Trust vary in response to numerous factors outside the control of the Trust, including prevailing prices for crude oil and natural gas produced from the Royalties. The market price is not necessarily indicative of the value that the Trust would realize if it sold those Royalties to a third-party buyer. In addition, such market price is not necessarily reflective of the fact that since the assets of the Trust are depleting assets, a portion of each cash distribution paid on the Units should be considered by investors as a return of capital, with the remainder being considered as a return on investment. There is no guarantee that distributions made to a Unit holder over the life of these depleting assets will equal or exceed the purchase price paid by the Unit holder.

SoftVest, L.P., a Unit holder of the Trust, has a petition pending in District Court in Tarrant County, Texas, seeking to judicially modify the Trust indenture to eliminate certain supermajority voting requirements and prohibited amendments to the indenture. If SoftVest, L.P.'s petition is successful, the effect of such modification would be that any provision of the indenture could be amended by a majority in interest of Unit holders constituting a quorum at a meeting of Unit holders where a quorum is present. While providing greater flexibility to make changes that a majority of Units represented at a meeting are in support of, such a modification could have the result of permitting changes to be made to the Trust that holders of a majority of all outstanding Units are not actually in favor of. SoftVest has stated in documents filed with the SEC that if the judicial modification is successful, it believes the Trust should be converted into a publicly traded corporation or limited liability company to be effected by means of (a) the transfer of the Trust's assets to a newly-formed corporation or limited liability company ("Newco"), (b) the subsequent distribution of Newco's equity interests to Unit holders and (c) the termination of the Trust. SoftVest has stated that the proposed conversion would terminate the Trust's status as a fixed investment trust that is taxed as a grantor trust for federal income tax purposes, and that Newco would be subject to tax at the entity level if it is a corporation (unlike a grantor trust that is not subject to tax at the Trust level). SoftVest also noted that Newco could be a limited liability company treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, which would not be subject to tax at the entity level. Any modifications to the Trust's classification for federal (and applicable state and local) income tax purposes would result in additional costs incurred by the Trust to implement and maintain new reporting procedures, which could result in reduced distributions to Unit holders. Additionally, other changes could be made to the Trust indenture that currently require a supermajority vote, or are prohibited, including ceasing distributions, distributing the Royalties in kind, altering the rights of Unit holders vis-à-vis each other, changing the purpose of the Trust, selling the assets of the Trust, or terminating the Trust. Any or all of these changes may not be acceptable to all Unit holders.