Oilfield Chemicals Geographic Areas of Operation

We provide Oilfield Chemicals services in most of the major unconventional shale plays in the continental U.S. In the chart below, a “✓” indicates that we offer the service line in the indicated geographic region.

​

Oilfield Chemicals Customers

Our Oilfield Chemicals customers primarily include oilfield services companies, including pressure pumpers, andalong with major integrated and independent U.S. and international oil and gas producers.

Oilfield Chemicals Competition

The Oilfield Chemicals business is highly competitive. Our Oilfield Chemical segment has a variety of different competitors frominclude both large manufacturers and companies that are pure distributors of commodities and specialty chemicals, to large manufacturers. What makes Rockwater unique is that we offer a distribution arm as well as the ability to manufacture in-basin.chemicals. We believe that the principal competitive factors in the markets we serve are technical expertise, equipmentmanufacturing capacity, work forceworkforce competency, efficiency, safety record, reputation, experience and price. Additionally, projects are often awarded on a bid basis, which tends to create a highly competitive environment. We seek to differentiate ourselves from our competitors by delivering the highest‑qualityhigh-quality services and equipment possible,solutions, coupled with superior execution and operating efficiency in a safe working environment.

Wellsite Services

Our Wellsite Services segment provides a number Additionally, many of services across the U.S. and Canada and is operated primarily under our subsidiaries Peak, Affirm and Rockwater LLC. Peak provides workforce accommodations and surface rental equipment supporting drilling, completion and production operations to the U.S. onshorecompetitors focus on serving multiple industries outside of oil and gas, industry. Affirm providesand therefore we believe our dedicated focus on the oil and gas operators withindustry and in-basin manufacturing capabilities provides a variety of services, including cranecompetitive advantage. We also believe our expertise in water management provides a competitive advantage that allows us to assess and logistics services, wellsite and pipeline construction and field services. Operating under Rockwater LLC, we also offer sand hauling and logistics services in the Rockies and Bakken regions as well as water transfer, containment, fluids hauling and other rental services in Western Canada.

Service Lines

Our Wellsite Services segment is divided into the following service lines:

•Accommodations and Rentals.  Our accommodations and rentals service line, operating underoptimize our subsidiary, Peak, provides workforce accommodations and surface rental equipment supporting drilling, completion and production operations to support onshore oil and gas activity. The services provided include fully furnished office and living quarters, fresh water supply and wastewater removal, portable power generation and light plants, internet, phone, intercom, surveillance and monitoring services and other long‑term rentals supporting field personnel.

•Wellsite Completion and Construction Services.  Our wellsite completion and construction services service line, operating under our subsidiary, Affirm, supports our Water Solutions segment and provides oil and gas operators and midstream companies with a variety of services, including crane and logistics services,

wellsite and pipeline construction and field services. These services are performed to establish, maintain and improve production throughout the productive life of an oil or gas well, or to otherwise facilitate other services performed on a well.

•Sand Hauling.  Our sand hauling service line, operating under our subsidiary, Rockwater LLC, provides proppant storage, transport, transloading, and sand and proppant supply and transportation logistics through our fleet of trucks.

•Canada Fluids Logistics.  Our Canadian operations, operating under Rockwater Energy Solutions Canada, Inc., a subsidiary of Rockwater LLC, provide comprehensive fluids logistics through our fleet of tank trucks, vacuum trucks, hydro‑vac trucks, hot oilers, winch trucks and pressure trucks. Additionally, we provide water transfer, containment and other rental services throughout Western Canada.

Geographic Areas of Operation

We provide Wellsite Services in most of the major unconventional shale plays in the continental U.S. and in Western Canada. In the chart below, a “✓” indicates that we offer the service line in the indicated geographic region.

Customers

Our Wellsite Services customers include major integrated and independent U.S. and international oil and gas producers, as well as midstream and other oilfield services companies.

Competition

Historically, our competition has varied significantly by service line. The market for accommodations and rentals has been serviced by a relatively fragmented competitor base ranging from small local companies and privately‑owned regional service companies to large private and public companies operating across diverse geographies. Our main competitors in the market for wellsite completion and construction services are typically smaller or mid‑sized, and often private, service providers that focus on construction and field services across a narrow geographic range. Our competitors in the market for sand hauling are typically regionally focused smaller or mid‑sized service providers. Our primary competitors in our Canadian operations are regionally focused smaller or mid‑sized service providers. We seek to differentiate ourselves from our competitors by delivering the highest‑quality services and equipment possible, coupled with superior execution and operating efficiencychemical solutions in a safe working environment.unique manner.

Significant CustomerCustomers

There were no customers that accounted for 10.0%10% or more of our consolidated revenues for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. For the year ended December 31, 2015, one of our customers accounted for approximately 10.6% of our total consolidated revenues.2020.

Sales and Marketing

OurWe direct our sales activities are directed through a network of sales representatives and business development personnel, which providesallows us coverageto support our customers at both the corporate and field level of our customers. Saleslevel. Our sales representatives work closely with local operations managers to target potential opportunities through strategic focus and planning. Customers are identified as targets based on theirregular customer interaction. We track the drilling and completion activity, geographic location,activities of our current and economic viability. Direction of thepotential new customers. Our operations managers meet with our sales team is conducted through multiple weekly meetingsseveral times a week, and monitor sales activity via daily reporting. OurTo support our sales strategy, is also supported bywe have developed a proprietary database that we have developed based uponintegrates market information such as current rig, fracturing crew and permit activity and the location of our strategic water sources.

Our marketing activities are performed by an internal marketing group with input from key executives. We intend to build and maintain a steering committee. Our strategy is based on building a nationalwell-recognized brand thoughin the oil and gas industry through multiple media outlets including our website, blog and social media accounts, radio, print and billboard advertisements, and various industry‑specificindustry-specific conferences, publications and lectures.

environmental laws and regulations, which may result in a curtailment of exploration, development or production activities that would reduce the demand for our services.

United States Operations

The following is a summary of the more significant existing environmental and occupational safety and health laws in the U.S., as amended from time to time, to which our operations in the United States are subject and for which compliance may have a material adverse impact on our capital expenditures, results of operations or financial position.

hydrocarbons may have been released on, under or from the properties owned or leased by us, or on, under or from other locations, including off‑siteoff-site locations, where we conduct services for our customers or where such substances have been taken for treatment or disposal. In addition, some of our properties have been operated by third parties or by previous owners or operators whose treatment and disposal of hazardous substances, wastes, or petroleum hydrocarbons was not under our control. These properties and the substances disposed or released on, under or from them may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and analogous state laws. Under such laws, we could be required to undertake response actions or corrective measures, which could include removal of previously disposed substances and wastes, cleanup of contaminated property or performance of remedial operations to prevent future contamination, the costs of which could be material.

Water discharges and use. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), and analogous state laws, impose restrictions and strict controls with respect to the discharge of pollutants, including spills and leaks of oil and hazardous substances, into state waters and waters of the United States.U.S. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by the EPA or an analogous state agency. Spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan requirements imposed under the CWA require appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination of navigable waters in the event

third‑parties third-parties claiming damages for alternative water supplies, property and personal injuries. A change in UIC disposal well regulations or the inability to obtain permits for new disposal wells in the future may affect our ability to dispose of produced waters and other substances, which could affect our business.

