The questions investors actually ask, answered in full.

Has USCIS approved this project?

Yes. Form I-956F was approved on September 3, 2024, through the regional center Mid-America Rural Development Inc., RC2200001268. The approved filing covers up to 72 wells and 150 EB-5 investors.

Approval means USCIS reviewed and accepted the business plan, the investment structure, the job-creation methodology and the economic analysis, the rural TEA status, and compliance with the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022.

It does not mean USCIS has approved any individual investor. It is not a determination about any petitioner, it is not verification of anyone's source of funds, and it is not an endorsement of the offering by the United States government. Each I-526E petition is decided on the petitioner's own facts. The approval notice is published at eb5energy.com/approval.

Have any investors on this project had petitions approved?

Yes. Two I-526E petitions on this project have been approved — on July 7, 2025 and August 1, 2025. No petition on this project has been denied. Both approval notices are published in redacted form at eb5energy.com/approval, alongside the I-956F notice, so you can read them rather than take our word for it.

The distinction matters. A project approval is a document about the project. An approved petition is USCIS having examined an investor's own facts against this project and said yes.

Is this a rural project, and what does rural actually change?

Yes — the wells are in qualifying rural counties in Oklahoma, documented in the business plan, and capital is committed only to wells in confirmed rural areas.

Rural status does two separate things, and they are routinely described as one:

• The visa set-aside. 20% of EB-5 visas each year are reserved for rural investors. This is a supply mechanism — it governs whether a visa number is available when the petition is approved. It matters most to investors from heavily oversubscribed countries.
• Priority processing. The law requires petitions for rural investments to receive priority. This is a queue mechanism — it governs the order in which USCIS takes the petition up. It is not a service-level commitment and carries no processing-time guarantee.

Rural status also sets the minimum investment at $800,000 rather than $1,050,000.

What rural does not change: the capital must still be at risk, the jobs must still be created and evidenced, and source of funds must still be traced and documented to the same standard as any other petition.

How long does a rural petition take to be adjudicated?

Nobody can tell you that, and we will not predict it. What we can do is show you an immigration attorney with no relationship to EB5 Energy answering the question on the record.

Michael Harris of Harris Law, recorded September 1, 2026, describing his own firm's case experience: “We've seen it in a few months, for a rural investment, to maybe eight months at the longest. A high unemployment area has taken maybe twice as long as that, if not more in some cases, to be adjudicated. It really varies though.”

He declines to endorse the thirty-day approvals being reported, because his firm has not seen them, and he notes that filing volume is heavy and times may lengthen. Those hedges are his, and they are why the clip is worth showing. He was asked about EB-5 process only; he has not reviewed this offering and is not commenting on it.

The full clip and transcript are at eb5energy.com/attorney.

What happens if my I-526E petition is denied?

On a written request to withdraw following a denial, the company prioritizes repayment to that investor ahead of the other EB-5 investors in the fund.

Understand that as a place in a queue rather than as a refund right. It establishes an order of priority. It does not make repayment immediate and it does not make it unconditional — the capital is deployed in wells, and the money to return it comes from the same production cash flow that repays everyone else. The mechanics, the definition of a qualifying denial and the withdrawal procedure are in the offering documents.

No petition on this project has been denied to date. That is a short record and is presented as one.

What is the two-year sustainment period, and does it delay repayment?

EB-5 requires the investment to remain at risk in the job-creating enterprise for at least two years. That period runs concurrently within the repayment timeline rather than extending past it — the capital is deployed into drilling and completion, and the two-year clock runs while the wells produce.

This is one of the practical differences between a production-funded offering and a construction loan, where sustainment and the loan term often have to be managed against each other.

What is the September 30, 2026 date, and does it still matter?

Filing on or before September 30, 2026 keeps a petition eligible for continued adjudication if the Regional Center Program is not reauthorized after September 30, 2027. It is a grandfathering provision. It is not a guarantee that a petition will be approved, and it is unrelated to the investment amount.

It is not a deadline to invest. Investors can and do file after it. What they give up is that continued-adjudication protection in the event of a lapse.

Does this investment guarantee a green card?

No, and no EB-5 investment can. The investment qualifies for the EB-5 program; the petition is decided by USCIS on the investor's own facts — source of funds, admissibility, and whether the required jobs are created and evidenced. What a project can do is remove the project-level uncertainty, which is what the I-956F approval and the two approved I-526E petitions do here.

What is the minimum investment, and is it changing?

$800,000 for a petition filed on or before December 31, 2026.

The rural minimum is scheduled to adjust for inflation on January 1, 2027. Projections put the adjusted figure near $937,500 — roughly $137,500 more, out of the investor's own funds. $937,500 is a projection. USCIS has not published the adjusted amount.

This, rather than September 30, is the date that changes what an investor pays.

