Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Although it is not possible to identify all of the risks we encounter, we have identified the following significant risk factors that could affect our actual results and cause actual results to differ materially from any such results that might be projected, forecasted, or estimated by us in this Annual Report.
Market Risks
The demand and prices for our products and services are affected by several factors, including the supply, demand, and prices for oil and natural gas.
Demand for our services and products is particularly sensitive to the level of exploration, development, and production activity of, and the corresponding capital spending by, oil and natural gas companies. The level of exploration, development, and production activity is directly affected by oil and natural gas prices, which historically have been volatile and are likely to continue to be volatile. Prices for oil and natural gas are subject to large fluctuations in response to relatively minor changes in the supply of and demand for oil and natural gas, market uncertainty, and a variety of other economic factors that are beyond our control.
For example, West Texas Intermediate oil prices averaged $77.58, $76.63, and $65.45 per barrel during 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively. Over this same period, U.S. natural gas prices have also been volatile, with the Henry Hub price averaging $2.53, $2.15, and $3.51 per MMBtu during 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively.
Prolonged volatility and low levels of oil and natural gas prices and supply and demand imbalances generate depressed levels of exploration, development, and production activity. If oil and natural gas prices decline significantly and supply and demand imbalances persist, there would be a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated results of operations, and consolidated financial condition. Should current market conditions worsen for an extended period of time, we may be required to record additional asset impairments. Such potential impairment charges could have a material adverse impact on our operating results. See “Changes in the economic environment have resulted, and could further result, in significant impairments of certain of our long-lived assets.”
Factors affecting the prices of oil and natural gas include: the level of supply and demand for oil and natural gas, worldwide; governmental regulations, including the policies of governments regarding the exploration for and production and development of their oil and natural gas reserves; weather conditions, natural disasters, and health or similar issues, such as pandemics or epidemics; worldwide political, military, and economic conditions such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the conflict in the Israel-Gaza region and continued hostilities in the Middle East; the ability or willingness of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) and non-OPEC countries, such as Russia, to set and maintain oil production levels; the levels of oil production in the U.S.; oil refining capacity and shifts in end-customer preferences toward fuel efficiency and the use of natural gas; the cost of producing and delivering oil and natural gas; and acceleration of the development of, and demand for, alternative energy sources.
We encounter, and expect to continue to encounter, intense competition in the sale of our products and services.
We compete with numerous companies in each of our operating segments, many of which have substantially greater financial and other resources than us. Certain of our competitors have lower standards of quality, and offer equipment and services at lower prices than we do. Other competitors have newer equipment that is better suited to our customers’ needs. If we experience another period of low oil and natural gas pricing, to the extent competitors offer products or services at lower prices or higher quality, or more cost-effective products or services, our business could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, certain of our customers may elect to perform services internally in lieu of using our services, which could also materially and adversely affect our operations.
The profitability of our operations is dependent on other numerous factors beyond our control.
Our operating results in general, and gross profit in particular, are determined by market conditions and the products and services we sell in any period. Other factors, such as heightened competition, changes in sales and distribution channels, availability of skilled labor and contract services, shortages in raw materials, or inability to obtain supplies, such as bromine, at reasonable prices, may also affect the cost of sales and the fluctuation of gross margin in future periods. Although equipment and materials used in providing our products and services to our customers are normally readily available, market conditions could trigger constraints in the supply chain of certain equipment and raw materials used in providing products and services to our customers. If we experience future supply chain disruptions, or if we experience significant increases in the costs of equipment and materials used in providing our products and services, it could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.
Other factors affecting our operating results and activity levels include oil and natural gas industry spending levels for exploration, completion, production, development, and acquisition activities, and impairments of long-lived assets. Customer consolidation may also lead to reductions in capital spending that could have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, Completion Fluids & Products Segment profitability in future periods will continue to be affected by the mix of its products and services, including the timing of TETRA Neptune completion fluid projects and sales of TETRA PureFlow Plus, which are also dependent upon the success of customer offshore exploration and drilling efforts. If our customers reduce capital expenditures, such reductions may have a negative effect on the demand for many of our products and services and on our revenues and results of operations. A large concentration of our operating activities is located in the Permian Basin region of Texas and New Mexico. Our revenues and profitability are particularly dependent upon oil and natural gas industry activity and spending levels in this region. Our operations may also be affected by technological advances, cost of capital, and tax policies. changes in any of these other factors may have a material effect on our revenues and .
In addition, the United States has experienced higher inflation in recent years which has resulted and may in the future result in increases to the costs of our goods, services and labor, and in turn has caused and may cause our capital expenditures and operating costs to rise. To the extent elevated inflation remains, we may experience additional cost increases for our operations, including services, labor costs and equipment if our operating activity
increases. If we can’t recover higher costs through higher prices for our services, it would negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We hold minority investments in both publicly-traded and privately-held companies. Over time, the fair value of these investments may fluctuate significantly causing volatility in our financial results.
As of December 31, 2025, we held an investment in Standard Lithium, which had a fair value of $3.6 million. Our operating results could be significantly affected by fluctuations in the market value of this investment. In January 2025, we sold our Kodiak Gas Services, Inc. shares for proceeds of $19.0 million, net of transaction and broker fees. The value of our remaining investment in Standard Lithium may be adversely affected by negative changes in Standard Lithium’s results of operations, cash flows and financial position.
As of December 31, 2025, we also held investments valued at approximately $8.3 million in a convertible note, common units, and preferred units issued by two privately-held companies. These convertible notes, common units and preferred units are not publicly traded and may not be offered, sold, transferred or pledged until such units are registered pursuant to an effective registration statement or pursuant to an exemption from registration. These investments will be subject to fair value measurement adjustments which have and will affect our financial results and there can be no assurance that the convertible notes will ultimately be repaid or converted in equity of the issuers.
Changes in the economic environment have resulted, and could further result, in significant impairments of certain of our long-lived assets.
Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), we review the carrying value of our long-lived assets when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of these assets may not be recoverable, based on their expected future cash flows. The impact of reduced expected future cash flow could require the write-down of all or a portion of the carrying value for these assets, which would result in additional impairments, resulting in decreased earnings. During the three-year period ending December 31, 2025, we recorded a total of $7.2 million of impairments and other charges for certain right-of-use lease assets, inventory and long-lived assets other than goodwill. See Note 5 - “Impairments and other charges” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of impairments. Depressed commodity prices and/or adverse changes in the economic environment could result in a greater decrease in the demand for many of our products and services, which could impact the expected utilization rates of certain of our long-lived assets, including plant facilities, operating locations, and operating equipment.
We are dependent on third-party suppliers for specific products and equipment necessary to provide certain of our products and services.