Furthermore, in response to recent seismic events in the past several years near underground disposal wells used for the disposal by injection of produced water resulting from oil and gas activities, federal and some state agencies are investigating whether such wells have caused increased seismic activity, and some states have restricted, suspended or shut down the use of such disposal wells. Developing research suggests that the link between seismic activity and wastewater disposal may vary by region and that only a very small fraction of the tens of thousands of injection wells have been suspected to be, or have been, the likely cause of induced seismicity. In 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey identified six states with the most significant hazards from induced seismicity, including Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arkansas.

activities. Moreover, some statesstate and local governments have adopted, and other governmental entities are considering adopting, regulations that could impose more stringent permitting, disclosure and well‑constructionwell-construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing operations, including states where we or our customers operate. For example, Texas, Oklahoma, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Dakota, among others, have adopted regulations that impose new or more stringent permitting, disclosure, disposal and well‑constructionwell-construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing operations. States could also elect to prohibit high volumeplace certain prohibitions on hydraulic fracturing altogether, following the approach taken by the State of New York.fracturing. In addition to state laws, local land use restrictions, such as city ordinances, may restrict drilling in general and/or hydraulic fracturing in

Climate Change.  In response The threat of climate change continues to findings thatattract considerable attention from the public and policymakers in the United States and around the world. As a result, numerous proposals have been made, and more are likely forthcoming at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit existing emissions of carbon dioxide, methaneGHGs as well as to restrict or eliminate such future emissions. As a result, our operations as well as the operations of our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers are subject to a series of executive, 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, but President Biden has announced plans to take action with regards to climate change, has already signed several executive orders to this effect in January 2021 and, with control of Congress shifting in January 2021, is expected to pursue legislative as well as other greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) present an endangermentexecutive and regulatory initiatives in the future to public health andlimit GHG emissions. Moreover, because the environment,U.S. Supreme Court has held that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the CAArules that, among other things, establish Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) construction and Title V operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, that emit certain principal, or “criteria,” pollutants. Facilities required to obtain PSD permits for their GHG emissions also will be required to meet “best available control technology” standards. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiringrequire the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from oilcertain petroleum and natural gas production, processing, transmission and storage facilities in the United States.

Congress has from time to time considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs but 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 through the completion of GHG emissions inventories and by means of cap and trade programs that typically require majorsystem sources, of GHG emissions to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting those GHGs. The EPA has also developed strategies forimplement New Source Performance Standards directing the reduction of methane emissions, including emissions from certain new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas industry. For example,sector, and together with the DOT, implement GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in Junethe United States. In recent years, there has been considerable uncertainty surrounding regulation of the emissions of methane, which may be released during hydraulic fracturing. The EPA under the Obama Administration published final regulations under the CAA establishing performance standards in 2016, but since that time the EPA published New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) Subpart OOOOa requirementsunder the Trump Administration had undertaken several measures to reducedelay implementation of the methane standards, including issuing final policy amendments to the final 2016 rule in September 2020 that, among other things, rescinded the methane standards previously applicable to sources in the production and processing segments. Various industry and environmental groups are separately challenging both the 2016 standards and the September 2020 final policy amendments. Separate from those regulatory efforts, President Biden issued an executive order on January 20, 2021 that, among other things, called for issuance of proposed rules by no later than September 2021 that would restore Obama-era rules for methane standards applicable to new, modified,

the Interior issued an order, effective immediately, that suspends new oil and gas leases and drilling permits on non-Indian federal lands and waters for a period of 60 days. Building on this suspension, President Biden issued an executive order on January 27, 2021 that suspends 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 operationsoil and gas activities on such lands and waters. The January 20, 2021 and January 27, 2021 orders do not apply to existing leases and the January 27, 2021 order further directs applicable agencies to take measures to ensure, to the extent consistent with applicable law, that federal funding is not directly subsidizing fossil fuels, with a further objective of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies from federal budget requests beginning in federal Fiscal Year 2022. In response, one industry group has already challenged President Biden’s January 27, 2021 order for “indefinitely suspending the federal oil and gas leasing program” in a federal court in Wyoming.

Litigation risks are also increasing, as a number of states, municipalities and other plaintiffs have sought to bring suit against the largest oil and natural gas exploration and production companies in state or federal court, alleging, among other things, that such companies created public nuisances by producing fuels that contributed to global warming effects, such as rising sea levels, and therefore are responsible for roadway and infrastructure damages as a result, or alleging that the companies have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but defrauded their investors by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. There are also increasing financial risks for fossil fuel producers as well as resultother companies handling fossil fuels, including owners of terminals, pipelines and refineries, as stockholders and bondholders currently invested in delays or restrictions in the ability to permit GHG emissions from new or modified sources. In addition, substantial limitations on GHG emissions could adversely affect demand for the oil and gas our customers produce, which could reduce demand for our services. Moreover, activistsfossil fuel energy companies concerned about the potential effects of climate change may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into non-fossil fuel energy related sectors. Institutional investors who provide financing to fossil fuel energy companies also have directed their attention at sourcesbecome more attentive to sustainability lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil-fuelfossil fuel energy companies, which has resulted in certain financial institutions, funds and other sources of capital restricting or eliminating their investment in oil and natural gas activities. Ultimately, this could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration and production activities. Notwithstanding potential risks related to climate change, the International Energy Agency estimates that global energy demand will continue to rise and will not peak until after 2040 and that oil and gas will continue to represent a substantial percentage of global energy use over that time. companies.

Finally, it should be noted that increasing concentrations of GHGsGHG in the Earth’sEarth's atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods, droughtsrising sea levels and other climatic events. If any such effectsclimate changes were to occur, they could have ana material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and the financial condition and operations of our customers’ operations.customers.

Endangered Species. The federal Endangered Species Act (the “ESA”) restricts activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (the “MBTA”). To the extentdegree that species that are listed under the ESA or similar state laws, or are protected under the MBTA, live in the areas where we or our oil and gas producing customers operate, our and our customers’ abilities to conduct or expand operations and construct facilities could be limited or be forced to incur material additional costs. Moreover, our customers’ drilling activities may be delayed, restricted, or precludedcancelled in protected habitat areas or during certain seasons, such as breeding and nesting seasons. Some of our operations and the operations of our customers are located in areas that are designated as habitats for protected species. In addition, as a resultthe U.S.

organize and/or disclose information about hazardous materials used or produced in our United States operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local governmental authorities and citizens. We have an internal program of inspection designed to monitor and enforce compliance with worker safety requirements.

In addition, as part of the services we provide, we operate as a motor carrier and therefore are subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation (“U.S. DOT”) and analogous U.S. state agencies. These regulatory authorities exercise broad powers, governing activities such as the authorization to engage in motor carrier operations, regulatory safety, and hazardous materials labeling, placarding and marking. There are additional regulations specifically relating to the trucking industry, including testing and specification of equipment and product handling requirements. The trucking industry is subject to possible regulatory and legislative changes that may affect the economics of the industry by requiring changes in operating practices or by changing the demand for common or contract carrier services or the cost of providing truckload services. From time to time, various legislative proposals are introduced, including proposals to increase federal, state or local taxes on motor fuels, among other things, which may increase our costs or adversely impact the recruitment of drivers. We cannot predict whether, or in what form, any increase in such taxes applicable to us will be enacted.