What am I actually investing in?

An equity investment into EB5 Energy Fund I LP, the new commercial enterprise. The NCE invests in EB5 Energy Holdings LLC, the job-creating enterprise, which drills and operates the wells.

Investors hold limited partnership interests in the NCE. That is an indirect ownership interest in the project's assets — a claim on them, not control of them. Investors do not lend their capital to a third-party developer, which is how most EB-5 offerings are structured.

When can investors expect to be repaid?

The fund targets return of investor capital within 36 months, from oil and gas production cash flow rather than from a future refinance or asset sale.

The target is set against the earliest investor classes; later classes are repaid after them and should expect a longer period.

Repayment is a target, not a commitment. It depends on production performance, operating results and commodity prices. EB-5 capital must remain genuinely at risk, and capital that is contractually guaranteed to come back is not at risk.

How do the investor classes work, and who gets repaid first?

Investors are grouped in tens, in the order their I-526E petitions are filed. The first ten form Class A, the next ten Class B, and so on. Earlier classes are repaid before later classes.

A class is assigned when the investment funds are wired — not when an enquiry is made, documents are requested or a place is reserved. Which class is open at any given moment changes, so it is confirmed on a call rather than published here.

The provision worth reading twice: no profits are distributed to management or to the operators until every class has had its capital returned.

What ranks ahead of my capital?

There is currently no senior project debt ahead of the EB-5 investors.

What does rank ahead is the ordinary cost of producing oil and gas. The Fund owns its interest in the operating company, which holds the oil and gas interests and receives the production economics — and those economics are what is left after:

• operating expenses
• production and severance taxes
• royalties and other burdens attached to the mineral interests
• applicable operating and Fund expenses

This is what being an equity holder means in practice, and it is the honest answer to the question. Profits are what remains after the wells have been paid for, not before.

On the other side of the ledger: the operator and management do not participate in the post-repayment profit-sharing waterfall until EB-5 investor capital has been returned, as provided in the Fund documents.

Is my investment held in escrow, and when is it released?

Subscription funds are held under the escrow arrangements set out in the subscription documents, and released to the project on the conditions those documents specify. Escrow protection ends on release, which is the point worth understanding before wiring — from that point the capital is deployed into wells and is at risk, which is what EB-5 requires it to be.

We provide the current escrow reports and the record of expenditure against budget on request, along with the annual and quarterly financial statements. Ask and they are sent.

What do investors receive while capital is outstanding, and after it is repaid?

One entitlement, paid in two phases. While investor capital is outstanding, the operating company pays the NCE a 9% annual dividend; after NCE operating costs, the remainder is split evenly between the managing partner and the EB-5 investors — currently estimated at about 2.25% a year on the $800,000 investment.

Once all investor capital has been repaid, the same even split applies to profits, giving EB-5 investors collectively 35%. The dividend is the first phase of that share, not an addition to it.

The profit split across all parties is 35% to EB-5 investors, 35% to the managing partner and 30% to the operators. Three figures totalling 100%; there is no fourth layer. Full mechanics are in the operating agreement.

How does this compare to a real estate loan EB-5 project?

The difference that matters is where the money to repay is expected to come from.

In a construction-backed EB-5 loan, repayment usually waits on a sequence: the project has to be completed, then leased or sold, then refinanced, and the EB-5 loan sits behind senior debt in that refinance. In this structure, wells are drilled, they produce, and the revenue from what they sell is the source of repayment. Cash flow begins in weeks rather than after a completion-and-refinance cycle.

This is not a claim that equity is a safer position than debt. It is not — equity is junior to debt, and in this structure investors carry commodity price and production risk that a lender does not. It is a claim about what has to go right, and about how many separate things have to go right.

What are the major risks?

The two that dominate are commodity price and geology.

Oil prices move in both directions and are outside anyone's control here. The economic model filed with USCIS assumes $72 per barrel. Job creation and repayment timing both move with realized prices.

Geological risk is what a dry or underperforming well represents. It is reduced, not removed, by drilling on acreage with a documented production history into a formation that has produced across the county for decades — but reduced is the correct word.

Beyond those: operating and execution risk, the risk that the full program is not drilled, and the immigration risks that attach to any EB-5 petition. The complete risk discussion is in the private placement memorandum, and it is longer than this page.

Is there any pending litigation, and does it affect the Fund?

There is a pending arbitration brought by Western Energy. It has not reached a conclusion. Western Energy alleges that aspects of our offering documents and project concept were copied from theirs and that investors were diverted from its project.

We dispute the claims. Our offering documents and transaction structure were independently prepared by Jackson Walker LLP. To date, Western Energy has not produced discovery documents identifying the alleged diverted investors or substantiating its damages claim.