We sell a variety of CBFs to the oil and gas industry and non-energy markets, including calcium chloride, calcium bromide, zinc bromide, zinc calcium bromide, sodium bromide, formate-based brines, and our TETRA Neptune fluids, some of which we manufacture and some of which are purchased from third parties. Sales of these products contribute significantly to our revenues. In our manufacture of calcium chloride, we use brines, hydrochloric acid, and other raw materials purchased from third parties. In our manufacture of brominated CBF products, we use elemental bromine, hydrobromic acid, and other raw materials that are purchased from third parties. There are several raw materials for which there are only a limited number of suppliers or a single supplier. To mitigate potential supply constraints, we enter into supply agreements with particular suppliers. For example, we are currently required to purchase all of our requirements of elemental bromine, up to a certain specified maximum and subject to a specified annual minimum, from LANXESS under a long-term supply agreement. We also evaluate alternative sources of supply to avoid reliance on limited or sole-source suppliers when possible. Although we have long-term supply agreements with LANXESS, there is no assurance that we will have an adequate supply of elemental bromine or the other raw materials required for all of our CBF opportunities, that we will be able to find other long-term supply agreements if needed or that such raw materials will be available at reasonable prices. Economic sanctions and other regulations imposed by the United States and other international countries as a result of the involving Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza region, hostilities in the Middle East, or maritime piracy attacks has and may again supplies or affect the prices of certain raw materials. Should the in Ukraine or other international locations further , it is to anticipate the extent to which current or future sanctions could increase our costs, our supplies, reduce our sales or otherwise affect our operations. Additionally, new or increased tariffs could impact raw material prices and the cost of component parts. If
we are unable to acquire these raw materials at reasonable prices, or at all, for a prolonged period, our Completion Fluids & Products Segment business could be materially and adversely affected.
Operating and Technological Risks
We have technological and age-obsolescence risk, both with our products and services as well as with our equipment assets.
New drilling, completion, and production technologies and equipment are constantly evolving. If we are unable to adapt to new advances in technology or replace older assets with new assets, we are at risk of losing customers and market share. Certain equipment, such as a portion of our production testing equipment fleet, may be inadequate to meet the needs of our customers in certain markets. The permanent replacement or upgrade of any of our equipment will require significant capital. Due to the unique nature of many of these assets, finding a suitable or acceptable replacement may be difficult and/or cost prohibitive. The replacement or enhancement of these assets over the next several years may be necessary for us to effectively compete in the current marketplace.
Our operations involve significant operating risks and insurance coverage may not be available or cost-effective.
We are subject to operating hazards normally associated with the oilfield service industry, including automobile accidents, fires, explosions, blowouts, formation collapses, mechanical problems, abnormally pressured formations, and environmental accidents. Environmental accidents could include, but are not limited to, oil and produced water spills, gas leaks or ruptures, uncontrollable flows of oil, gas, or well fluids, or discharges of CBFs or toxic gases or other pollutants into the air, soil, water, groundwater, etc. These operating hazards may also include injuries to employees and third parties during the performance of our operations.
We have maintained a policy of insuring our risks of operational hazards that we believe is customary in the industry. We believe that the limits of insurance coverage we have purchased are consistent with the exposures we face and the nature of our products and services. Due to economic conditions in the insurance industry, from time to time, we have increased our self-insured retentions for certain policies in order to minimize the increased costs of coverage, or we have reduced our limits of insurance coverage for, or not procured, certain coverage. In certain areas of our business, we, from time to time, have elected to assume the risk of loss for specific assets. To the extent we suffer losses or claims that are not covered, or are only partially covered by insurance, our results of operations could be adversely affected.
We may not be able to economically extract lithium, bromine or other minerals from the leased acreage in our Arkansas brine leases.
In addition to proven bromine reserves, our Arkansas brine leases currently contain probable bromine reserves, inferred, indicated and measured resources of lithium and bromine and measured and indicated resources of magnesium, and we may never convert any of these resources to proven mineral reserves on these properties, or enough of them to justify the decision to engage in the extraction of lithium, bromine, magnesium and/or other minerals. There can be no assurance that any future exploration efforts on these properties will be successful.
While we continue to evaluate the next steps regarding the potential development of our brine leases, we have only very recently completed a definitive feasibility study with respect to bromine and an updated technical resources report for our Evergreen Brine Unit, and we are not currently able to determine the economic viability of the extraction of the lithium and bromine from the leased acreage. In addition, the extraction of lithium, bromine, magnesium and other minerals from these brine leases will likely require a significant amount of time and capital, which may exceed current estimates and which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. In September 2025, we published an updated definitive feasibility study and updated our technical resources report with respect to bromine, lithium, magnesium, manganese and other key minerals from our Evergreen Brine Unit. Prior to producing magnesium, lithium and/or bromine from TETRA’s brine leases, including the Evergreen Brine Unit, we must complete a lithium FEED study and a feasibility study for our lithium acreage, validate the lithium technologies used before lithium production begins, coordinate with the local utility co-op for the construction of power infrastructure to supply electricity to our plant site, complete detailed engineering for a processing facility, obtain permits for our extraction activities which could be subject to delays or onerous conditions, as well as finalize any contractual agreements with our potential joint venture partners, Saltwerx and Magrathea Metals, Inc. (“Magrathea”). We and Saltwerx continue to evaluate the potential development of and the negotiation of the joint
venture for the Evergreen Brine Unit and are continuing to advance the engineering studies required to more precisely define the lithium project economics. Unless and until we finalize any contractual agreements with Saltwerx, including a joint venture agreement, our relationship with Saltwerx will be governed by the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and the Brine Unit Operating Agreement approved by the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. See “Item 2. Properties—Bromine and Lithium Resources” for more information regarding the MOU. In addition, we signed a term sheet with Magrathea regarding a potential joint venture and we are evaluating the potential development of our magnesium resources and the negotiation of a joint venture with respect to magnesium from our brine leases. As a result of these uncertainties, no assurance can be given that any future exploration programs will result in the discovery of commercially viable mineral resources or reserves.
Failure to effectively and timely execute any of our strategic growth initiatives could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Our future success may depend on our ability to effectively execute on our strategic growth initiatives, including our low carbon energy initiatives. This strategy depends on our ability to effectively identify, develop, and scale new technologies, such as TETRA Oasis TDS, expand application of our global infrastructure and chemistry expertise and on the economic viability of the extraction of lithium, bromine and other minerals from our Arkansas brine leases. In addition, the demand for our new technologies or products, such TETRA Oasis TDS and TETRA PureFlow Plus, may not materialize as expected. Furthermore, execution of our strategic growth initiatives are subject to a number of permitting, real estate, and project development risks, which could delay, limit, or even prevent the successful execution of these initiatives. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that the strategic growth initiatives we may identify will meet the expectations of our various stakeholders. Even if successful, we could face increased costs from our pursuit of our strategic growth initiatives. For example, the exploration, development and extraction of bromine, lithium and other minerals from our Arkansas brine leases will likely require significant time and capital, and there is no guarantee of a return from these operations. Our strategic growth initiatives may also depend in part on successful development of partnerships with other companies, such as our partnership and investments in privately-held companies and our MOU and potential joint venture partnership with Saltwerx and potential joint venture with Magrathea, and such partners’ execution of their own respective projects and business strategies. Moreover, execution of these initiatives may turn on the timely issuance of permits or other authorizations for activities, which we cannot control. If we, or the projects or partners we invest in, to execute our strategic growth initiatives as planned, or if execution of such initiatives requires more time and capital than expected, demand for our technologies, services and mineral assets and consequently, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be affected.