Western Canadian Operations

Environmental regulation in Canada, including the Western Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, is carried out at both the federal and provincial levels. Unless the exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources is occurring on federal lands, such as lands held by First Nations, national parks, national defense lands or offshore, the main oversight over the extraction of natural resources falls within provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal government has shared oversight over assessing whether substances are toxic to both humans and the environment and the control of the use of such substances pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In addition, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, administered by Transport Canada, regulates road, rail, air and marine transportation of fracturing fluids, produced water, fracturing fluid waste and flowback. The following is a summary of the more significant environmental regulations in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, as amended from time to time, to which our operations in Canada are subject and for which compliance may have a material adverse impact on our capital expenditures, results of operations or financial position.

Hydraulic fracturing activities.  Operations related to water, stimulation, and fracturing fluids in support of oil and gas exploration, development and production are subject to provincial environmental regulations. Currently, our operations occur in the western provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. In Alberta, the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and associated regulations and Directives, as well as parts of the Water Act, relating to the extraction of hydrocarbons. In particular, the AER has regulatory directives relating to groundwater protection, wellbore integrity, noise and light impacts, air quality and induced seismicity. The AER’s Directives require licensees conducting hydraulic fracturing to report amounts and sources of water and chemicals used in each job. The type and volume of all additives used in fracturing fluids must also be submitted to the AER. Licensees in Alberta are also subject to stringent storage and drilling waste management requirements. Companies who own and operate permanent facilities are subject to additional regulations.

In British Columbia, the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission (the “BCOGC”) is the provincial regulatory body responsible for overseeing oil and gas operations. Like Alberta, British Columbia has developed a single‑window approach to administer the provisions of wide ranging acts and regulations which include the regulation of the exploration, development, transportation and reclamation of oil and gas activities. The regulation of hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia is conducted under numerous provincial acts and technical regulations. The BCOGC administers British Columbia’s main legislative framework relating to oil and gas, the Oil and Gas Activities Act, and its associated regulations which regulate public safety and environmental protection related to hydraulic fracturing, such as the Drilling and Production Regulation and the Environmental Protection and Management Regulation. Further, other specific provisions of the Water Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Land Act and the Environmental Management Act also regulate elements of hydraulic fracturing. Fracture Fluid Reports are required to be submitted and are publicly searchable online. Chemical disclosure including trade name, supplier, purpose, ingredients and volume of water with injected ingredients must be submitted to an online database.

Water usage.  Besides the AER, the other major legislative and regulatory requirements in Alberta related to our operations in Western Canada fall under the administration of the Alberta Environment and Parks ministry. Environment and Parks oversees parts of the Water Act and the Water Conservation and Allocation Policy for Oilfield Injection for long‑term water injection projects for the recovery of oil, requiring industry to seek deep saline groundwater and technological alternatives to minimize use of fresh water. While this policy is applicable to conventional water flooding and oil sands in‑situ operations, expanding the policy to apply water conservation principles to subsectors of the upstream oil and gas industry, including hydraulic fracturing, has been proposed. In British Columbia, the Water Sustainability Act came into effect in 2016 and has resulted in changes to surface water and groundwater allocation, requiring authorizations to be obtained to use groundwater for anything other than domestic use. The BCOGC has recently strengthened regulations relating to induced seismicity due to hydraulic fracturing based on two reports and continues to conduct monitoring and research in order to adequately respond and mitigate this issue.

Induced seismicity.  Due to increased seismicity believed to be associated with hydraulic fracturing, in 2015 the AER released new guidelines requiring new seismic monitoring and reporting requirements for hydraulic fracturing. The BCOGC completed two reports on seismic events related to hydraulic fracturing, and has imposed mitigation measures, including regulations to shut down industry operations if seismic activity reaches a certain threshold.

Climate change.  The Canadian federal government, as well as the provincial governments have either proposed or have instituted a carbon tax in response to the global push to combat climate change. While a carbon tax in British Columbia has been in place since 2008, which is currently $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, as of January 1, 2017, Alberta has instituted a provincial carbon tax of $20 per tonne, rising to $30 per tonne in 2018. The federal government has proposed a minimum price on carbon, beginning in 2018 at $10 per tonne, rising to $50 per tonne in 2022, which will be implemented by the federal government if the provinces do not already have an equivalent framework in place. The carbon tax will have a significant impact on energy intensive businesses.

The Government of Alberta also announced in 2015 that under its Climate Leadership Plan, the province will have zero emissions from coal‑fired electricity by 2030. As approximately 55% of Alberta’s electricity in being produced from coal‑fired generators, natural gas‑fired electricity is expected to increase significantly to fill this gap. Oil and gas producers will be required to reduce methane emissions associated with their facilities by 45% by 2025 and a cap of 100 megatonnes per year of carbon emissions from oil sands production has been imposed. The federal government also announced that it intends to virtually eliminate the use of coal‑fired electricity by 2030, which currently accounts for 11% of Canada’s electricity capacity.

Seasonality

Our results of operations have historically reflectedbeen adversely affected by seasonal tendencies,declines in the activity levels of our customers, typically in the fourth quarter, relatingrelated to holiday seasons,holidays, inclement winter weather and in some years the conclusionexhaustion of our customers’ annual drilling and completions capital expenditure budgets during which we typically experience declines in our operating results. In a stable commodity price and operations environment, October has historically been our most active month, with notable declines in November and December for the reasons described above.budgets.

We also rely upon unpatented proprietary know‑how, continuing technological innovation and trade secrets to develop and maintain our competitive position. There can be no assurance however, that confidentiality and other agreements into which we enter and have entered will not be breached, that these agreements will provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know‑how,know-how, or that adequate remedies will be available in the event of an unauthorized use or disclosure of such trade secrets and know‑how.know-how. In addition, there can be no assurance that others will not obtain knowledge of these trade secrets through independent development or other access by legal means.

We also own a number of trademarks, which we use in connection with our businesses. In addition to protections through federal registration, we also rely on state common law protections to protect our brand. There can be no assurance that the trademark registrations will provide meaningful protection against the use of similar trademarks by competitors, or that the value of our trademarks will not be diluted.

Because of the breadth and nature of our intellectual property rights and our business, we do not believe that any single intellectual property right (other than certain trademarks for which we intend to maintain the applicable registrations) is material to our business. Moreover, we do not believe that the termination of intellectual property rights expected to occur over the next several years, either individually or in the aggregate, will materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Risk Management and Insurance

Our operations are subject to hazards inherent in the oil and gas industry, including accidents, blowouts, explosions, craterings, fires, oil spills and hazardous materials spills. These conditions can cause:

•personal injury or loss of life;

•damage to, or destruction of property, the environment and wildlife; and

•the suspension of our or our customers’ operations.

In addition, claims for loss of oil and gas production and damage to formations can occur in the well services industry. If a serious accident were to occur at a location where our equipment and services are being used, it could result in us being named as a defendant in lawsuits asserting large claims.

Because our business involves the transportation of heavy equipment and materials, we may also experience traffic accidents, which may result in spills, property damage and personal injury.

