Exhibit 99.3

RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the following risk factors, in addition to other information included in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), in evaluating Cimarex Energy Co. (“we”) and our business. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition and operating results could be materially adversely affected. These risk factors restate and supersede certain risk factors set forth under the heading “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which we filed with the SEC on February 26, 2014.

Environmental matters and costs can be significant.

As an owner, lessee, or operator of oil and gas properties, we are subject to various complex, stringent and constantly evolving environmental laws and regulations. Our operations inherently create the risk of environmental liability to the government and private parties stemming from our use, generation, handling and disposal of water and waste materials, as well as the release of petroleum hydrocarbons or other substances into the air, soil or water. The environmental laws and regulations to which we are subject may impose numerous obligations applicable to our operations, including the acquisition of a permit before conducting regulated drilling activities; the restriction of types, quantities and concentration of materials that can be released into the environment; the limitation or prohibition of drilling activities on certain lands lying within wilderness, wetlands and other protected areas; the application of specific health and safety criteria addressing worker protection; and the imposition of substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from our operations. Numerous governmental authorities, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and analogous state agencies have the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations and the permits issued under them. Such enforcement actions often involve taking difficult and costly compliance measures or corrective actions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of sanctions, including administrative, civil or criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory or remedial obligations, and the issuance of orders limiting or prohibiting some or all of our operations. In addition, we may experience delays in obtaining or be unable to obtain required permits, which may delay or interrupt our operations and limit our growth and revenue.

Liabilities under certain environmental laws can be joint and several and may in some cases be imposed regardless of fault on our part. We could be held liable for damages or remediating facilities that were previously owned or operated by others that received waste generated by our operations regardless of whether such contamination resulted from the conduct of others or from consequences of our own actions that were in compliance with all applicable law at the time those actions were taken. In addition, claims for damages to persons or property, including natural resources, may result from the environmental, health and safety impacts of our operations. Since these environmental risks generally are not fully insurable and can result in substantial costs, such liabilities could have a material adverse effect on both our financial condition and operations.

Our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected if we incur costs and liabilities due to a failure to comply with environmental regulations or a release of hazardous substances into the environment.

Our operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations relating to the management and release of hazardous substances, solid and hazardous wastes and petroleum hydrocarbons. These laws generally regulate the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous waste and may impose strict and, in some cases, joint and several liability for the investigation and remediation of affected areas where hazardous substances may have been released or disposed. The most significant of these environmental laws is as follows:

·                  The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, referred to as CERCLA or the Superfund law, and comparable state laws, which imposes liability on generators, transporters and arrangers of hazardous substances at sites where hazardous substance releases have occurred or are threatening to occur.

·                  The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”), under which owners and operators of onshore facilities and pipelines, lessees or permittees of an area in which an offshore facility is located, and owners and operators of vessels are liable for removal costs and damages that result from a discharge of oil into navigable waters of the United States.

·                  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), as amended, and comparable state statutes, which governs the treatment, storage and disposal of solid waste.

·                  The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, also known as the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), which governs the discharge of pollutants, including natural gas wastes into federal and state waters.

·                  The Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), which governs the disposal of wastewater in underground injection wells.

We believe that we are in substantial compliance with the requirements of CERCLA, RCRA, OPA, CWA, SDWA and related state and local laws and regulations, and that we hold all necessary and up-to-date permits, registrations and other authorizations required under such laws and regulations. Although we believe that the current costs of managing our wastes as they are presently classified are reflected in our budget, any legislative or regulatory reclassification of oil and natural gas exploration and production wastes could increase our costs to manage and dispose of such wastes and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operations.

Federal regulatory initiatives relating to the protection of threatened or endangered species could result in increased costs and additional operating restrictions or delays.

The federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) was established to protect endangered and threatened species. Pursuant to the ESA, if a species is listed as threatened or endangered, restrictions may be imposed on activities adversely affecting that species’ habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) may designate critical habitat and suitable habitat areas that it believes are necessary for survival of a threatened or endangered species. A critical habitat or suitable habitat designation could result in further material restrictions to federal land use and may materially delay or prohibit land access for oil and natural gas development. Similar

protections are offered to migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We conduct operations on federal oil and natural gas leases in areas where certain species that are listed as threatened or endangered and where other species, such as the lesser prairie chicken, potentially could be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA exist. Operations in areas where threatened or endangered species or their habitat are known to exist may require us to incur increased costs to implement mitigation or protective measures and also may restrict or preclude our drilling activities in those areas or during certain seasons, such as breeding and nesting seasons. On March 27, 2014, the FWS announced the listing of the lesser prairie chicken, whose habitat is over a five-state region, including Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas, where we conduct operations, as a threatened species under the ESA. Listing of the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species imposes restrictions on disturbances to critical habitat by landowners and drilling companies that would harass, harm or otherwise result in a “taking” of this species. However, the FWS also announced a final rule that will limit regulatory impacts on landowners and businesses from the listing if those landowners and businesses have entered into certain range-wide conservation planning agreements, such as those developed by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (“WAFWA”), pursuant to which such parties agreed to take steps to protect the lesser prairie chicken’s habitat and to pay a mitigation fee if its actions harm the lesser prairie chicken’s habitat. The listing of the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species or, alternatively, entry into certain range-wide conservation planning agreements with groups such as WAFWA, could result in increased costs to us from species protection measures, time delays or limitations on the drilling program’s activities, which costs, delays or limitations may be significant. We entered into a voluntary Candidate Conservation Agreement (“CCA”) with the FWS, whereby we agreed to take certain actions and limit certain activities, such as limiting drilling on certain portions of our acreage during nesting seasons, in an effort to protect the lesser prairie chicken. Such CCA could result in increased costs to us from species protection measures, time delays or limitations on the drilling programs’ activities, which costs, delays or limitations may be significant.