Weather-Related Risks
Certain of our operations are seasonal and depend, in part, on weather conditions. In addition, severe weather, including named windstorms, and severe winter weather, can cause damage and disruption to our businesses.
In certain markets, the Water & Flowback Services Segment’s onshore water management services can be dependent on adequate water supplies being available to our customers. To the extent severe drought or other weather-related conditions prevent our customers from obtaining needed water, frac water operations may not be possible and our Water & Flowback Services Segment business may be negatively affected.
Further, a portion of our operations is susceptible to adverse weather conditions in the Gulf of America, including hurricanes and other extreme weather conditions. Even if we do not experience direct damage from storms, we may experience disruptions in our operations, because we are unable to operate or our customers or suppliers may curtail their activities due to damage to their wells, platforms, pipelines, and facilities. From time to time, our onshore operations are also negatively affected by adverse weather conditions, including sustained rain and flooding. Severe weather during the winter may also have a significant impact on natural gas storage levels and reduce drilling activity and other customer activity substantially.
Financial Risks
The market price of our common stock has been and may continue to be volatile.
The market price of our common stock has fluctuated in the past and is subject to significant fluctuations in response to many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including the following:
• our operational performance;
• supply, demand, and prices of oil and natural gas;
• the activity levels of our customers;
• deviations in our earnings from publicly disclosed forward-looking guidance or analysts’ projections;
• recommendations by research analysts that cover us and other companies in our industry;
• risks related to acquisitions, divestitures and our growth strategy;
• uncertainty about current global economic conditions; and
• other general economic conditions.
During 2025, the closing price for our common stock ranged from a high of $9.40 per share to a low of $2.13 per share. In recent years, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price for companies in industries similar to ours. Some of these fluctuations have been unrelated to operating performance and are attributable, in part, to outside factors such as general economic conditions, including the impact of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, conflict in the Israel-Gaza region, continued hostilities in the Middle East, maritime piracy attacks, inflation, and fear of a global recession. The volatility of our common stock may make it difficult to resell shares of our common stock at attractive prices.
Our long-term debt agreements contain covenants and other provisions that restrict our ability to take certain actions and may limit our ability to operate or grow our business in the future.
As of December 31, 2025, our total long-term debt outstanding of $181.4 million consisted of the carrying amount outstanding under our Term Credit Agreement, which matures in January 2030. We also have availability under our Asset-Based Credit Agreement (the “ABL Credit Agreement”), and under our revolving credit facility for seasonal working capital needs of subsidiaries in Sweden (“Swedish Credit Facility”).
The Term Credit Agreement contains certain affirmative and negative covenants, including covenants that restrict the ability of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries to take certain actions including, among other things and subject to certain significant exceptions, the incurrence of debt, the granting of liens, engaging in mergers and other fundamental changes, the making of investments, entering into transactions with affiliates, the payment of dividends and other restricted payments, the prepayment of other indebtedness and the sale of assets. The Term Credit Agreement also requires the Company to maintain a Leverage Ratio (as defined in the new term loan credit agreement) of not more than 4.0 to 1.0 as of the end of each fiscal quarter and Liquidity (as defined in the Term Credit Agreement) of not less than $50.0 million at all times.
The ABL Credit Agreement contains certain affirmative and negative covenants, including covenants that restrict the ability of TETRA and certain of its subsidiaries to take certain actions including, among other things and subject to certain significant exceptions, incurring debt, granting liens, engaging in mergers and other fundamental changes, making investments, entering into, or amending, transactions with affiliates, paying dividends and making other restricted payments, prepaying other indebtedness and selling assets. The ABL Credit Agreement also contains a provision that may require a fixed charge coverage ratio (as defined in the ABL Credit Agreement) of not less than 1.00 to 1.00 in the event that certain conditions associated with outstanding borrowings and cash availability occur.
Our continuing ability to comply with covenants in our Long-Term Debt Agreements depends largely upon our ability to generate adequate earnings and operating cash flow. Our failure to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default. If there were an event of default under our Long-Term Debt Agreements, or any future instruments governing our indebtedness, the holders of the affected indebtedness could declare all of the affected indebtedness immediately due and payable, which, in turn, could cause the acceleration of the maturity of all of our other indebtedness. We may not have sufficient funds available, or we may not have access to sufficient capital from other sources, to repay any accelerated debt. If amounts outstanding under the ABL Credit Agreement were accelerated, the lenders under the ABL Credit Agreement could foreclose on the liens securing such agreement, and we could lose the assets securing such agreement. Any event of default under our Long-Term Debt Agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We may not be able to utilize all or a portion of our net operating loss carryforwards or other tax benefits to offset future taxable income for U.S. federal, U.S. state or non-U.S. tax purposes, which could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Our Board of Directors adopted a Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, which is designed to preserve our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax benefits.
As of December 31, 2025, we had deferred tax assets associated with U.S. federal, U.S. state, and non-U.S. net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) equal to approximately $66.3 million, $8.5 million, and $9.1 million, respectively. In the jurisdictions in which NOLs are subject to an expiration period, our NOLs, if not utilized, will expire at various dates beginning in 2026 through 2041.
We may be limited in the portion of our NOLs that we can use in the future to offset taxable income for U.S. federal, U.S. state, and non-U.S. income tax purposes. Utilization of these NOLs depends on many factors, including our future taxable income, which cannot be assured and our future assessments may be materially different from the current estimate.
Under Section 382 (“Section 382”) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if a corporation experiences an “ownership change,” its NOLs and certain other tax attributes (“Tax Attributes”) could be substantially limited and the timing of the usage of such Tax Attributes could be substantially delayed. A corporation generally will experience an ownership change if one or more stockholders (or group of stockholders) who are each deemed to own at least 5% of the corporation’s stock increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a testing period (generally, a rolling three-year period). Utilization of our Tax Attributes may be subject to a significant annual limitation as a result of prior or future “ownership changes.” Determining the limitations under Section 382 is technical and highly complex, and no assurance can be given that, upon further analysis, our ability to utilize our NOLs or other Tax Attributes will not be limited to a greater extent than we currently anticipate.
Our Board of Directors has adopted the Tax Plan to preserve the availability of our Tax Attributes. The Tax Plan contributes to the preservation of our Tax Attributes by deterring certain acquisitions of our common stock, and is intended to reduce the risk that an ownership change under Section 382 occurs. There can be no assurances, however, that the deterrent mechanism will be effective, and, therefore, such acquisitions may still occur. In addition, the Tax Plan could adversely affect the marketability of our common stock by discouraging existing or potential investors from acquiring our common stock or additional shares of our common stock. If we are unable to use the Tax Attributes in years in which we have taxable income, we would likely pay significantly more in cash tax than if we were able to utilize the Tax Attributes, and those tax costs would negatively impact our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We have continuing exposure to abandonment and decommissioning obligations associated with oil and gas properties previously owned by Maritech.