MSAs, including those relating to our Water Solutions and Related Services, Water Infrastructure, Oilfield Chemical Product Sales, Accommodationsproduct sales, accommodations and Rentalsrentals and Completioncompletion and Construction Services,construction services, we assume responsibility for pollution or contamination originating above the surface from our equipment or handling of the equipment of others. However, our customers generally assume responsibility for all other pollution or contamination that may occur during operations, including that which may generally result from seepage or any other uncontrolled flow of drilling fluids. The assumed responsibilities include the control, removal and clean‑upcleanup of any pollution or contamination. In such cases, we may be exposed to additional liability if we are grossly negligent or commit willful acts causing the pollution or contamination. Generally, our customers also agree to indemnify us against claims arising from the personal injury or death of the customers’ employees or those of the customers’ other contractors, in the case of our hydraulic fracturing operations, to the extent that such employees are injured by such operations, unless the loss is a result of our gross negligence or willful misconduct. Similarly, we generally agree to indemnify our customers for liabilities arising from personal injury to or death of any of our employees or employees of any of our subcontractors, unless resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of our customer. The same principals apply to mutual indemnification for loss or destruction of customer‑ownedcustomer-owned property or equipment, except such indemnification is not limited in an instance of gross negligence or willful misconduct. Losses arising from catastrophic events, such as blowouts, are generally the responsibility of the customer. However, despite this general allocation of risk, we may be unsuccessful in enforcing contractual terms, incur an unforeseen liability that is not addressed by the scope of the contractual provisions or be required to enter into an MSA with terms that vary from our standard allocations of risk, as described above. Consequently, we may incur substantial losses that could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we had approximately 5,100 employees and no unionized labor. We believe we have good relations with our employees.

Available Information

We file or furnish annual, quarterly and current reports and other documents with the SEC under the Exchange Act. The public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549, on official business days during the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an internet website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers, including us, that file electronically with the SEC.

​

We also make available free of charge through our website, www.selectenergyservices.com, electronic copies of certain documents that we file with the SEC, including our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information on our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

ITEMITEM 1A.           RISK FACTORS

The following risks could affect our financial performance or could cause actual results to differ materially from estimates contained in our forward-looking statements. We may encounter risks in addition to those described

If volatility in oil prices or natural gas prices were to decline,continues, the demand for our services could be adversely affected.

The demand for our services is primarily determined by current and anticipated oil and natural gas prices and the related levels of capital spending and drilling activity in the areas in which we have operations. Volatility or weakness in oil prices or natural gas prices (or the perception that oil prices or natural gas prices will decrease) affects the spending patterns of our customers and may result in the drilling or completion of fewer new wells or lower production spending on existing wells. This, in turn, could lead to lower demand for our services and may cause lower rates and lower utilization of our assets. If oil prices decline or natural gas prices decline, or if the recent increase in drillingcompletions activity reverses,is reduced, the demand for our services and our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Prices for oil and gas historically have been extremely volatile and are expected to continue to be volatile. During 2020, the past three years, the posted West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) price for oil has ranged from a low of $26.19 per Bbl in February 2016less than zero to a high of $107.95 per Bbl in June 2014. During 2017, WTI prices ranged from $42.48 to $60.46$63.27 per Bbl. If the prices of oil and natural gas reverse their recent increases or decline, our operations, financial condition, cash flows and level of expenditures may be materially and adversely affected.

Recent volatility in oil and gas prices and pressure from investors has led, and may continue to lead, our customers to implement a more disciplined capital spending strategy. This disciplined approach has led to, and could continue to result in, reduced demand for our services and cause our customers to demand lower rates for our services, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operation.

We have developed certain key infrastructure assets in the Bakken area of North Dakota and in the Northern Delaware Basin region of the Permian Basin in New Mexico, making us vulnerable to risks associated with conducting business in this region.these regions.

We have secured three governmental permits that enable us to withdraw water from the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota and have developed and expect to develop in the future significant water infrastructure related to these permits.

Because of the key nature of these permits and water infrastructure within the Bakken, the success and profitability of our business may be disproportionately exposed to factors impacting this region. These factors include, among others: (i) the prices of, and associated costs to produce, crude oil and gas from wells in the Bakken and other regional supply and demand factors (including the generally higher cost nature of production in the Bakken compared to other major shale plays and the pricing differentials that exist in the Bakken because of transportation constraints); (ii) the amount of exploration, development and production activities of our Bakken customers and their spending on our services; (iii) our ability to keep and maintain our governmental water permits; (iv) the cost of operations and the prices we can charge our customers in this region; and (v) the availability of equipment, supplies, and labor. Although we currently have secured key permits for water in this region, if we were to lose our water rights for any reason, including termination by the government upon the occurrence of a material breach, including nonpayment and default in performance, unexpected adverse environmental impacts, or our competitors were able to secure equivalent rights, our business could be materially harmed. In addition, our operations in the Bakken field may be adversely affected by severe weather events such as floods, blizzards, ice storms and tornadoes. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162020, 2019 and 2015,2018, our Bakken operations represented 10.4%6.4%, 9.6%7.1% and 5.5%9.9%, respectively, of our revenues. The concentration of our water permits and significant infrastructure assets in North Dakota also increases our exposure to changes in local laws and regulations, including those designed to protect wildlife and unexpected events that may occur in this region such as seismic events, industrial accidents or labor difficulties. Any of the risks described above could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

addition, anyone who diverts water must make beneficial use of that water, meaning they must use the water as efficiently as practicable, and for the purposes specified by the license or approval. In Alberta, AER monitors water withdrawals, and may suspend water withdrawals during a low flow period or drought to protect the integrity of the water system. Further, in Alberta, the Water Conservation and Allocation Policy for Oilfield Injection may be expanded to include hydraulic fracturing activities under the proposed Water Conservation Policy for Upstream Oil and Gas Operations. If this policy is expanded to include hydraulic fracturing, licensees will come under increased scrutiny surrounding their water use. Groundwater and surface water available for licensing may be limited and in water‑short areas of Alberta, projects may be delayed until new technology or alternative water sources become available to protect non‑saline water resources. It is unclear if or when this policy may be implemented. Any such decrease in the availability of water, or demand for water services, could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We have operated at a loss in the past, and there is no assurance of our profitability in the future.

Historically, we have experienced periods of low demand for our services and have incurred operating losses. In the future, we may not be able to reduce our costs, increase our revenues or reduce our debt service obligations sufficient to achieve or maintain profitability and generate positive operating income. Under such circumstances, we may incur further operating losses and experience negative operating cash flow.

Fuel conservation measures could reduce demand for oil and natural gas which would, in turn, reduce the demand for our services.

Fuel conservation measures, alternative fuel requirements and increasing consumer demand for alternatives to oil and natural gas could reduce demand for oil and natural gas. The impact of the changingdeclining demand for oil and natural gas may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, prospects, results of operations and cash flows. Additionally, the increased competitiveness of alternative energy sources (such as wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, fuel cells and biofuels) could reduce demand for hydrocarbons and therefore for our services, which would lead to a reduction in our revenues.

Failure to successfully combine our business with the business from Rockwater may adversely affect our future results.

The consummation of the Rockwater Merger involves potential risks, including, without limitation, the failure to realize expected profitability, growth or accretion; the incurrence of liabilities or other compliance costs related to environmental or regulatory matters, including potential liabilities thatWe may be imposed without regardunable to faultimplement price increases or maintain existing prices on our core services.

