Texas Pacific Land Corporation Posts Higher Revenue, Operating Income, Net Income and Diluted EPS on Both the Quarter and Half-Year Windows in Latest Form Filing

Bottom line

Texas Pacific Land Corporation, operating under the ticker TPL, posted a profitable three-month period in the three months ended June 30, 2026 and a profitable six-month year-to-date window in the six months ended June 30, 2026, with every headline line item we can verify in the filing evidence — revenue, operating income, net income attributable to parent, and diluted earnings per share — moving higher than the comparable prior-year windows. The reporting vehicle is the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period period-ended-2026-06-30, filed under accession 0001811074-26-000058 by CIK 0001811074. Source scope for this article is restricted to that single filing: the cautionary statement and the overview narrative quoted within it, together with the cited note references and the authorized machine-only comparisons that the catalog permits us to assert. No peer benchmark, industry index, third-party dataset, or management forecast from another document is in scope.

The reported top line for the three months ended June 30, 2026 was $246,059,000 USD, versus $187,543,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2025, an authorized increase that confirms revenue stayed positive on both sides. For the six months ended June 30, 2026, revenue was $482,877,000 USD against $383,526,000 USD in the six months ended June 30, 2025, also an authorized increase with both periods in positive territory. Operating income for the quarter reached $191,817,000 USD, up from $143,751,000 USD, and for the half-year reached $374,145,000 USD versus $293,824,000 USD; in every case the transition is profit to profit. Net income attributable to parent came in at $153,930,000 USD for the quarter (prior-year comparative $116,140,000 USD) and $296,832,000 USD for the half-year (prior-year comparative $236,792,000 USD), both higher than their respective prior-year windows with profit on both sides. Diluted earnings per share were $2.23 per diluted share USD/SHARES for the quarter (prior year $1.68 per diluted share USD/SHARES) and $3.43 per diluted share USD/SHARES is the half-year comparative that anchors $3.43 per diluted share USD/SHARES as the prior period — the authorized relationship is an increase, profit to profit.

Management frames the company as a Delaware corporation and one of the largest land and royalty owners in Texas, concentrated in the Permian Basin, with revenue derived from oil and gas royalties, water sales, produced water royalties, easements and other surface-related income, and land sales, and explicitly cautions that results "are subject to substantial fluctuations from quarter to quarter and year to year." The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. The cited discussion sections are Item 2 (Management's Discussion and Analysis), the condensed consolidated financial statements in Part I, Item 1, the risk-factor cross-reference Item 1A, the segment note Note 14, and the credit-facility note Note 7. The market-conditions commentary cites average WTI oil prices higher year over year for the six months ended in June and references an escalating military conflict affecting energy infrastructure and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The filing evidence does not disclose segment-level detail for this dimension. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

Financial performance

- Reported top-line growth on both windows. Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax moved higher against the prior year on the three-month reporting period ($246,059,000 vs. $187,543,000) and on the six-month year-to-date period ($482,877,000 vs.

$383,526,000), consistent with the filing's framing of robust Permian Basin drilling activity and a broader royalty and water-services footprint. - Operating profit expanded on both windows. Operating Income (Loss) was higher year over year for the three-month reporting period ($191,817,000 vs.

$143,751,000) and for the six-month year-to-date period ($374,145,000 vs. $293,824,000), with each comparison transitioning on a profit-to-profit basis. - Bottom-line outpaced the prior year on a per-share basis.

23 per diluted share vs. 68 per diluted share) and on the six-month year-to-date period, with diluted earnings on a profit-to-profit transition in each case. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent confirmed the same direction on both the quarter ($153,930,000 vs.

$116,140,000) and the six-month year-to-date view ($296,832,000 vs. $236,792,000). - Management framing in the cited discussion calls out higher average West Texas Intermediate oil prices and higher Henry Hub natural gas prices during the period, alongside expanded liquefied natural gas capacity, improved industrial and power demand, and intensifying Permian Basin produced-water handling needs.

The narrative also flags Waha Hub negative basis differentials, a developing desalination project, and macro uncertainty tied to the Middle East conflict and Strait of Hormuz disruption. - Accounting context: the filing references retroactive share and per-share adjustments to reflect the stock split described in Item 2, with par value unchanged and a reclassification between Additional paid-in capital and Common Stock; segment reporting is provided under Note 14 and the credit facility under Note 7. Risk-factor discussion is incorporated by reference under Item 1 and Item 1A.

