ConocoPhillips Interim Filing Shows Higher Revenue, Net Income, and EPS on Both the Three-Month and Six-Month Year-to-Date Views

Bottom line

ConocoPhillips filed the periodic report identified as 10-Q for the fiscal period period-ended-2026-06-30, indexed under accession 0001163165-26-000032 (CIK 0001163165, ticker COP). The document covers the three-month reporting period the three months ended June 30, 2026 and the six-month year-to-date period the six months ended June 30, 2026, with the prior-year comparatives the three months ended June 30, 2025 and the six months ended June 30, 2025 presented side by side, as required for an interim filing.

For the three-month reporting period, diluted earnings per share were $3.23 per diluted share USD/SHARES, higher than the prior-year comparative of $1.56 per diluted share USD/SHARES, reflecting a profit-to-profit year-over-year transition. Net income attributable to parent was $3,931,000,000 USD, a profit that increased relative to the prior-year comparative of $1,971,000,000 USD, also a profit. Two revenue lines are reported for the quarter: Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax of $18,088,000,000 USD, higher than the prior-year comparative of $12,621,000,000 USD; and the broader Revenues line of $19,161,000,000 USD, again higher than the prior-year comparative of $14,004,000,000 USD.

For the six-month year-to-date period, diluted earnings per share were $5 per diluted share USD/SHARES, higher than the prior-year comparative of $3.79 per diluted share USD/SHARES, with a profit-to-profit transition. Net income attributable to parent was $6,114,000,000 USD, a profit that increased relative to the prior-year comparative of $4,820,000,000 USD, also a profit. Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax was $31,588,000,000 USD, higher than the prior-year comparative of $27,100,000,000 USD, while the broader Revenues line was $34,922,000,000 USD, higher than the prior-year comparative of $30,521,000,000 USD. All four revenue, net income, and EPS comparisons therefore move in the same authorized direction on both the quarterly and year-to-date views.

Management explanations in the filing frame the interim financial information as unaudited, with all known accruals and adjustments of a normal and recurring nature, and note that certain prior-year line items have been reclassified to conform to the current-year presentation, as stated in Note 1. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. No single driver for the year-over-year changes is attributed in the cited evidence.

Analyst inference beyond the reported values and the authorized comparisons is not supported by the filing evidence, and The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. no peer or industry benchmark is provided. Counter-evidence to the authorized direction is absent; unknowns not covered above include segment-level results, cash-flow line items, balance-sheet positions, and the financial effects of the disclosed transactions such as the bp Kirkuk-area acquisition and the PALNG equity investment.

Financial performance

56 per diluted share USD/SHARES in the prior-year comparative period. The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, with both the current period and the prior-year comparative reported as profit, producing a profit-to-profit transition. 79 per diluted share USD/SHARES for the prior-year comparative six-month period.

The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, again a profit-to-profit transition. - Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for the three-month reporting period was $3,931,000,000 USD, compared with $1,971,000,000 USD in the prior-year comparative quarter. The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, with both periods reported as profit and a profit-to-profit transition.

- Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for the six-month year-to-date period was $6,114,000,000 USD, compared with $4,820,000,000 USD for the prior-year comparative six-month period. The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, a profit-to-profit transition. - Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax for the three-month reporting period was $18,088,000,000 USD, compared with $12,621,000,000 USD in the prior-year comparative quarter.

The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, with both periods positive. - Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax for the six-month year-to-date period was $31,588,000,000 USD, compared with $27,100,000,000 USD for the prior-year comparative six-month period. The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, with both periods positive.

- Revenues for the three-month reporting period was $19,161,000,000 USD, compared with $14,004,000,000 USD in the prior-year comparative quarter. The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, with both periods positive. - Revenues for the six-month year-to-date period was $34,922,000,000 USD, compared with $30,521,000,000 USD for the prior-year comparative six-month period.

The authorized comparison frames this as an increase, with both periods positive. - The filing's quarter-over-quarter prior-year reporting uses both the contract-revenue line and the legacy Revenues line in parallel; both move in the same authorized direction across both the three-month and six-month year-to-date views. - The filing evidence does not attribute any of these changes to any single cause, and the filing does not present guidance or expectations for upcoming periods in the quoted narrative.

- The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

Operating drivers and segments

The filings available to this section disclose top-line revenue only; segment-level revenue and segment-level operating margins are not provided in the filing evidence. The two revenue captions shown in the consolidated statements of operations both moved higher year over year on a comparable basis: "Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax" rose for both the three-month reporting period and the six-month year-to-date period, and the broader "Revenues" caption likewise rose on the same three-month and six-month comparisons. Because no segment revenue, intersegment elimination, or segment-level expense split is in the filing evidence, segment-by-segment margin movement cannot be reconstructed here.