Three things about how the matter touches the Fund:

• All legal fees are paid by the General Partner, not by the Fund. That has been the case throughout and will continue.
• The General Partner has committed that if damages were ultimately awarded against the Fund, they would be satisfied from the General Partner's share of profits rather than from distributions otherwise payable to investors.
• Management is not running the arbitration. It is handled by the General Partner and its legal counsel. The CEO and the operating team are not involved in it, so it does not compete with day-to-day operations or development.

We do not expect the matter to affect the EB-5 fund, the project's operations or its finances. The current status and the related disclosure are provided in writing on request.

Where is the project, and what is being drilled?

Major County, Oklahoma, in the Anadarko Basin.

The program re-completes wells that were drilled on this acreage decades ago, running a horizontal leg out of the existing wellbore into the Mississippi Lime — the producing horizon those wells found and could not fully drain with the vertical technology of the time. Where an existing well is more useful as information than as a wellbore, what it shows about the formation is used to place a new well instead.

That is the practical advantage of acreage with sixty years of drilling on it: the formation has already been found and logged, so the question is how to reach more of it rather than whether it is there.

Eight horizontal wells make up the current program, funded and under way, with mineral rights secured. Each costs approximately $4–4.5 million — five to six investors' capital per well. The approved filing covers up to 72.

The eight wells are funded by EB-5 subscriptions together with private investor capital, so drilling does not wait on the EB-5 raise filling. That is the mechanism behind the job timeline: jobs are created as wells are drilled and produce, not once a target number of subscriptions is reached.

What evidence is there that this acreage produces?

Eleven vertical wells were drilled on the two sections between 1963 and 1989. Six of them reached the Mississippi Lime that the horizontal wells target. Five of those six are still producing today, after roughly sixty years.

Separately, ten modern horizontal wells within three to seven miles of the acreage peaked between 293 and 812 barrels per day, averaging 483. The project's own projection is 300 barrels per day — at the bottom of that range, and roughly 38% below their average. All of it is verifiable in Oklahoma state production records.

This is productive acreage with a documented history. It is not a reserve report, and we do not describe it as proven reserves — that is a defined term requiring a qualified evaluator's report, which does not exist for this acreage. Peak rate is also not lifetime production, and ten wells is a small comparison set.

How many jobs are required, and how many are projected?

Qualifying jobs are modeled from two streams: money spent drilling and completing wells, and revenue collected from selling what those wells produce. Direct, indirect and induced. It is an economic methodology, not a headcount — which is the part investors most often misunderstand.

Two plans were submitted to USCIS, and both matter. The full 72-well program was approved. The eight-well program was also submitted, as the minimum development plan for Phase I — so the job case does not depend on all 72 wells being drilled.

Both are on the same basis, at the $72 per barrel assumption filed with USCIS. The smaller plan has the thinner cushion because the well count does not scale down in step with the investor count — eight wells across 25 investors is proportionally fewer wells, and so fewer jobs, per investor than 72 across 150.

Job creation is estimated by an independent economic study and is a projection, not a guarantee. Each figure is only as sound as the investor count beneath it, which is why each is stated with its own count rather than mixed.

What happens to my petition if the raise does not fill, or the full 72 wells are not drilled?

This is the question the two plans exist to answer. The immigration and job-creation case for the first 25 investors rests on the eight-well program, not on completion of the full 72-well development. The project is designed to be scalable and there is no requirement to drill all 72.

The eight wells are funded by EB-5 subscriptions together with private investor capital, so drilling is already under way rather than waiting on the raise reaching a threshold.

If further job creation were needed, development beyond the eight wells can be financed from sources other than EB-5 capital — including financing supported by producing assets, or additional non-EB-5 equity. The job case is therefore not dependent on the EB-5 raise filling.

How are the jobs allocated between investors?

Job allocation and capital repayment run on two different clocks, and it is worth keeping them apart.

Jobs are allocated under the PPM in the order in which each investor's conditional permanent resident status commences. For this purpose that is whichever happens for that investor:

• USCIS approves their Form I-485 adjustment of status; or
• they first enter the United States on an immigrant visa.

Capital repayment is allocated by class. Investors are grouped in tens in the order their I-526E petitions are filed, and earlier classes are repaid before later classes.

So the class an investor joins fixes their position in the repayment queue. Their position in the job queue is fixed later, by when their conditional residence actually begins.

What does it cost to produce a barrel?

Approximately $24 per barrel, as modeled in the business plan, against the $72 per barrel assumption filed with USCIS.

Read that figure precisely. It is a production cost. It does not include production and severance taxes or royalty payments — those are separate burdens on the revenue, and they are among the items listed above under what ranks ahead of investor capital. A reader who takes $24 as the total cost of getting a barrel to market will overstate the margin.