- Counter-evidence and analyst caveats: the filing notes that oil-price impacts beyond the period remain uncertain, that midstream takeaway expansion will dictate future basis differentials, and that macro shifts could alter supply and demand — but provides no quantitative bridge between commodity moves and segment results. Quarter-over-quarter sequencing for the most recent two reporting periods is not addressed in the cited narrative. - Expectations: management offers no quantified forward guidance in the cited excerpt; only qualitative commentary on commodity sensitivity, capital-light royalty exposure, and balance-sheet strength.

The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.. For peers and the wider Permian operator set, The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.. Readers looking for a contrasting operating-income read across another upstream name can weigh the AES Corp interim filing narrative on revenue and net income swings as a cross-check.

Operating drivers and segments

- Texas Pacific Land Corporation reports its results through two reportable segments — Land and Resource Management and Water Services and Operations — with the segmentation disclosed in the cited note on Business Segment Reporting carried forward consistently from prior filings. - Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax was $246,059,000 USD for the three-month reporting period the three months ended June 30, 2026, above $187,543,000 USD in the three months ended June 30, 2025. - Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax was $482,877,000 USD for the six-month year-to-date period the six months ended June 30, 2026, above $383,526,000 USD in the six months ended June 30, 2025. - Operating Income (Loss) was $191,817,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2026, above $143,751,000 USD in the three months ended June 30, 2025. - Operating Income (Loss) was $374,145,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026, above $293,824,000 USD in the six months ended June 30, 2025. - Investing activity commentary in the filing directs the reader to fixed-asset purchases concentrated in the Water Services and Operations segment, with management retaining control over the extent and timing of such capital outlays.

- Management frames segment revenue, sales volumes, and the related expense base as a function of three exogenous variables — customer development decisions, overall activity in the Permian Basin, and prevailing commodity prices — and treats period-to-period swings as a normal reflection of those inputs. - The overview describes the company as a Delaware corporation and one of the largest land and royalty owners in Texas, with landholdings principally concentrated in the Permian Basin; the exact surface-acre count in the cited passage is withheld in the quoted evidence. - A separately disclosed commercial agreement involves a subsidiary of Chevron, in which the company sold land for aggregate consideration that is redacted in the quoted text and acquired exclusive rights to source aquifer-derived water for a power generation facility supporting a customer data center in Reeves County, Texas. - The filing also references a desalination project that could, in management's view, "potentially provide an additional solution for produced water by reducing the amount of water required to be injected subsurface," without quantifying expected volumes or timing. - Liquidity needs are characterized as tied to acquisitions, Water Services and Operations fixed-asset purchases, working capital, and general business needs, with the Water Services segment flagged as the principal capital sink. - The forward-looking statement section warns that actual results may differ materially because of risks discussed in the cited Risk Factors item, and cautions that period-to-period comparisons should not be relied upon as indicators of future performance.

- Independent analysis is constrained by what the filing chooses to disclose at the consolidated level. The text provides top-line revenue and operating income for both the quarter and the six-month window but does not break out individual segment revenue or expense lines in the quoted passage, so segment-level margin movement cannot be reconstructed here. - The cited note on Business Segment Reporting is the natural home for any segment-level reconciliation, and the discussion points the reader to that note rather than restating the split in the overview. - The Chevron-linked land sale and water-sourcing rights, and the desalination project, are described as future optionality rather than as a quantified contribution to current period revenue or operating income, so they cannot be treated as drivers of the reported figures in this filing. - The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. - The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

Cash flow and capital

Reported facts — The half-year statement of cash flows in 10-Q period-ended-2026-06-30 (filed under 0001811074-26-000058, CIK 0001811074, ticker TPL) shows Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities of $334,867,000 USD for the six months ended the six months ended June 30, 2026, against $277,626,000 USD for the prior-year window the six months ended June 30, 2025. Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities printed at -$139,363,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026 and at -$16,450,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025, with both periods in negative territory. Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities was -$92,296,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026, compared with -$88,627,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025, also negative on both sides. On the balance sheet at the balance sheet date of June 30, 2026, Cash and Cash Equivalents, at Carrying Value was $248,612,000 USD, and Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities, Current stood at $40,775,000 USD.

Management explanations — The MD&A section frames liquidity around three sources: cash on hand, internally generated cash flow, and the revolving Credit Facility discussed in Note 7. Management states the Credit Facility is undrawn and that Texas Pacific Land Corp is in compliance with all covenants as of the balance sheet date. Capital allocation policy is articulated as a target cash and cash equivalents balance of roughly a stated level, with cash above that band earmarked primarily for special dividends and/or share repurchases. The company also discloses capital deployment tied to land acquisitions in Shackelford and Jones Counties tied to data center and power generation initiatives, a Project Kilby land sale arrangement with Chevron (with land sales revenue recognized at closing and a financing receivable recorded for deferred consideration), and ongoing investment in water sourcing assets and the desalination/treatment facility that is in commissioning.