From 2001 to 2012, our former subsidiary, Maritech, acquired, produced, and operated various oil and gas properties in the Gulf of America and eventually sold the various oil and gas producing properties in numerous transactions to different buyers. In connection with those sales, the buyers generally assumed the decommissioning liabilities associated with the properties sold (the “Legacy Liabilities”) and generally became the successor operator. In some cases, we provided guaranties of certain liabilities retained by Maritech, and we provided guaranties to the entities which originally sold the properties to Maritech. To the extent that a buyer, or subsequent buyer, of these properties fails to perform the decommissioning work required, Maritech or we may be required to perform operations to satisfy the Legacy Liabilities.
In March 2018, pursuant to a series of transactions, Maritech sold the remaining offshore leases held by Maritech to Orinoco Natural Resources, LLC (“Orinoco”) and, immediately thereafter, we sold all equity interest in Maritech to Orinoco. Under the Maritech Asset Purchase Agreement, Orinoco assumed all of Maritech’s decommissioning liabilities related to the leases conveyed to Orinoco (the “Orinoco Lease Liabilities”) and, under the Maritech Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, Orinoco assumed all other liabilities of Maritech, including the Legacy Liabilities and liabilities pertaining to properties still operated by Maritech, subject to limited exceptions unrelated to the decommissioning liabilities. Pursuant to a Bonding Agreement entered into as part of the Orinoco transactions (the “Bonding Agreement”), Orinoco provided non-revocable performance bonds in an aggregate amount of $46.8 million to cover the Orinoco Lease Liabilities (the “Initial Bonds”) and agreed to replace the Initial Bonds with other non-revocable performance bonds in the aggregate sum of $47.0 million (collectively, the
“Replacement Bonds”). In the event Orinoco does not provide the Replacement Bonds, Orinoco is required to make certain cash escrow payments to us. However, as of the date of this report, the Replacement Bonds have not been received and no cash escrow payments have been made. In the event that Orinoco fails to perform, our guarantees may still cover these liabilities. Separately, significant decommissioning liabilities that were assumed by the buyers of the Maritech properties in these previous sales remain unperformed. If these buyers, or any successor owners of the Maritech properties, are unable to satisfy and extinguish their decommissioning liabilities due to bankruptcy or other liquidity issues, the U.S. Department of the Interior may seek to impose those obligations on Maritech and on us. The amount of cash necessary to satisfy these obligations could be significant and, if Maritech or Orinoco is unable to cover any deficiency between any bond payment and the decommissioning liability, we may be liable for a portion of the costs and our financial condition and results of operations may be affected. For example, Maritech is liable, with other third parties, for certain decommissioning obligations in the Gulf of America.
In addition, Maritech and certain other interest owners have received decommissioning orders from BSEE and could receive additional decommissioning orders in the future. Such decommissioning orders received by Maritech and other interest owners relate to asset retirement obligations for certain properties in the Gulf of America. From time to time, we also receive demand notices from third parties related to certain corporate guarantees or other arrangements covering such decommissioning liabilities. While the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted at this time, if Maritech or other interest owners default, BSEE or third parties may seek to enforce certain corporate guarantees or third party indemnity agreements against us for a portion of such decommissioning obligations, which may be significant. On February 13, 2025, Arena Energy, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking indemnification from us and Maritech for decommissioning costs related to a Maritech oil and gas platform in the Gulf of America. The estimated remaining decommissioning costs for such property are approximately $24.5 million, before TETRA’s bond proceeds of $8.1 million. Additionally, on November 3, 2025, Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC (“Anadarko”) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for amounts exceeding $27.0 million asserting Maritech and TETRA are in of certain obligations to address plugging and and decommissioning obligations for certain outer continental shelf leases and related infrastructure located in the Gulf of America. While the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted, we could potentially be liable for an estimated amount in the range of $11.3 million to $27.0 million, before Maritech’s proportionate share of the bond proceeds (approximately $3.9 million), depending on the outcome of negotiations and whether other partners or property owners in the chain of title fulfill their respective obligations under their agreements. Such estimates are based on information known to us as of the time of this report and are subject to change. We are evaluating the included in the and intend to vigorously the brought by Arena Energy, LLC and Anadarko, but are presently to predict the duration, scope or result of this proceeding. The estimates above exclude attorney fees, which cannot be reasonably determined.
See Note 11 - “Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of decommissioning liabilities, the Bonding Agreement, and the process for replacement of the Orinoco bonds.
From time to time the U.S. Department of Interior has sought to impose more stringent supplemental bonding and financial assurance requirements, which may increase our risks associated with the decommissioning obligations pertaining to oil and gas properties previously owned by Maritech.
There has been substantial uncertainty relating to the supplemental bonding and financial assurance program managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior over the past several years. Under prior administrations, the U.S. Department of Interior has sought to require certain oil and gas owners and operators with infrastructure in the Gulf of America to provide additional supplemental bonds or other acceptable financial assurance for decommissioning liabilities. These changes have the potential to adversely impact the financial condition of lease owners and operators in the Gulf of America and increase the number of such owners and operators seeking bankruptcy protection.
For example, in April 2024, BOEM finalized a rulemaking which modified its criteria for determining bonds and financial assurance for offshore oil and gas lessees and other operators, generally imposing more stringent requirements for waiving supplemental bonding requirements. These developments, coupled with recent volatility in the surety market with respect to covering OCS obligations, have the potential to increase operating costs for lease owners and operators in the Gulf of America and reduce the availability of surety bonds due to the increased demands for such bonds.
The U.S. Department of the Interior also increased its estimates for decommissioning liabilities in the Gulf of America, causing the potential need for additional supplemental bonding and/or other financial assurances to be dramatically increased. When coupled with any volatility with respect to the prices of oil and gas, it is difficult to predict the impact of BOEM’s 2024 rule and regulatory changes already promulgated, and any other changes as may be forthcoming by the U.S. Department of the Interior relating to financial assurance for decommissioning liabilities. We cannot predict what actions, if any, and on what timing, the current administration may take with respect to these matters; however, the ultimate impact of BOEM’s 2024 rule, and other rulemaking, is presently unclear given a recent Executive Order issued by the current administration. Still, any further revisions to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s supplemental bonding requirements that increase their stringency could result in demands for the posting of increased financial assurances by owners and operators in the Gulf of America, including Maritech, Orinoco and the other entities to whom Maritech divested its Gulf of America assets, but such demands cannot be directly placed on us due to the fact that we are only a former parent company of Maritech and are only a guarantor as opposed to an actual lease owner or operator. This may lease owners and operators of leases and other infrastructure in the Gulf of America to obtain additional surety bonds or other forms of financial assurance, the costs of which could be significant. Moreover, the changes to the bonding and financial assurance program for the Gulf of America (to include of supplemental bonding waivers, exceedances of the surety bond market’s ability to meet current demands, and resultant ) could increase the risk that we may be required to step in and remaining decommissioning liabilities of Maritech and any buyer of the Maritech properties, including Orinoco, through our third-party indemnity agreements and private guarantees. Such obligations could be significant and could affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We are exposed to significant credit risks.