We periodically seek to increase the legality of conduct; diversion of management’s attention fromprices on our services to offset rising costs and to improve returns on investment for our stockholders. However, we operate in a very competitive industry and as a result, we are not always successful in raising, or maintaining, our existing businesses;prices. Additionally, during periods of increased market demand, a significant amount of new service capacity, including new water transfer equipment, fluid hauling trucks and pipelines, may enter the incurrence of unanticipated liabilities and costs formarket, which indemnification is unavailable or inadequate. If these risks or other unanticipated liabilities were to materialize, any desired benefits ofalso puts pressure on the Rockwater Merger may not be fully realized, if at all, and our future financial performance and results of operations could be negatively impacted.

The growthpricing of our business through acquisitions may expose us to various risks, including those relating to difficulties in identifying suitable, accretive acquisition opportunitiesservices and integrating businesses, assets and personnel, as well as difficulties in obtaining financing for targeted acquisitions and the potential for increased leverage or debt service requirements.

As a component of our business strategy, we intend to pursue selected, accretive acquisitions of complementary assets, businesses and technologies. Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including:

•unanticipated costs and assumption of liabilities and exposure to unforeseen liabilities of the acquired business, including but not limited to environmental liabilities;

•difficulties in integrating the operations and assets of the acquired business and the acquired personnel;

•limitations onlimits our ability to properly assess and maintain an effective internal control environment over an acquired business;increase prices.

•potential losses of key employees and customers of the acquired business;

•risks of entering markets in which we have limited prior experience; and

•increases in our expenses and working capital requirements.

In evaluating acquisitions, we generally prepare one or more financial cases based on a number of business, industry, economic, legal, regulatory and other assumptions applicable to the proposed transaction. Although we expect a reasonable basis will exist for those assumptions, the assumptions will generally involve current estimates of future conditions. Realization of many of the assumptions will be beyond our control. Moreover, the uncertainty and risk of inaccuracy associated with any financial projection will increase with the length of the forecasted period. Some acquisitions may not be accretive in the near term, and will be accretive in the long term only ifEven when we are able to timely and effectively integrate the underlying assets and such assets perform at or near the levels anticipated inincrease our acquisition projections.

The process of integrating an acquired business may involve unforeseen costs and delays or other operational, technical and financial difficulties and may require a significant amount time and resources. Our failure to incorporate the acquired business and assets into our existing operations successfully or to minimize any unforeseen operational difficulties could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, there is intense competition for acquisition opportunities in our industry. Competition for acquisitions may increase the cost of, or cause us to refrain from, completing acquisitions.

In addition, we may not have sufficient capital resources to complete any additional acquisitions. We may incur substantial indebtedness to finance future acquisitions and also may issue equity, debt or convertible securities in connection with such acquisitions. Debt service requirements could represent a significant burden on our results of operations and financial condition and the issuance of additional equity or convertible securities could be dilutive to our existing stockholders. Furthermore, we may not be able to obtain additional financing on satisfactory terms. Even if we have access to the necessary capital, we may be unable to continue to identify suitable acquisition opportunities, negotiate acceptable terms or successfully acquire identified targets.

Our Credit Agreement subjects us to various financial and other restrictive covenants. These restrictions may limit our operational or financial flexibility and could subject us to potential defaults under our Credit Agreement.

Our Credit Agreement subjects us to significant financial and other restrictive covenants, including restrictions on our ability to consolidate or merge with other companies, conduct asset sales, incur additional indebtedness, grant liens, issue guarantees, make investments, loans or advances, pay dividends and enter into certain transactions with affiliates.

Our Credit Agreement contains certain financial covenants, including the maintenance of a fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.0 to 1.0 at any time availability under the Credit Agreement is less than the greater of (i) 10% of the lesser of (A) the maximum revolver amount and (B) the then‑effective borrowing base and (ii) $15.0 million and continuing through and including the first day after such time that availability under the Credit Agreement has equaled or exceeded the greater of (i) 10% of the lesser of (A) the maximum revolver amount and (B) the then‑effective borrowing base and (ii) $15.0 million for 60 consecutive calendar days. Our ability to comply with such financial condition tests can be affected by events beyond our control andprices, we may not be able to do so. Our scheduled maturity dateso at a rate that is November 1, 2022.sufficient to offset rising costs. In addition, the Credit Agreement restricts SES Holdings’ and Select LLC’speriods of high demand for oilfield services, a tighter labor market may result in higher labor costs. During such periods, our labor costs could increase at a greater rate than our ability to make distributions on, or redeem or repurchase, its equity interests, exceptraise prices for certain distributions, including distributions of cash so long as, both at the time of the distribution and after giving effect to the distribution, no default exists under the Credit Agreement and either (a) excess availability at all times during the preceding 30 consecutive days, on a pro forma basis and after giving effect to such distribution, is not less than the greater of (1) 25% of the lesser of (A) the maximum revolver amount and (B) the then‑effective borrowing base and (2) $37.5 million or (b) if SES Holdings’ fixed charge coverage ratio is at least 1.0 to 1.0 on a pro forma basis, and excess availability at all times during the preceding 30 consecutive days, on a pro forma basis and after giving effect to such distribution, is not less than the greater of (1) 20% of the lesser of (A) the maximum revolver amount and (B) the then‑effective borrowing base and (2) $30.0 million. For

additional information regarding our Credit Agreement, please read “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Agreement.”

If we are unable to remain in compliance with the covenants of our Credit Agreement, then the lenders may declare all amounts outstanding under the Credit Agreement to be immediately due and payable. Any such acceleration could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may incur additional indebtedness or issue additional equity securities to execute our long‑term growth strategy, which may reduce our profitability or result in significant dilution to our stockholders.

Constructing and maintaining water infrastructure used in the oil and gas industry requires significant capital. We may require additional capital in the future to develop and construct water sourcing, transfer and other related infrastructure to execute our growth strategy. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, we incurred $108.3 million, $36.3 million and $48.7 million, respectively, in capital expenditures. Historically, we have financed these investments through cash flows from operations, our IPO, external borrowings and capital contributions from the existing owners of outstanding membership interests in SES Holdings prior to the Select 144A Offering and the related reorganization (the “Legacy Owners”) and certain of the Legacy Owners who received shares of our Class A common stock in exchange for their SES Holdings LLC Units received in connection with the corporate reorganization transactions related to the Select 144A Offering (the “Contributing Legacy Owners”). These sources of capital may not be available to us in the future. If we are unable to fund capital expenditures for any reason,services. Also, we may not be able to capture available growth opportunitiessuccessfully increase prices without adversely affecting our activity levels. The inability to maintain our pricing and any such failure could have a material adverse effect onto increase our results of operations and financial condition. If we incur additional indebtedness or issue additional equity securities, our profitability may be reduced and our stockholders may experience significant dilution.

Significant price volatility or interruptions in supply of our raw materials may result in increasedpricing as costs that we may be unable to pass on to our customers, which could reduce profitability.