Our hydraulic fracturing activities are subject to risks that could negatively impact our operations and profitability.

We use hydraulic fracturing for almost all of our wells. Hydraulic fracturing is a process that involves pumping fluid and proppant at high pressure into a hydrocarbon bearing formation to create and hold open fractures. Those fractures enable gas or oil to move through the formation’s pores to the well bore. Typically, the fluid used in this process is primarily water. In plays where hydraulic fracturing is necessary for successful development, the demand for water may exceed the supply. A lack of readily available water or a significant increase in the cost of water could cause delays or increased completion costs.

While hydraulic fracturing has historically been regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions, the practice has become increasingly controversial in certain parts of the country, resulting in increased scrutiny and regulation. For example, in October 2011, the EPA announced its plan to propose federal pre-treatment standards for wastewater generated during the hydraulic fracturing process. Hydraulic fracturing stimulation requires the use of a significant volume of water with some resulting “flowback,” as well as “produced water.” If adopted, the new pretreatment rules will require shale gas operations to pretreat wastewater before transferring it to treatment facilities. Proposed rules are expected sometime in 2014. Moreover, the EPA has

indicated that it may develop and issue regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act to require companies to disclose information regarding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing; however, to date, it has taken no action to do so. In addition to the use of water, hydraulic fracturing fluid contains chemicals or additives designed to optimize production. Many states require companies to disclose the components of this fluid. For example in May 2013, the Texas Railroad Commission adopted new rules governing well casing, cementing and other standards for ensuring that hydraulic fracturing operations do not contaminate nearby water resources. Additional states, as well as the federal government, may follow with similar or conflicting requirements or may restrict the use of certain additives, resulting in more costly or less effective development of wells.

Indeed, in May 2013, the federal Bureau of Land Management published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands that replaces a prior draft of proposed rulemaking issued by the agency in May 2012. The revised proposed rule would continue to require public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands, confirmation that wells used in fracturing operations meet appropriate construction standards, and development of appropriate plans for managing flowback water that returns to the surface. Efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing by local municipalities, states and at the federal level are increasing. Many new regulations are being considered, including limiting water withdrawals and usage, water disposition, restricting which additives may be used, implementing local or state-wide hydraulic fracturing moratoriums and temporary or permanent bans in certain environmentally sensitive and other areas. Public sentiment against hydraulic fracturing and shale gas production has become more vocal, which could lead to permitting and compliance requirements becoming more stringent. Consequences of these actions could increase our capital, compliance, and operating costs significantly, as well as delay or halt our ability to develop our oil and gas reserves.

Any of the above factors could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The adoption of climate change legislation or regulations restricting emission of greenhouse gases could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the oil and natural gas we produce.

Studies have suggested that emission of certain gases, commonly referred to as greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) may be impacting the earth’s climate. Methane, a primary component of natural gas, and carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of oil and natural gas, are examples of greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress and various states have been evaluating, and in some cases implementing, climate-related legislation and other regulatory initiatives that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases. In December 2009, the EPA published its findings that emissions of GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases are, according to the EPA, contributing to the warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA adopted regulations under existing provisions of the federal Clean Air Act that establish Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources. Facilities required to obtain PSD permits for their GHG emissions also will be required to meet “best available control technology” standards that will be established by the

states or, in some cases, by the EPA on a case-by-case basis. The EPA has also adopted rules requiring the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions from specified sources in the United States, including, among others, certain oil and natural gas production facilities on an annual basis, which includes certain of our operations.

While Congress has from time to time considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, there has not been significant activity in the form of adopted legislation to reduce GHG emissions at the federal level in recent years. In the absence of such federal climate legislation, a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing GHG emissions by means of cap and trade programs that typically require major sources of GHG emissions, such as electric power plants, to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting those GHGs. Although it is not possible at this time to predict how legislation or new regulations that may be adopted to address GHG emissions would impact our business, any such future laws and regulations that require reporting of GHGs or otherwise limit emissions of GHGs from our equipment and operations could require us to incur costs to monitor and report on GHG emissions or reduce emissions of GHGs associated with our operations, and such requirements also could adversely affect demand for the oil and natural gas that we produce.