Management's commentary in the cited notes is limited to transactional and structural items rather than to a segment-level explanation of operating results. The cited note covering assets held for sale describes a transaction to acquire a direct equity holding in a non-operated joint venture supporting redevelopment of four producing oil fields in the Kirkuk area of northern Iraq, with deferred payments payable no later than three years from close. The cited note on debt describes the company's debt balance at the reporting date and the treatment of the VRDBs as long-term debt because of the company's stated ability and intent to refinance them if the bondholders ever redeem them. Management's basis-of-presentation note states that the interim figures are unaudited, include all known accruals and adjustments of a normal recurring nature, and that certain prior-year line items have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation. No management narrative in the filing evidence ties revenue movement to specific commodity prices, volumes, realizations, or segment mix.

MANAGEMENT CLAIMS VERSUS INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS: The only operating-driver claim that can be tested against the filing evidence is the directional movement of the two revenue captions, and both are reported as higher than the prior period on a three-month and six-month basis. The cause of those higher revenue lines is not addressed in the cited material; The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.. The cited note on derivative instruments lists the commodity business as consisting primarily of natural gas, crude oil, bitumen, NGLs, LNG, and power, but it does not quantify hedge gains or losses against the reported revenue, so a hedge-versus-unhedged reconciliation is not possible from this evidence. The pending acquisition in northern Iraq and the long-term classification of the VRDBs are accounting and financing treatments rather than operating drivers, and their effect on the period's revenue and margin is not quantified in the cited notes. The Venezuela expropriation matter is referenced historically with cited award amounts, but no current-period operating impact is stated in the filing evidence, so it cannot be used to explain the period's revenue change. As a result, the only verifiable operating-driver statement for this section is that revenue was higher year over year under both captions, with no attributable cause available in the cited material. Independent reweighting of drivers, attribution of margin movement, or comparison to peer operating results is not possible here because segment data, cost-of-sales detail, and peer information are absent from the cited notes; The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.. Comparable interim disclosures for other issuers can be reviewed separately, such as the Broadcom interim filing summary, but those are not used here as a benchmark for ConocoPhillips because the filing evidence does not include any peer comparison.

Cash flow and capital

- Operating cash generation over the six-month year-to-date period rose versus the prior-year comparative, according to the statement of cash flows, marking a stronger cash-funding position for the CONOCOPHILLIPS balance sheet heading into the back half of the year. - Investing cash outflows moderated versus the prior-year comparative, so the gap between cash produced by operations and cash absorbed by investments narrowed year over year. The cited note on the debt balance (see the cited note on debt) points readers to the broader capital structure context surrounding this investing posture. - Financing cash outflows expanded versus the prior-year comparative, reflecting heavier shareholder-return activity during the half. Both share repurchases and ordinary common-stock dividends paid on the financing line moved higher than the prior-year comparative, consistent with the authorized increases captured in the cash-flow ledger.

Reported facts - Operating cash inflow for the six-month year-to-date period is shown as $11,729,000,000, measured against the prior-year comparative of $9,600,000,000, with the authorized direction reading as an increase. - Investing cash outflow for the six-month year-to-date period is shown as -$6,319,000,000, measured against the prior-year comparative of -$4,807,000,000, with the authorized direction reading as a decrease in the magnitude of outflow. - Financing cash outflow for the six-month year-to-date period is shown as -$5,356,000,000, measured against the prior-year comparative of -$5,620,000,000, with the authorized direction reading as an increase in the magnitude of outflow. - Repurchases of common stock during the half are shown as $3,006,000,000, versus the prior-year comparative of $2,722,000,000, with the authorized direction reading as an increase. - Ordinary common-stock dividends paid during the half are shown as $2,057,000,000, versus the prior-year comparative of $1,982,000,000, with the authorized direction reading as an increase.

Balance sheet snapshot at the balance sheet date of June 30, 2026 - Cash and Cash Equivalents, at Carrying Value stood at $6,574,000,000. - Accounts Payable, Current stood at $6,764,000,000, framing the working-capital position at the balance sheet date.

Management explanations - Management's MD&A frames the repurchase and dividend lines as core components of the capital-return framework, supported by the higher operating cash base and the moderation in investing outflows.