A modeled cost, not a realized one. Actual costs vary with service pricing, well performance and operating conditions.

What happens if the oil price falls?

Two different questions sit inside that one, and they have different answers.

Does the project keep running? Yes, for as long as revenue from selling the oil and natural gas exceeds the cost of producing it. That threshold sits well below the price the model is built on. Drilling continues, production continues, and qualifying jobs continue to be created — because the job model counts money spent drilling and completing wells and revenue collected from production, both of which continue at lower prices.

Does repayment still happen in three years? Not necessarily. If the oil price falls below about $60 a barrel and production is at expected capacity, repayment takes longer than the three-year target. Less revenue per barrel means capital is returned more slowly.

That is the honest shape of the downside here: a lower oil price principally moves the repayment timeline, rather than threatening the immigration case. The two are not affected the same way, and an investor deciding on this should understand which one is exposed to price and which one is not.

Commodity prices move in both directions and are outside anyone's control. Repayment is a target, not a commitment, at any price.

What happens if a well is unproductive?

It is a real risk and the model carries an allowance for it rather than assuming every well performs.

What reduces it here is that the acreage is not frontier ground. The formation being targeted has produced across Major County for decades, eleven wells were drilled on these two sections between 1963 and 1989, and five of the six that reached the target formation are still producing. The surrounding well density is visible on the map at eb5energy.com/project.

It also matters that the program is a sequence of wells rather than a single asset. One underperforming well affects the projection; it does not decide it.

How is modern drilling able to recover oil that earlier wells left behind?

A vertical well drains a small radius around a single point. A horizontal well turns within the target formation and runs laterally through it — typically one to two miles — exposing far more of the rock to the wellbore, and hydraulic fracturing opens paths through rock that will not otherwise flow.

Wells drilled in the 1960s to 1980s recovered a small fraction of the oil in place because neither technique was available at the time. That is why acreage with a long vertical production history and no horizontal development is worth drilling now: the production record demonstrates the formation holds oil, and the earlier wells did not access most of it.

Michael Shourd, VP of Geology, walks through this in the investor briefing at eb5energy.com/watch-investor-briefing.

Can I verify the wells myself, without taking your word for any of it?

Yes, and we would rather you did. We provide the API numbers for the wells on request. An API number is the unique identifier every well in the United States carries, and with it anyone can look up the well, the operator, the permits and the regulatory status directly through the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Nothing in that lookup comes from us. It is the state's record of what has been permitted, drilled and reported, and it is the same record we check ourselves.

Working interest and ownership documentation, and the annual and quarterly financial statements showing capital deployed to date, are also provided on request.

Is there an independent reserve report?

No. We do not currently have an independent reserve report, and we do not describe the acreage as having proven reserves. Saying otherwise would be describing a document that does not exist.

What we do have, and provide on request:

• an internal reserve report, prepared by the project
• the type curve workflow and methodology — how the production forecast was built
• the underlying raw type curve data and summary charts

Those are the basis for the production assumptions in the economic model, and they are the right place for an investor or their adviser to push. An internally prepared report is not the same thing as an independent evaluator's, and we would rather say so than let the distinction pass.

Why Oklahoma?

The Anadarko Basin has supported continuous commercial production for over a century, and Major County sits inside it with hundreds of active producing wells. Beyond the geology, Oklahoma has an established regulatory framework for oil and gas, a public production database that makes claims checkable by anyone, and permitting timelines that let wells be drilled and brought online in weeks rather than seasons.

The public database matters more than it sounds. It means the production projections on this site can be tested against someone else's records rather than taken on our word.

Who is running the project?

Mark Wagner, Chief Executive Officer, with more than forty years operating oil and gas projects. Michael Shourd, VP of Geology, forty-seven years, responsible for where the project drills and why. Eric Marshall, VP of Operations, responsible for drilling, completion and the cadence at which wells come online. Rupy Cheema, Managing Partner, responsible for structure, investor economics and closing.

Each of them answers questions on the record in the investor briefing — nineteen and a half minutes, twelve chapters, each chapter linkable.

What documents will I receive?

The private placement memorandum, the operating agreement, the business plan, the economic impact report, the Form I-956F approval notice, redacted I-526E approval notices, rural TEA evidence, and the subscription documents.

Where this page and the offering documents differ, the offering documents govern. Nothing on this page is a term.

Can my immigration attorney speak with you directly?

Yes, and we would rather they did. We will take a call with an investor and their counsel together and answer the structural questions in front of both. An investor who subscribes after their attorney has pushed on the structure is a better outcome for everyone than one who does not.

How do I start?

Request the offering documents, watch the briefing, and take a one-to-one call. Source of funds preparation is usually the longest part of the process and the part worth starting earliest — particularly if the $800,000 minimum before January 1, 2027 is relevant to you.