We purchase a substantial portion of our raw materials from third‑party suppliers and the cost of these raw materials represents a substantial portion of our operating expenses. The prices of the raw materials that we purchase from third parties are cyclical and volatile. Our supply agreements provide us only limited protection against price volatility as they are entered into either on a short‑term basis or are longer‑term volume contracts, which provide for market‑based pricing renegotiated several times per year. While we attempt to match cost increases with corresponding product price increases, we are not always able to raise product prices immediately or at all. Timing differences between raw material prices, which may change daily, and contract product prices, which in many cases are negotiated only monthly or less often, have had and may continue to have a negative effect on our cash flow. Any cost increase that we are not able to pass on to our customers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations, financial conditionoperations.

profitability. We may not always be able to increase our selling prices to offset the impact of any higher productions costs or reduced production levels, which could reduce our earnings and decrease our liquidity.cash flow.

We may be subject to claims for personal injury and property damage, which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and cash available for distribution.operations.

We operate with most of our customers under MSAs. We endeavor to allocate potential liabilities and risks between the parties in the MSAs. Generally, under our MSAs, including those relating to our services, we assume responsibility for, including control and removal of, pollution or contamination which originates above the surface and originates from our equipment or services. Our customercustomers generally assumesassume responsibility for, including control and removal of, all other pollution or contamination which may occur during operations, including that which may result from seepage or any other uncontrolled flow of drilling fluids. We may have liability in such cases if we are negligent or commit willful acts. Generally, our customers also agree to indemnify us against claims arising from their employees’ personal injury or death to the extent that, in the case of our operations, their employees are injured or their properties are damaged by such operations unless resulting from our gross negligence or willful misconduct. Similarly, we generally agree to indemnify our customers for liabilities arising from personal injury to or death of any of our employees, unless resulting from gross negligence or willful misconduct of the customer. In addition, our customers generally agree to indemnify us for loss or destruction of customer‑ownedcustomer-owned property or equipment and in turn, we agree to indemnify our customers for loss or destruction of property or equipment we own. Losses due to catastrophic events, such as blowouts, are generally the responsibility of the customer. However, despite this general allocation of risk, we might not succeed in enforcing such contractual allocation, might incur an unforeseen liability falling outside the scope of such allocation or may be required to enter into an MSA with terms that vary from the above allocations of risk. As a result, we may incur substantial losses which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition results of operations and cash available for distribution.

We are subject to environmental and occupational health and safety laws and regulations that may expose us to significant liabilities for penalties, damages or costs of remediation or compliance.

Our operations and the operations of our customers are subject to federal, provincial, state and local laws and regulations in the United States and Western Canada relating to protection of natural resources and the environment, health and safety aspects of our operations and waste management, including the transportation and disposal of waste and other materials. These laws and regulations may impose numerous obligations on our operations and the operations of our customers, including the acquisition of permits to take fresh water from surface and underground sources, construct pipelines or containment facilities, drill wells or conduct other regulated activities, the incurrence of capital expenditures to mitigate or prevent releases of materials from our facilities or from customer locations where we are providing services, the imposition of substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from our operations, and the application of specific health and safety criteria addressing worker protection. Any failure on our part or the part of our customers to comply with these laws and regulations could result in restrictions on operations, assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, revocation of permits and issuance of corrective action orders requiring the performance of investigatory, remedial or curative activities.

Our business activities present risks of incurring significant environmental costs and liabilities, including costs and liabilities resulting from our handling of oilfield and other wastes, because of air emissions and wastewater discharges related to our operations, and due to historical oilfield industry operations and waste disposal practices. Our businesses include the operation of oilfield waste disposal injection wells that pose risks of environmental liability, including leakage from the wells to surface or subsurface soils, surface water or groundwater. In addition, private parties, including the owners of properties upon which we perform services and facilities where our wastes are taken for reclamation or disposal, also may have the right to pursue legal actions to enforce compliance as well as to seek damages for non‑compliance with environmental laws and regulations or for personal injury or property or natural resource damages. Some environmental laws and regulations may impose strict liability, which means that in some situations we could be exposed to liability as a result of our conduct that was lawful at the time it occurred or the conduct of, or conditions caused by, prior operators or other third parties. Remedial costs and other damages arising as a result of environmental laws and costs associated with changes in environmental laws and regulations could be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of operations and consolidated financial condition.

Laws and regulations protecting the environment generally have become more stringent in recent years and are expected to continue to do so, which could lead to material increases in costs for future environmental compliance and remediation. Changes in existing laws or regulations, or the adoption of new laws or regulations, could delay or curtail exploratory or developmental drilling for oil and gas and could limit well servicing opportunities. We may not be able to recover some or any of our costs of compliance with these laws and regulations from insurance.

Unsatisfactory safety performance may negatively affect our customer relationships and, to the extent we fail to retain existing customers or attract new customers, adversely impact our revenues.

Our ability to retain existing customers and attract new business is dependent on many factors, including our ability to demonstrate that we can reliably and safely operate our business and stay current on constantly changing rules, regulations, training and laws. Existing and potential customers consider the safety record of their service providers to be of high importance in their decision to engage third‑party servicers. If one or more accidents were to occur at one of our operating sites, the affected customer may seek to terminate or cancel its use of our facilities or services and may be less likely to continue to use our services, which could cause us to lose substantial revenues. Further, our ability to attract new customers may be impaired if they elect not to purchase our third‑party services because they view our safety record as unacceptable. In addition, it is possible that we will experience numerous or particularly severe accidents in the future, causing our safety record to deteriorate. This may be more likely as we continue to grow, if we experience high employee turnover or labor shortage, or add inexperienced personnel.

Federal, state, provincial and local legislative and regulatory initiatives in the United States and Western Canada related to hydraulic fracturing could result in operating restrictions or delays in the drilling and completion of oil and gas wells that may reduce demand for our services and could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, consolidated results of operations and consolidated financial condition.

Hydraulic fracturing is an important and common practice that is used to stimulate production of hydrocarbons from dense subsurface rock formations. The process involves the injection of water, sand or other proppants and chemical additives under pressure into targeted geological formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production. In the United States, hydraulic fracturing is currently generally exempt from regulation under the SDWA’s UIC program and is typically regulated by state oil and gas commissions or similar agencies.

However, several federal agencies in the United States have asserted regulatory authority over certain aspects of the process. For example, in 2014, the EPA asserted regulatory authority pursuant to the SDWA’s UIC program over hydraulic fracturing activities involving the use of diesel and issued guidance covering such activities. Additionally, in June 2016, the EPA published an effluent limit guideline final rule prohibiting the discharge of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants and, in 2014, issued a prepublication of its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the TSCA reporting of the chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. Also, the BLM published a final rule in 2015 that established new or more stringent standards relating to hydraulic fracturing on federal and American Indian lands. However, in June 2016, a Wyoming federal judge struck down this final rule, finding that the BLM lacked authority to promulgate the rule, the BLM appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in July 2016, the appellate court issued a ruling in September 2017 to vacate the Wyoming trial court decision and dismiss the lawsuit challenging the 2015 rule in response to the BLM’s issuance of a proposed rulemaking to rescind the 2015 rule and, in December 2017, the BLM published a final rule rescinding the 2015 rule. In January 2018, litigation challenging the BLM’s recission of the 2015 rule was brought in federal court. In January 2018, litigation challenging the BLM’s recission of the 2015 rule was brought in federal court. From time to time, legislation has been introduced, but not enacted, in Congress to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing and to require disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracturing process. In the event that new federal restrictions on the hydraulic‑fracturing process are adopted in areas where we or our customers conduct business, we or our customers may incur additional costs or permitting requirements to comply with such federal requirements that may be significant in nature and, in the case of our customers, could experience added delays or curtailment in the pursuit of exploration, development, or production activities, which would in turn reduce the demand for our services.