Analyst inference - The combination of higher operating cash, lighter investing absorption, and heavier financing outflows is consistent with a company leaning further into capital return rather than balance-sheet build. The pairing of higher dividends and higher buybacks reinforces that posture, while the cash balance at the balance sheet date of June 30, 2026 indicates the funding was not achieved by drawing down on hand. Readers cross-checking the directional pattern can compare this read with AES Corp interim filing shows higher revenue and a loss-to-profit swing on net income and diluted EPS for both the quarter and the six-month year-to-date period, while capital and dividend outflows also stepped up..

Counter-evidence and unknowns - The filings disclose environmental, litigation, and tax contingencies, including exposures tied to historic operations and to the cited expropriation events, which sit outside the cash-flow statement and are not quantified here. - The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. - The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

Peer and historical context

- Reported metric directions across the half-year and quarter periods generally point higher than the prior-year comparative, including Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax, Revenues, Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent, and Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities when read against their prior-year columns. - The authorized year-over-year transitions for net income are profit-to-profit on both the three-month and six-month year-to-date views, suggesting the bottom line moved directionally higher without changing sign. - Two parallel revenue lines (contract-revenue and total Revenues) are reported for each period, and both rise against the prior year, which is consistent with a broad-based top-line lift rather than a single-segment surge inside the cited notes.

- The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. - The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison, so any read across to other upstream or integrated energy issuers would be unsupported. - The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.

The current 10-Q for CONOCOPHILLIPS (COP, CIK 0001163165, accession 0001163165-26-000032, fiscal period period-ended-2026-06-30) shows Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax for the three months ended June 30, 2026 higher than the three months ended June 30, 2025 and for the six months ended June 30, 2026 higher than the six months ended June 30, 2025; the total Revenues line tracks the same direction on the quarter and the year-to-date views. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent is higher in the three months ended June 30, 2026 than the three months ended June 30, 2025 and higher in the six months ended June 30, 2026 than the six months ended June 30, 2025, both framed as profit-to-profit transitions under the reported comparisons. Operating cash flow also moves higher when the six months ended June 30, 2026 is read against the six months ended June 30, 2025. Notes such as Note 1, Note 2, Note 3, Note 4, Note 5, Note 6, Note 7, Note 8, and Note 9 sit alongside the income-statement columns in the filing, but the directional read here is taken straight from those reported amounts; we are not deriving a margin or mix story from them. Items Item 1, Item 1A, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5, and Item 6 cover legal, risk-factor, market-risk, controls, and exhibit content rather than period-over-period magnitudes, so they are not the source of the directional read in this section. Historical context inside the filing, such as the prior expropriation, ICSID annulment ruling, ICC arbitration outcomes, BSEE decommissioning order, and the Concho-related federal securities class action referenced in the quoted narrative, sits outside the quantitative year-over-year framework and is not folded into the directional statement above. Peer-set context for other midstream and energy issuers (for example, the SMITH A O CORP (AOS) Reports Softer Revenue, Operating Income, Net Income, and Diluted EPS on Both the Quarter and Six-Month Year-to-Date Views in Form (Accession insight) is not directly comparable here because that issuer is not an upstream peer, and no peer table exists inside the filing to anchor such a contrast.

Scenario analysis

- Reported fact: For the six months ended June 30, 2026, Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax was $31,588,000,000 and Revenues was $34,922,000,000, both higher than the prior-year six-month comparative period $27,100,000,000 and $30,521,000,000 respectively. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent was $6,114,000,000, also higher than the prior-year six-month comparative $4,820,000,000. - Reported fact: For the three months ended June 30, 2026, Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax was $18,088,000,000 and Revenues was $19,161,000,000, both higher than the prior-year three-month comparative period $12,621,000,000 and $14,004,000,000 respectively.

Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent was $3,931,000,000, also higher than the prior-year three-month comparative $1,971,000,000. - Management explanation: The filing surfaces discrete legal and regulatory exposures that can shape a downside scenario independently of operating performance. According to the cited legal-proceedings discussion, state and local governments have filed lawsuits against oil and gas companies, including the company, seeking compensatory damages and equitable relief to abate alleged climate change impacts, and management states the company will vigorously defend against such lawsuits, while acknowledging significant uncertainty about the scope of the claims and alleged damages.

The filing also describes a BSEE decommissioning order tied to a legacy California offshore lease interest and a pending federal securities class action against Concho Resources Inc. as the company's successor. ConocoPhillips has stated it intends to appeal the BSEE decision while evaluating its exposure.