Analyst inference — Versus the prior-year window, operating cash flow was higher, investing cash flow was lower (more outflow), and financing cash flow was lower (more outflow) in the sense the authorized direction language allows. The pattern is consistent with a company converting earnings into cash, spending more on investments, and returning more cash to shareholders. Payments of Dividends of $83,183,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026 were higher than $74,216,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025, while Payments for Repurchase of Common Stock of $0 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026 were lower than $100,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025, the latter being zero per the catalog direction. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.

Counter-evidence — The Liquidity narrative notes that cash flows and liquidity could be reduced if revenues declined significantly or operating costs increased significantly, and characterizes the going-concurrency horizon as sufficient for at least a multi-month period, underscoring reliance on continued operating cash generation.

Unknowns — The filing does not break out the Project Kilby deferred-consideration timing, the precise allocation between land sale revenue and the financing receivable, or the split of investing outflow between maintenance versus growth capex.

Peer and historical context

The three-month reporting period for Texas Pacific Land Corp (TPL) under 10-Q for period-ended-2026-06-30 sits inside a six-month year-to-date window that is also on file, and both can be lined up against the prior-year comparatives the issuer itself published. Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax for the three months came in higher than the prior-year quarter and the six-month line was higher than the six months ended June 30, 2025, on the authorized direction. Operating Income (Loss) followed the same shape, with the quarter above the three months ended June 30, 2025 and the year-to-date above the prior year, both remaining profitable on both sides. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent moved in the same direction across both windows, again profit on both sides, while Earnings Per Share, Diluted also rose versus the prior-year quarter and stayed profitable.

The cash-flow mirror tells a more nuanced story even though it is moving in the same direction at the operating line. Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities for the six months ended June 30, 2026 was higher than the prior year, which is consistent with the stronger earnings, but Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities was a smaller negative than the prior year, and Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities was also a smaller negative outflow than the prior year. The shape on the financing side reflects capital-return mechanics: Payments of Dividends were higher than the prior year, while Payments for Repurchase of Common Stock moved from a positive outflow last year to no repurchases this year, so the lower financing outflow cannot be read as a softer return-of-capital stance by itself.

On the peer side the picture is thin. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. A useful contrast is the 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, which highlights how unusual Texas Pacific Land's quarter-over-quarter profit-to-profit climb is when other Permian-adjacent names are still climbing out of a loss. A second adjacent data point is the CMS Energy Reports Softer Bottom Line Against Higher Contract Revenue in period-ended-2026-06-30 10-Q Filing, where the top line improved but the bottom line did not, the opposite of the pattern here.

For attribution, The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.. The filing ties the period to land and brackish-water resource arrangements with Chevron's Project Kilby, continued land acquisitions in Shackelford and Jones Counties tied to data center and power generation initiatives, progress on the desalination and produced-water treatment facility, and elevated investment in water sourcing assets, but it does not assign a quantified contribution to any single driver for the revenue, operating income, or net income movements.

Scenario analysis

In the base case, the trends visible in this 10-Q for period-ended-2026-06-30 continue on their current path. Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax stood at $246,059,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2026, up from $187,543,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2025, and at $482,877,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026, up from $383,526,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent was $153,930,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2026 versus $116,140,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2025, and $296,832,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026 versus $236,792,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025. Operating cash generation and investing outflow framing described under Item 2 carry forward at similar magnitudes. Stockholders continue to receive capital returns through dividends as documented in Note 7 and the related discussion, and no share repurchases were recorded for the six months ended June 30, 2026, matching the comparative period. Segment composition, split between Land and Resource Management and Water Services and Operations as defined in Note 14, remains steady.

In a more constructive scenario, development activity in the Permian Basin accelerates and commodity prices firm, lifting royalty realizations and the company's share of production as referenced in the Land and Resource Management commentary. Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax extends its reported growth from $246,059,000 USD versus $187,543,000 USD and from $482,877,000 USD versus $383,526,000 USD. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent builds further on the increases already shown between $153,930,000 USD and $116,140,000 USD, and between $296,832,000 USD and $236,792,000 USD. Easements and other surface-related income, which include renewable energy and pipeline arrangements, expand alongside any incremental right-of-way demand. Operating cash flows tracked in Item 2 strengthen, dividend payments documented in Note 7 continue to step up, and the credit facility remains an undrawn backstop. Risk considerations already raised in Item 1 and Item 1A in the prior Annual Report on Form continue to apply, and The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. for any further movement.