Moreover, some states and local governments have adopted, and other governmental entities are considering adopting, regulations that could impose more stringent permitting, disclosure and well‑construction requirements on

hydraulic fracturing operations, including states where we or our customers operate. For example, Texas, Oklahoma, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Dakota, among others, have adopted regulations that impose new or more stringent permitting, disclosure, disposal and well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing operations. States could also elect to prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing altogether, following the approach taken by the State of New York. In addition, in light of concerns about seismic activity being triggered by the injection of produced waste waters into underground disposal wells, certain regulators are also considering additional requirements related to seismic safety for hydraulic fracturing activities. For example, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission released well completion seismicity guidelines in December 2016 for operators in the SCOOP and STACK that call for hydraulic fracturing operations to be suspended following earthquakes of certain magnitudes in the vicinity. In addition, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s Oil and Gas Conservation Division issued an order in February 2017 limiting future increases in the volume of oil and natural gas wastewater injected into the ground in an effort to reduce the number of earthquakes in the state, and imposed further reductions in the Edmonds area of the state in August 2017. In addition to state laws, local land use restrictions, such as city ordinances, may restrict drilling in general and/or hydraulic fracturing in particular, as certain local governments in California have done. Other states, such as Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio have taken steps to limit the authority of local governments to regulate oil and gas development.

In December 2016, the EPA released its final report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The final report concluded that “water cycle” activities associated with hydraulic fracturing may impact drinking water resources “under some circumstances,” noting that the following hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local‑ or regional‑scale factors are more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts: water withdrawals for fracturing in times or areas of low water availability; surface spills during the management of fracturing fluids, chemicals or produced water; injection of fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity; injection of fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; discharge of inadequately treated fracturing wastewater to surface waters; and disposal or storage of fracturing wastewater in unlined pits.

While hydraulic fracturing in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada has been occurring for decades, due to concerns over environmental impacts including water usage, wastewater disposal and contamination, and induced seismicity, the AER in Alberta and the BCOGC in British Columbia continue to conduct ongoing review of rules and regulations of the industry. The AER has moved to require water use measurement and sourcing details for all fractured wells in Alberta, fracture fluid chemical disclosure, limited trade secret protection and prescribed setbacks for shallow fracturing near water wells.

Increased regulation and attention given to the hydraulic fracturing process 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. The adoption of any federal, state or local laws or the implementation of regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing 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.

Climate change legislation or regulations in the United States and Western Canada restricting or regulating emissions of greenhouse gases could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for our field services.

In the United States, in response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment, the EPA has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the CAA that, among other things, establish the PSD construction and Title V operating permit reviews for certain large stationary sources that emit certain principal, or “criteria,” pollutants. Facilities required to obtain PSD permits for their GHG emissions also will be required to meet “best available control technology” standards. In addition, the EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from oil and gas production, processing, transmission and storage facilities in the United States.

The U.S. Congress has from time to time considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs but 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 through the completion of GHG emissions inventories and by means of cap and trade programs that typically require major sources of GHG emissions to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting those GHGs. The EPA has also developed strategies for the reduction of methane emissions, including emissions from the oil and gas industry. For example, in June 2016, the EPA published NSPS, known as Subpart OOOOa, that require certain new, modified or reconstructed facilities in the oil and natural gas sector to reduce methane gas and VOC emissions. These Subpart OOOOa standards will expand previously issued NSPS published by the EPA in 2012, and known as Subpart OOOO, by using certain equipment‑specific emissions control practices. However, the Quad OOOOa standards have been subject to attempts by the EPA to stay portions of those standards, and the agency proposed rulemaking in June 2017 to stay the requirements for a period of two years and revisit implementation of Subpart OOOOa in its entirety. The EPA has not yet published a final rule, and, as a result of these developments, EPA’s 2016 standards are currently in effect, but future implementation of the 2016 standards is uncertain at this time. Because of the long‑term trend toward increasing regulation, however, future federal GHG regulations of the oil and natural gas industry remain a possibility. Furthermore, in June 2017, the BLM published a final rule that established, among other things, requirements to reduce methane emissions arising from venting, flaring and leakage from oil and gas production activities on onshore federal and American Indian lands. However, on December 8, 2017, the BLM published a final rule to temporarily suspend or delay certain requirements contained in the November 2016 final rule until January 17, 2019, including those requirements relating to venting, flaring and leakage from oil and gas production activities. On February 22, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined the delay of certain requirements contained in the November 2016 rule. As a result, the November 2016 rule, as originally proumulgated, is in effect. Also, on February 22, 2018, the BLM published a proposed rule that would generally re-establish the requirements that the November 2016 rule replaced. Litigation regarding the November 2016 rule is ongoing and uncertainty exists with respect to future implementation of the rule. However, given the long‑term trend towards increasing regulation, future federal GHG regulations of the oil and gas industry remain a possibility. Furthermore, the EPA passed a new rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, to limit GHGs from power plants. While the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay in February 2016, preventing implementation during the pendency of legal challenges to the rule in court, should the stay be lifted and legal challenges prove unsuccessful, then it could reduce demand for the oil and gas our customers produce, which could reduce the demand for our services, depending on the methods used to implement the rule. On October 10, 2017, the EPA issued a proposed rulemaking to repeal the Clean Power Plan. The public comment period on the proposed rulemaking ended on December 15, 2017.

Additionally, in December 2015, the United States joined the international community at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, France that proposed an agreement, requiring member countries to review and “represent a progression” in their intended nationally determined contributions, which set GHG emission reduction goals every five years beginning in 2020. This agreement was signed by the United States in April 2016 and entered into force in November 2016. This agreement does not create any binding obligations for nations to limit their GHG emissions, but rather includes pledges to voluntarily limit or reduce future emissions. In August 2017, the U.S. Department of State officially informed the United Nations of the intent of the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement provides for a four‑year exit process beginning when it took effect in November 2016, which would result in an effective exit date of November 2020. The United States’ adherence to the exit process and/or the terms on which the United States may re‑enter the Paris Agreement or a separately negotiated agreement are unclear at this time.

In Canada, significant climate change initiatives are ongoing at both the provincial and federal levels. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in late 2016 that provinces have until 2018 to impose a carbon pricing scheme or else a federally mandated price will be imposed. The price would be set at $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2018, rising $10 each year, to $50 per tonne by 2022. The provincial government in Alberta, as of January 1, 2017, has implemented a carbon tax at a rate of $20 per tonne in 2017, rising to $30 per tonne in 2018. While British Columbia adopted a carbon tax in 2008, with the final scheduled increase occurring in 2012 at $30 per tonne, under the federal carbon tax, British Columbia’s carbon tax will be required to increase in 2021. In addition, Canada signed the Paris Agreement in April 2016, which could lead to additional regulation of GHG emissions.