We face credit risk associated with the significant amounts of accounts receivable we have with our customers in the energy industry. Many of our customers, particularly those associated with our onshore operations, are small- to medium-sized oil and gas operators that may be more susceptible to declines in oil and gas commodity prices or generally increased operating expenses than larger companies. Our ability to collect from our customers could be impacted by volatility in the oil and natural gas price environment and we may face increased credit risks if the price of oil were to fall and remain low for an extended period of time.
As discussed in the preceding risk factors, we face the risk of having to satisfy decommissioning liabilities on properties presently or formerly owned by Maritech. Consequently, we face credit risk associated with the ability of these companies to satisfy their decommissioning liabilities. If these companies are unable to satisfy their obligations, it will increase the possibility that we will become liable for such decommissioning obligations in the future.
Our operating results and cash flows for certain of our subsidiaries are subject to foreign currency risk.
The operations of certain of our subsidiaries are exposed to fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and certain foreign currencies, particularly the euro, the British pound, the Brazilian Real, the Argentinian peso and the Mexican peso. Our plans to grow our international operations could cause this exposure from fluctuating currencies to increase. Historically, exchange rates of foreign currencies have fluctuated significantly compared to the U.S. dollar, and this exchange rate volatility is expected to continue. Significant fluctuations in foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar could adversely affect our balance sheet and results of operations.
We are exposed to interest rate risks with regard to our credit facility debt and future refinancing thereof.
As of December 31, 2025, we had $190.0 million principal outstanding under our Term Credit Agreement and no balance outstanding under our ABL Credit Agreement. These credit facilities consist of floating rate loans that bear interest at an agreed upon percentage rate spread above the secured overnight financing rate (“SOFR”) or an alternate base rate. Whenever we have amounts outstanding under our long-term debt agreements and credit facilities, our cash flows and results of operations will be subject to interest rate risk exposure associated with the debt balance outstanding. We currently are not a party to an interest rate swap contract or other derivative instrument designed to hedge our exposure to interest rate fluctuation risk.
Our Term Credit Agreement is scheduled to mature on January 1, 2030 and our ABL Credit Agreement is scheduled to mature on May 13, 2029. There can be no assurance that financial market conditions or borrowing terms at the times these existing debt agreements are renegotiated will be as favorable as the current terms and
interest rates. We may be unable to obtain financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, debt service requirements, or other purposes.
Legal, Regulatory, and Political Risks
Current geopolitical events and macroeconomic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Demand for our services and products is particularly sensitive to the level of exploration, development, and production activity of, and the corresponding capital spending by, oil and natural gas companies. Furthermore, the industry may experience a potential shift of priorities driven by changes in the global economy, fluctuating commodity prices and evolving tariffs — all of which could impact upstream oil and gas investment and, in turn, affect demand for our products and services. The level of exploration, development, and production activity is directly affected by oil and natural gas prices, which historically have been volatile and are likely to continue to be volatile. Geopolitical events and macroeconomic conditions have contributed to oil and natural gas price volatility and are likely to continue to do so in the future. We are monitoring the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the conflict in the Israel-Gaza region, heightened tensions with Iran, as well as the related export controls and financial and economic sanctions imposed on certain industry sectors and parties involved in such conflicts. We are also monitoring the impact on the Strait of Hormuz as a result of the unrest in the Middle East. If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, we would experience potential shipment , cost increases, among others, which could affect our business. The broader consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian and in the Middle East, which may include further sanctions, , supply chain , regional and geopolitical shifts, may have effects on global macroeconomic conditions, increase in the price and demand for oil and natural gas, increase exposure to , cause in global supply chains, increase foreign currency fluctuations, cause constraints or in the capital markets and limit sources of liquidity. We cannot predict the extent of the ’s effect on our business and results of operations as well as on the global economy and energy markets.
We operate in a highly competitive environment. If we are unable to maintain product and technology leadership, this could adversely affect any competitive advantage we hold.
The industries in which we operate are highly competitive and rapidly evolving. Our business may be adversely affected if we fail to continue developing and producing innovative products and services in response to changes in the market, including customer and government requirements, or if we fail to deliver such products and services to our customers in a timely and cost-competitive manner. If we are unable to maintain products and services leadership in our industries, our ability to maintain market share, defend, maintain, or increase prices for our products and services, and negotiate acceptable contract terms with our customers could be adversely affected. Furthermore, competing or new technologies may accelerate the obsolescence of our products or services and reduce the value of our intellectual property.
Limitations on our ability to obtain, maintain, protect, or enforce our intellectual property rights, including our trade secrets, could cause a loss in revenue and any competitive advantage we hold.
There can be no assurance that the steps we take to obtain, maintain, protect, and enforce our intellectual property rights will be adequate. Some of our products or services, and the processes we use to produce or provide them, have been granted patent protection, have patent applications pending, or are trade secrets. Our business may be adversely affected when our patents are unenforceable, the claims allowed under our patents are not sufficient to protect our technology, our patent applications are denied, or our trade secrets are not adequately protected. Our competitors may also be able to develop technology independently that is similar to ours without infringing on our patents or gaining access to our trade secrets.
Our proprietary rights may be violated or compromised, which could damage our operations. In addition, third parties may claim that we have infringed upon or otherwise violated their intellectual property rights.
We own numerous patents, patent applications, and unpatented trade secret technologies in the U.S. and certain foreign countries. There can be no assurance that the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary rights will be adequate to deter misappropriation of these rights. In addition, independent third parties may develop competitive or superior technologies.
Additionally, the tools, techniques, methodologies, programs, and components we use to provide our services and products may infringe upon or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others or be challenged on that basis. Regardless of the merits, any such claims generally result in significant legal and other costs, including reputational harm, and may distract management from running our business. Resolving such claims could increase our costs, including through royalty payments to acquire licenses, if available, from third parties and through the development of replacement technologies. If a license to resolve a claim were not available, we might not be able to continue providing a particular service or product.
Our operations are subject to extensive and evolving U.S. and foreign federal, state, and local laws and regulatory requirements that increase our operating costs and expose us to potential fines, penalties, and litigation.
Laws and regulations govern our operations, including those relating to corporate governance, employees, taxation, fees, importation and exportation restrictions, environmental affairs, health and safety, and the manufacture, storage, handling, transportation, use and sale of chemical products. Certain foreign countries impose additional restrictions on our activities, such as currency restrictions and restrictions on various labor practices. These laws and regulations are becoming increasingly complex and stringent, and compliance is becoming increasingly expensive. Governmental authorities have the power to enforce compliance with these regulations, and violators are subject to civil and criminal penalties, including civil fines, and injunctions. Third parties may also have the right to pursue legal actions to enforce compliance with certain laws and regulations. It is possible that increasingly strict environmental, health and safety laws, regulations, and enforcement policies could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us.