In a more cautious scenario, Permian Basin activity slows and commodity prices weaken, which would compress the realized price per Boe and the company's share of production described in the Land and Resource Management section. Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax, which moved from $187,543,000 USD to $246,059,000 USD and from $383,526,000 USD to $482,877,000 USD, reverses direction. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent, having moved from $116,140,000 USD to $153,930,000 USD and from $236,792,000 USD to $296,832,000 USD, contracts. Investing outflows tied to water sourcing assets and desalination equipment, as described in Item 2, weigh on cash even as operating cash tracked there softens. Easements and other surface-related income tied to oil and gas E&P, renewable energy, and agricultural operations would also moderate, and The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. for the precise driver mix. The risk factors referenced in Item 1 and Item 1A remain in force, and The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. for any direct comparison.

Risks and what to watch

- The principal risks facing Texas Pacific Land Corp going into the next reporting window are largely the same ones referenced in Item 1 and Item 1A, where management directs investors to the "Risk Factors" discussion contained in the company's most recent Annual Report on Form [K]. Because the half-year figures for the period covered by 10-Q period-ended-2026-06-30 mirror the authorized year-over-year pattern — Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax moving higher, Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent moving higher, Operating Income moving higher, and Earnings Per Share Diluted moving higher on both the three-month and six-month windows (current period profit to prior period profit) — the recurring concerns flagged in those risk sections remain live. Easements and other surface-related income are explicitly called out in the filing narrative as "unpredictable and may vary significantly from period to period" because they depend on third-party development decisions in the Permian Basin, so a swing back toward the prior-period range is an identifiable tail risk even after the current upswing.

- Counter-evidence worth weighing sits in the cash-flow lines that the filing narrative does not dwell on. Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities is authorized as negative in both the current half-year and the prior-year half-year, with an authorized direction decrease. Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities is also authorized as negative on both sides with an authorized direction decrease. Payments for Repurchase of Common Stock moved from positive in the prior half-year to zero in the current half-year, while Payments of Dividends moved higher. A reader weighing the strong operating profit against a heavier financing outflow, a heavier investing outflow, and the absence of buybacks should not assume the headline earnings strength translates one-for-one into shareholder distributions or balance-sheet build-up; the supporting numeric comparison will be inserted below.

- Unattributable drivers sit behind a number of the movements in the filing. For example, the narrative attributes higher salaries and related employee expenses principally to annual market compensation adjustments and higher headcount, but it does not attribute the change in realized oil prices, in the company's share of production, in easements and other surface-related income, in general and administrative expenses, or in depreciation, depletion and amortization to any single cause. Where a number is supported but a cause is not, the cause is recorded as The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. rather than narrated.

- Counter-evidence also includes the segment-mix picture. Management notes two reportable segments — Land and Resource Management and Water Services and Operations — both monitored on GAAP net income under Note 14, and segment revenues are described as "directly influenced by development decisions made by our customers, the overall activity level in the Permian Basin and commodity prices." Because both revenue lines and both net income lines for the quarter and the half-year are authorized as higher, a reader should still treat any single quarter's gain as partly commodity-driven and therefore cyclical, not structural, until the next period confirms it.

- Unknowns going into the next period include the trajectory of Permian Basin drilling and completions activity, the average realized price per Boe (which the filing quotes only in dollar terms that the catalog has redacted), the company's share of production in thousand Boe per day, and the size and term of new easement deals. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison, which is recorded as The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.. Readers should also track availability under Note 7 on the credit facility, since the company has undrawn capacity that could fund future capital returns or acquisitions.

- Metrics to watch next period: Revenue from Contract with Customer, Excluding Assessed Tax for both the three-month and six-month windows; Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for both windows; segment-level net income under Note 14; the average realized price per Boe and the company's share of production disclosed in the Land and Resource Management section; easements and other surface-related income; and the directional split of cash flows between operating, investing and financing activities. A useful cross-check is how 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 handled its own year-over-year swing, since the same Permian-linked themes appear there.

- Bottom line: the operating picture across $246,059,000, $482,877,000, $153,930,000, $296,832,000, $187,543,000, $383,526,000, $116,140,000 and $236,792,000 is uniformly higher, but readers should expect period-to-period lumpiness from easement timing, commodity prices and Permian activity, and should treat the next filing's segment net income, realized price, share of production and cash-flow split as the cleanest read on whether the trend is holding.