- Analyst inference (base case): Holding the authorized year-over-year directions as the reference path, a base scenario assumes both revenue measures and Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent continue their higher trajectory across the three-month and six-month views from the three months ended June 30, 2025 and the six months ended June 30, 2025 into the next reporting periods, absent further disclosed disruption. Because the catalog supports only the direction of change and not a magnitude, this scenario is framed qualitatively as continued expansion rather than as a quantified projection.

- Analyst inference (upside case): An upside scenario would require the higher direction on the three-month sales lines (Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax at $18,088,000,000 versus $12,621,000,000 and Revenues at $19,161,000,000 versus $14,004,000,000) and on the matching three-month earnings line ($3,931,000,000 versus $1,971,000,000) to extend into the next quarter, supported by the legal and regulatory items described above resolving favorably or staying within currently recorded accruals.

- Analyst inference (downside case): A downside scenario is anchored on the same legal and regulatory items the filing describes — climate-change litigation, the BSEE decommissioning order tied to a legacy interest, the Concho successor securities class action, and ongoing Venezuela-related arbitration awards. The filing acknowledges significant uncertainty about the scope of the claims and alleged damages, and management states the company intends to appeal the BSEE decision while continuing to evaluate its exposure.

Adverse outcomes on any of these matters could compress or reverse the higher direction observed on the six-month and three-month earnings and revenue lines. - Counter-evidence: None present in the catalog beyond the litigation disclosures themselves; the filing evidence does not include peer benchmarks, hedging detail under the cited derivatives note, or balance-sheet metrics that would otherwise qualify a divergent path. - Unknowns: The filing evidence does not attribute the higher year-over-year direction on revenue or net income to any single cause.

Risks and what to watch

- The most immediate legal overhang sits in Item 1A, where ConocoPhillips disclosed a BSEE decommissioning order tied to OCS Lease facilities near Carpinteria, California, premised on a legacy Phillips Petroleum interest sold years ago. The company has signaled it intends to appeal while continuing to evaluate exposure, which means any eventual cash outflow or settlement timing remains unquantified in the filing. - A second, overlapping matter is the consolidated federal securities class action against Concho, certain of Concho's former officers, and ConocoPhillips as successor in the Southern District of Texas, with Lead Plaintiffs having filed a consolidated complaint. Management characterizes the allegations as without merit and discloses it is vigorously defending, but the matter remains unresolved and any loss-contingency disclosure is qualitative rather than quantitative in this section. - Note 9 flags the breadth of commodity derivative exposure across natural gas, crude oil, bitumen, NGLs, LNG, and power, with related cash flows recorded as operating activities and fair-value balances presented net where setoff rights exist. Whether the next period will see mark-to-market gains or losses depends on movements in those underlyings and the NPNS designation choices, which are not sized here. - Reported risk factors in Item 1A frame commodity-price volatility, regulatory and decommissioning obligations, and litigation as standing exposures that continue to apply alongside the two specific matters above. - The interim controls attestation language in Item 4 and the disclosure-controls context provide a baseline for whether any subsequent restatement risk or material weakness could surface.

Because the authorized year-over-year comparisons show Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax at $18,088,000,000 USD versus $12,621,000,000 USD and $31,588,000,000 USD versus $27,100,000,000 USD, alongside the same direction on the Revenues line $19,161,000,000 USD against $14,004,000,000 USD and $34,922,000,000 USD against $30,521,000,000 USD, the topline trajectory is constructive on both windows even as legal and decommissioning costs continue to be litigated. - Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent at $3,931,000,000 USD versus $1,971,000,000 USD, and the six-month figure $6,114,000,000 USD versus $4,820,000,000 USD, reflect higher reported profitability in both periods.

The BSEE order and the Concho-related securities class action are both contested, so the favorable earnings trend should not be read as evidence that the legal overhangs have been resolved. Read alongside the AES Corp AES Corp interim filing shows higher revenue and a loss-to-profit swing on net income and diluted EPS for both the quarter and the six-month year-to-date period, while capital and dividend outflows also stepped up comparison, even improving revenue and earnings lines can carry unresolved non-operating exposures.

Quantified decommissioning cost, range of loss, or probable/possible assessment for the Carpinteria matter, and any accrual movement. - Damages sought, class certification status, or scheduling for the consolidated Concho securities action. - Realized commodity derivative gains or losses for the next period across the categories listed in Note 9.

METRICS TO WATCH NEXT PERIOD - Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax and the consolidated Revenues line, to confirm continuation of the higher trend implied by $18,088,000,000 USD and $31,588,000,000 USD. - Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent direction against $3,931,000,000 USD and $6,114,000,000 USD. - Any update on the BSEE appeal, the Concho class action procedural posture, and the size or classification of any related contingencies. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.