For example, the EPA has asserted federal regulatory authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control program over certain hydraulic fracturing activities involving the use of diesel fuels and published permitting guidance for such activities and issued a final regulation under the Clean Water Act prohibiting discharges to publicly owned treatment works of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and gas facilities. Certain environmental and other groups have suggested that additional federal, state, and local laws and regulations may be needed to more closely regulate the hydraulic fracturing process. Several states have adopted regulations that require operators to disclose the chemical constituents in hydraulic fracturing fluids. We cannot predict whether any foreign, federal, state or local laws or regulations will be enacted regarding hydraulic fracturing, and, if so, what actions any such laws or regulations would require or prohibit. If additional levels of regulation or permitting requirements are imposed on oil and gas operators through the adoption of new laws and regulations, the demand for certain of our products and services could be decreased or subject to delays.
We operate in the U.S. Gulf of America. At this time, we cannot predict the full impact that other regulatory actions that may be mandated by the federal government may have on our operations or the operations of our customers. Other governmental or regulatory actions could further reduce our revenues and increase our operating costs, including the cost to insure offshore operations, resulting in reduced cash flows and profitability.
Our onshore and offshore operations, including operations related to energy storage and carbon capture, utilization, and storage, expose us to risks such as the potential for harmful substances escaping into the environment and causing damages or injuries, which could be substantial. We maintain limited environmental liability insurance covering named locations and environmental risks associated with contract services for oil and gas operations. We could be materially and adversely affected by an enforcement proceeding or a claim that is not covered or is only partially covered by insurance.
Because our business depends on the level of activity in the oil and natural gas industry, existing or future laws, regulations, treaties, or international agreements that impose additional restrictions on the industry may adversely affect our financial results. Regulators are becoming more focused on-air emissions from oil and gas operations, including volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and GHGs. In particular, the focus on GHGs and climate change, including incentives to conserve energy or use alternative energy sources, such as those contained in laws like the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA 2022”), unless amended or otherwise superseded, could have a negative impact on our financial results if such laws, regulations, treaties, or international agreements reduce the worldwide demand for oil and natural gas or otherwise result in reduced economic activity generally. In addition, such laws, regulations, treaties, or international agreements could result in increased compliance costs, capital spending requirements, or additional operating restrictions for us, which may have a negative impact on our financial results.
In addition to increasing our risk of environmental liability, the rigorous enforcement of environmental laws and regulations has accelerated demand for our products and services in some of the markets we serve. For more information on the environmental laws and regulations to which we are subject, see our disclosures titled “Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs Regulation” set forth in Item 1 of this Annual Report.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy and could impose new costs on our customers’ operations.
In August 2022, President Biden signed the IRA 2022 into law. The IRA 2022 contains hundreds of billions in incentives for the development of renewable energy, clean hydrogen, clean fuels, electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure and carbon capture and sequestration, amongst other provisions. In addition, the IRA 2022 imposes the first ever federal fee on the emission of greenhouse gases through a methane emissions charge. The IRA 2022 amends the federal Clean Air Act to impose a fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), including those sources in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production and gathering and boosting source categories. The methane emissions charges were set to begin in calendar year 2024; however the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law on July 4, 2025, postponed the effective date of methane emissions charges until 2034. As a result, while the obligation for the fee remains, implementation is stalled until new rules are developed and take effect, which may not occur until 2034. To the extent that the methane emissions charge is implemented in 2034, it could decrease demand for oil and gas and consequently adversely affect the business of our customers, thereby reducing demand for our other services.
Our operations, and those of our suppliers and customers, are subject to a series of risks arising from climate change.
The threat of climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the United States and in foreign countries. As a result, our operations as well as the operations of our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers and our suppliers are subject to a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks associated with the production and processing of fossil fuels and emission of GHGs.
In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level, though laws such as the IRA 2022 advance numerous climate-related objectives. Following the U.S. Supreme Court finding that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA adopted regulations that, among other things, established construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, required the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the United States, and together with the DOT, implemented GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. However, from time to time certain administrations have taken actions to repeal or revise such climate-related actions. For example, in February 2026, the EPA rescinded its 2009 GHG (“GHG”) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond. It is unclear at this time what the effect on the Company will be of this action or whether it will be upheld if challenged in court. For more information, see our disclosures titled “The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy and could impose new costs on our customers’ operations.” Given the long-term trend toward increasing regulation, further federal GHG regulations of the oil and gas industry remain a significant possibility. For more information, see our disclosures titled “Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs Regulation” set forth in Item 1 of this Annual Report. Moreover, certain international jurisdictions continue to impose more regulations with respect to GHGs, and other stakeholders may pressure us or our customers to take additional action beyond any applicable regulatory requirements.
Separately, various states and groups of states have adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulation or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on such areas as GHG cap and trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and restriction of emissions. At the international level, in 2021, the U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement, which requires member nations to submit non-binding GHG emissions reduction goals every five years. However, on January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement and from any other commitments made by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Additionally, President Trump revoked any purported financial commitment made by the United States pursuant to the same, The full impact of these actions is uncertain at this time.
Governmental, scientific, and public concern over the threat of climate change arising from GHG emissions has resulted in increasing political risks in the United States. Litigation risks are also increasing as a number of parties have sought to bring suit against oil and natural gas companies in state or federal court, alleging among other things, that such companies created public nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to climate change or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors or customers by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. There is also a growing trend of parties suing public companies for “greenwashing,” which is where a company makes unsubstantiated statements designed to consumers or shareholders into thinking that the company’s products or practices are more environmentally than they are.
There have also recently been increasing financial risks for companies in the fossil fuel sector as certain shareholders currently invested in such companies may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into other sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies or seek to require more aggressive action with respect to climate-related risks, although this trend has waned recently and several high-profile banks and institutional investors have withdrawn from various associations that aim to limit financing of industries that emit significant GHG emissions. Limitation of investments in and financing for fossil fuel energy companies could result in the restriction, delay or cancellation of drilling programs or development or production activities, which could reduce demand for our products and services. Additionally, the SEC published a final rule in March 2024 that would require registrants to make certain climate-related disclosures, including any climate targets and goals, and data on Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions. However, the future of the rule is uncertain at this time given that its implementation has been stayed pending the outcome of legal challenges. On March 27, 2025, the SEC voted to end its defense of the rules requiring disclosure of climate-related risks and greenhouse gas emissions. On September 12, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered that the would again be held in abeyance until such time as the SEC reconsiders or renews it defense of the rule. In its order, the Eighth Circuit emphasized that the SEC has the “responsibility to determine whether its Final Rules will be rescinded, repealed, modified, or in .” Therefore, unless or until the SEC reconsiders or resumes the rules, the will remain paused. Several states have also enacted or are considering climate-related disclosure requirements. While we cannot predict the final form or substance of these various rules, this may result in additional costs to comply with any such disclosure requirements. Additionally, we cannot predict how financial institutions and investors might consider information under such rules, and as a result it is possible that we could face increases with respect to the costs of, or restrictions imposed on, our access to capital.
The adoption and implementation of new or more stringent international, federal or state legislation, regulations or other regulatory initiatives that impose more stringent standards for GHG emissions from the oil and natural gas sector or otherwise restrict the areas in which this sector may produce oil and natural gas or generate the GHG emissions could result in increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for oil and natural gas, which could reduce demand for our products and services. Additionally, political, litigation and financial risks may result in our oil and natural gas operators restricting or cancelling production activities, incurring liability for infrastructure damages as a result of climatic changes, or impairing their ability to continue to operate in an economic manner, which also could reduce the demand for our products and services. Actions taken on the federal, state or local levels to ban, limit, or restrict products that rely on oil or natural gas could also reduce demand for our products and services. One or more of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.
Climate change may also result in various physical risks, such as the increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather events or changes in meteorological and hydrological patterns, that could adversely impact us, our customers’, and our suppliers’ operations. Such physical risks may result in damage to our customers’ facilities or infrastructure, or otherwise adversely impact their operations, such as if they become subject to water use curtailments in response to drought, or demand for their products, such as to the extent warmer winters reduce the demand for energy for heating purposes, which may ultimately reduce demand for the products and services we provide. Such physical risks may also impact our suppliers, which may adversely affect our ability to provide our products and services.
Increased attention to ESG matters and conservation measures may adversely impact our or our customers’ business.
Increasing attention to, and societal expectations on companies to address, climate change and other environmental and social impacts, investor, regulatory and societal expectations regarding voluntary and mandatory ESG-related disclosures, and consumer demand for alternative forms of energy may result in increased costs, reduced demand for our customers’ products, reduced profits, increased investigations and litigation, and negative impacts on our stock price and reduced access to capital markets. Increased attention to climate change and environmental conservation, for example, may result in demand shifts for oil and natural gas products and additional governmental investigations and private litigation against us or our customers. To the extent that societal pressures, regulatory, political or other factors are involved, it is possible that such liability could be imposed without regard to our causation of or contribution to the asserted damage, or to other mitigating factors. While the extent of these pressures may change from time to time, we cannot predict the ultimate impact they may have in the near, mid or long-term on our operations. For more information, see our risk factor titled “Our operations, and those of our suppliers and customers, are subject to a series of risks arising from climate change.”
Moreover, while we may create and publish voluntary disclosures regarding ESG matters from time to time, certain statements in those voluntary disclosures may be based on expectations and assumptions and hypothetical scenarios that may or may not be representative of current or actual risks or events or forecasts of expected risks or events, including the costs associated therewith. Mandatory ESG-related disclosure is also emerging as an area where we may be, subject to required disclosures in certain jurisdictions, and any such mandatory disclosures may similarly necessitate the use of hypothetical, projected or estimated data, some of which is not controlled by us and is inherently subject to imprecision. Disclosures reliant upon such expectations and assumptions and hypothetical scenarios are necessarily uncertain and may be prone to error or subject to misinterpretation given the long timelines involved and the lack of an established single approach to identifying, measuring and reporting on many ESG matters. Additionally, we may announce various targets or product and service offerings in an attempt to improve our ESG profile, which are often aspirational. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to meet any such targets or that such targets or offerings will have the intended results on our ESG profile, including but not limited to any costs, consequences, changes to relevant accounting methodologies or technical associated with such targets or offerings. Also, any voluntary actions, we may receive pressure from certain investors, lenders, or other groups to adopt more aggressive climate or other ESG-related goals or policies, but we cannot guarantee that we will be to pursue or implement such goals because of potential costs or technical or operational .
Furthermore, our reputation, as well as our stakeholder relationships, could be adversely impacted as a result of, among other things, any failure to meet our ESG plans or goals or stakeholder perceptions of statements made by us, our employees and executives, agents, or other third parties or public pressure from investors or policy groups to change our policies. Certain statements with respect to ESG matters are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, related to the risk of potential “greenwashing.” Additionally, certain employment practices and social initiatives are the subject of scrutiny by both those calling for the continued advancement of such policies, as well as those who believe they should be curbed, including government actors, and the complex regulatory and legal frameworks applicable to such initiatives continue to evolve. We cannot be certain of the impact of such regulatory, legal and other developments on our business. More recent political developments could mean that the Company faces increasing criticism or litigation risks from certain “anti-ESG” parties, including various governmental agencies. Such sentiment may focus on the Company’s environmental commitments (such as reducing GHG emissions) or its pursuit of certain employment practices or social initiatives that are to be political or polarizing in nature or are to laws based, in part, on changing priorities of, or interpretations by, federal agencies or state governments. Consideration of ESG-related factors in the Company’s decision-making could be subject to increasing and from such anti-ESG parties. As a result, we may face increased risks from private parties and governmental authorities related to our ESG efforts. Moreover, any of greenwashing us or others in our industry may lead to sentiment towards our company or industry. To the extent that we are to respond timely and appropriately to any publicity, our reputation could be . to our overall reputation could have a impact on our financial results and require additional resources to rebuild our reputation.
In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Such ratings may be used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. While such ratings do not impact all investors’ investment or voting decisions, unfavorable ESG ratings and recent activism directed at shifting funding away from companies with energy-related assets could lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward us and our industry and to the diversion of investment to other industries, which could have a negative impact on our stock price and our access to and costs of capital. Additionally, to the extent ESG matters negatively impact our
reputation, we may not be able to compete as effectively to recruit or retain employees, which may adversely affect our operations.
Such ESG matters may also impact our customers, which may result in reduced demand for certain of our products and services. We also cannot guarantee that any new product or service offerings we develop in light of ESG matters, including but not limited to the energy transition, will be suitable for our customers’ business operations. To the extent alternative technologies are preferred, whether as a result of regulatory impacts, technological developments, or changes in industry practice, it may adversely impact our business or results of operation.
Our operations in foreign countries expose us to complex regulations and may present us with new obstacles to growth.
We plan to continue to grow both in the United States and in foreign countries. We have established operations in Argentina, Brazil, Finland, Ghana, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, as well as other foreign countries. Foreign operations carry special risks. Our business in the countries in which we currently operate and those in which we may operate in the future could be limited or disrupted by:
• restrictions on repatriating cash back to the United States;
• the impact of compliance with anti-corruption laws on our operations and competitive position in affected countries and the risk that actions taken by us or our agents may violate those laws;
• government controls and government actions, such as expropriation of assets and changes in legal and regulatory environments;
• import and export license requirements;
• political, social, or economic instability;
• trade restrictions;
• changes in tariffs, which could impact raw material prices and the cost of component parts, and taxes; and
• our limited knowledge of these markets or our inability to protect our interests.
We and our affiliates operate in countries where governmental corruption has been known to exist. While we and our subsidiaries have policies designed to enhance our conduct of business in a legal and ethical manner, there is a risk of violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act, or laws or legislation promulgated pursuant to the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions or other applicable anti-corruption regulations that generally prohibit the making of improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business. Violation of these laws could result in monetary penalties against us or our subsidiaries and could damage our reputation and our ability to do business.
Foreign governments and agencies often establish permit and regulatory standards different from those in the U.S. If we cannot obtain foreign regulatory approvals, or if we cannot obtain them in a timely manner, our growth and profitability from foreign operations could be adversely affected.
Regulatory initiatives related to hydraulic fracturing or operations on public lands in the countries where we and our customers operate could result in operating restrictions or delays in the completion of oil and gas wells that may reduce demand for our services.
Although we do not directly engage in hydraulic fracturing, our operations support many of our exploration and production customers in such activities. The practice continues to be controversial in certain parts of the country, resulting in increased scrutiny and regulation of the hydraulic fracturing process, including by federal and state agencies and local municipalities.
Hydraulic fracturing typically is regulated by state oil and gas commissions or similar state agencies, but several federal agencies have asserted regulatory authority over certain aspects of the process in the U.S. For example, the EPA has issued rulemakings under several laws governing hydraulic fracturing activities and disposal of wastes associated with the process. In addition, from time to time certain administrations have taken steps to limit hydraulic fracturing specifically or oil and gas production more broadly on U.S. federal lands. For example, President Biden previously issued an executive order that effectively paused new leasing activities for oil and gas
exploration and production on non-Indian federal lands and offshore waters pending completion of a comprehensive review and reconsideration of federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices that take into consideration potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities on such lands and waters. Although the federal court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a permanent injunction against the leasing pause, in response to the executive order, the Department of Interior issued a report recommending various changes to the federal leasing program, though many such changes would require Congressional action. In April 2024, the Bureau of Land Management finalized a rule that reduces the waste of natural gas from venting, flaring and leaks from well sites on federal lands, as well as allows the delay or denial of permits if the Bureau finds that an operator’s methane waste minimization plan is insufficient. This rule is currently subject to litigation and halted in certain states. Additionally, also in April 2024, the Bureau finalized a rule updating the fiscal terms of federal oil and gas leases, increasing fees, rents, royalties, and bonding requirements. Most recently, in January 2025, President Biden announced executive action under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act prohibiting all future oil and natural gas leasing in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf areas off the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of America, and portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska However, President Trump, on his first day in office, the Executive Order regarding withdrawal of leasing in the Northern Bering Sea and signed a new Executive Order promoting the expediting of permitting and leasing in Alaska as well as the development and production of the natural resources located in the state. At this time, it is still unclear the extent to which these actions may impact our operations or the operations of customers.
At the state level, some states, including Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, have adopted, and other states are considering adopting legal requirements that could impose new or more stringent permitting, public disclosure, or well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities. States could elect to prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing altogether. Local governments also may seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular. For example, from time to time states such as Texas and Oklahoma have suspended permitting for disposal wells in certain areas in response to seismic activity. If new or more stringent federal, state, or local legal restrictions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted, our customers could incur potentially significant added costs to comply with such requirements, experience delays or curtailment in the pursuit of exploration, development or production activities, and perhaps even be precluded from drilling wells.
Increased regulation and attention given to the hydraulic fracturing process or oil and gas operations on federal lands could lead to greater opposition to oil and gas production activities using hydraulic fracturing techniques. Additional legislation or regulation could also lead to operational delays or increased operating costs for our customers in the production of oil and gas, including from the developing shale plays, or could make it more difficult to perform hydraulic fracturing or otherwise operate on federal lands. The adoption of any federal, state or local laws or the implementation of additional regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing or oil and gas operations on federal lands could potentially cause a decrease in the completion of new oil and gas wells and an associated decrease in demand for our services and increased compliance costs and time, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of operations, and consolidated financial condition.
Our operations, reputation, and financial condition may be impaired if our information or operational technology systems fail to perform adequately or if we are the subject of a data breach or cyberattack.
Our information and operational technology systems are critically important to operating our business. We rely on our information and operational technology systems to manage our business data, communications, supply chain, customer invoicing, employee information, and other business processes. We outsource certain business process functions to third-party providers and similarly rely on these third parties to maintain and store confidential information on their systems. The failure of these information technology systems to perform as we anticipate could disrupt our business and could result in transaction errors, processing inefficiencies, and the loss of sales and customers, causing our business and results of operations to suffer.
Although we allocate significant resources to protect our information technology systems, we have experienced varying degrees of cyber-incidents in the normal conduct of our business, including viruses, worms, other destructive software, process breakdowns, phishing and other malicious activities. On January 6, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued a public warning that indicated companies in the energy industry might be specific targets of cybersecurity threats. Such breaches have in the past and could again in the future result in unauthorized access to information including customer, supplier, employee, or other company confidential data. We do carry insurance against these risks, although the potential damages we might incur could exceed our available
insurance coverage. We also invest in security technology, perform penetration tests from time to time, and design our business processes to attempt to mitigate the risk of such breaches.
However, there can be no assurance that future security breaches will not occur. Our facilities and systems, and those of our third-party service providers, have been and are vulnerable to security breaches, computer viruses, lost or misplaced data, programming errors, scams, burglary, human errors, acts of vandalism, misdirected wire transfers, or other malicious or criminal activities. These threats and incidents may originate from a variety of sources, including hackers, cybercriminals, nation-states, insiders, or other third parties.
Moreover, the development and maintenance of these measures requires continuous monitoring as technologies change and efforts to overcome security measures evolve. Cyberattacks in particular are evolving and have increased in frequency. Cyberattacks are becoming more sophisticated and include, but are not limited to, ransomware attacks, credential stuffing, spear phishing, social engineering, use of deepfakes (i.e., highly realistic synthetic media generated by artificial intelligence) and other attempts to gain unauthorized access to data for purposes of extortion or other malfeasance.
We have experienced and expect to continue to experience, cyber security threats and incidents, though as of the date of this Annual Report, we are not aware of any previous cybersecurity threats that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the Company. However, a successful breach or attack could have a material negative impact on our operations or business reputation and subject us to consequences such as litigation costs, regulatory fines, remediation costs, and direct costs associated with incident response. No security measure is infallible.
Changes to applicable tax laws and regulations or exposure to additional income tax liabilities could affect our business and future profitability.
We are subject to various complex and evolving U.S. federal, state, and local and non-U.S. taxes. Our business and future profitability could be affected by numerous factors, including the availability of tax credits, exemptions, refunds and other benefits to reduce our tax liabilities, changes in the relative amount of our earnings subject to tax in the various jurisdictions in which we operate or have subsidiaries, the potential expansion of our business into or otherwise becoming subject to tax in additional jurisdictions, changes to our existing business structure and operations, the extent of our intercompany transactions, and the extent to which taxing authorities in the relevant jurisdictions respect those intercompany transactions.
Further, U.S. federal, state, and local and non-U.S. tax laws, policies, statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified, or applied adversely to us, in each case, possibly with retroactive effect, and may have an adverse effect on our business and future profitability.