Although it is not possible at this time to predict how new laws or regulations in the United States or Canada or any legal requirements imposed by the Paris Agreement on the United States, should it not withdraw from the

agreement, or Canada that may be adopted or issued to address GHG emissions would impact our business, any such future laws, regulations or other legal requirements imposing reporting or permitting obligations on, or limiting emissions of GHGs from, our or our customers’ equipment and operations could require us or our customers to incur costs to reduce emissions of GHGs associated with operations as well as delays or restrictions in the ability to permit GHG emissions from new or modified sources. In addition, substantial limitations on GHG emissions could adversely affect demand for the oil and gas our customers produce, which could reduce demand for our services. Moreover, activists concerned about the potential effects of climate change have directed their attention at sources of funding for fossil-fuel energy companies, which has resulted in certain financial institutions, funds and other sources of capital restricting or eliminating their investment in oil and natural gas activities. Ultimately, this could make it more difficult to secure funding for exploration and production activities. Notwithstanding potential risks related to climate change, the International Energy Agency estimates that global energy demand will continue to rise and will not peak until after 2040 and that oil and gas will continue to represent a substantial percentage of global energy use over that time.

Finally, it should be noted that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods, droughts and other climatic events. If any such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our and our customers’ operations.

Legislation or regulatory initiatives intended to address seismic activity associated with oilfield disposal wells could restrict our ability to dispose of produced water gathered from our customers and, accordingly, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We dispose of wastewater gathered from oil and gas producing customers that results from their drilling and production operations pursuant to permits issued to us by government authorities overseeing such disposal activities. While these permits are issued pursuant to existing laws and regulations, these legal requirements are subject to change, which could result in the imposition of more stringent permitting or operating constraints or new monitoring and reporting requirements owing to, among other things, concerns of the public or governmental authorities regarding such disposal activities.

One such concern relates to recent seismic events in the United States near underground disposal wells used for the disposal by injection of produced water resulting from oil and gas activities. Developing research suggests that the link between seismic activity and wastewater disposal may vary by region, and that only a very small fraction of the tens of thousands of injection wells have been suspected to be, or have been, the likely cause of induced seismicity. In March 2016, the United States Geological Survey identified six states with the most significant hazards from induced seismicity, including Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arkansas. The United States Geological Survey also noted the potential for induced seismicity in Ohio and Alabama. In response to concerns regarding induced seismicity, regulators in some states have imposed, or are considering imposing, additional requirements in the permitting of produced water disposal wells or otherwise to assess any relationship between seismicity and the use of such wells. For example, Oklahoma issued new rules for wastewater disposal wells in 2014 that imposed certain permitting and operating restrictions and reporting requirements on disposal wells in proximity to faults and also, from time to time, has developed and implemented plans directing certain wells where seismic incidents have occurred to restrict or suspend disposal well operations. In particular, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission released well completion seismicity guidelines in December 2016 for operators in the SCOOP and STACK that call for hydraulic fracturing operations to be suspended following earthquakes of certain magnitudes in the vicinity. In addition, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s Oil and Gas Conservation Division issued an order in February 2017 limiting future increases in the volume of oil and natural gas wastewater injected into the ground in an effort to reduce the number of earthquakes in the state and imposed further reductions in the Edmonds area of the state in August 2017. The Texas Railroad Commission adopted similar rules in 2014. In addition, ongoing lawsuits allege that disposal well operations have caused damage to neighboring properties or otherwise violated state and federal rules regulating waste disposal. These developments could result in additional regulation and restrictions on the use of injection wells. Increased regulation and attention given to induced seismicity could lead to greater opposition to oil and gas activities utilizing injection wells for waste disposal. The adoption and implementation of any new laws, regulations or directives that restrict our ability to dispose of wastewater gathered from our customers by limiting, volumes, disposal rates, disposal well locations or otherwise, or requiring us to shut down disposal wells, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the United States and similar legislation applicable in Western Canada govern both our and our oil and gas producing customers’ operations and additional restrictions may be imposed in the future, which constraints could have an adverse impact on our ability to expand some of our existing operations or limit our customers’ ability to develop new oil and gas wells.

In the United States, the ESA restricts activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Similar protections are offered to migratory birds under the MBTA. To the extent species that are listed under the ESA or similar state laws, or are protected under the MBTA, live in the areas where we or our oil and gas producing customers’ operate, both our and our customers’ abilities to conduct or expand operations and construct facilities could be limited or be forced to incur material additional costs. Moreover, our customers’ drilling activities may be delayed, restricted or precluded in protected habitat areas or during certain seasons, such as breeding and nesting seasons. Some of our operations and the operations of our customers are located in areas that are designated as habitats for protected species.

In addition, as a result of one or more settlements approved by the FWS, the agency is required to make a determination on the listing of numerous other species as endangered or threatened under the ESA by the end of the FWS’ 2017 fiscal year. The designation of previously unidentified endangered or threatened species could indirectly cause us to incur additional costs, cause our or our oil and gas producing customers’ operations to become subject to operating restrictions or bans, and limit future development activity in affected areas. The FWS and similar state agencies may designate critical or suitable habitat areas that they believe are necessary for the survival of threatened or endangered species. Such a designation could materially restrict use of or access to federal, state and private lands.

In Canada, the Migratory Birds Convention Act (“MBCA”) prohibits the release of substances that can harm migratory birds in waters used by them, and gives the federal government the authority to develop regulations to protect migratory birds, and their habitats, including nests. Oil and gas development projects must comply with provisions of the MBCA, as well as the federal Species at Risk Act. Alberta and British Columbia each have a provincial Wildlife Act, which impose restrictions to prevent wildlife species from disappearing that could impact oil and gas operations and reduce demand for our services.

Our chemical products are subject to stringent chemical control laws that could result in increased costs on our business.

We are subject to a wide array of laws and regulations governing chemicals, including the regulation of chemical substances and inventories, such as the TSCA in the United States and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in Canada. These laws and regulations change frequently, and have the potential to limit or ban altogether the types of chemicals we may use in our products, as well as result in increased costs related to testing, storing, and transporting our products prior to providing them to our customers. For example, in June 2016, President Obama signed into law the Lautenberg Act, which substantially revised TSCA. Among other items, the Lautenberg Act eliminated the cost‑benefit approach to analyzing chemical safety concerns with a health‑based safety standard and requires all chemicals in commerce, including those “grandfathered” under TSCA, to undergo a safety review. The Lautenberg Act also requires safety findings before a new chemical can enter the market. Although it is not possible at this time to predict how EPA will implement and interpret the new provisions of the Lautenberg Act, or how legislation or new regulations that may be adopted pursuant to these regulatory and legislative efforts would impact our business, any new restrictions on the development of new products, increases in regulation, or disclosure of confidential, competitive information could have an adverse effect on our operations and our cost of doing business.

Furthermore, governmental, regulatory and societal demands for increasing levels of product safety and environmental protection could result in increased pressure for more stringent regulatory control with respect to the chemical industry. In addition, these concerns could influence public perceptions regarding our products and operations, the viability of certain products, our reputation, the cost to comply with regulations, and the ability to attract and retain employees. Moreover, changes in environmental, health and safety regulations could inhibit or interrupt our operations, or require us to modify our facilities or operations. Accordingly, environmental or regulatory matters may cause us to incur significant unanticipated losses, costs or liabilities, which could reduce our profitability.

Disruptions in production at our chemical manufacturing facilities may have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and/or financial condition.

Chemical manufacturing facilities in our industry are subject to outages and other disruptions. Any serious disruption at any of our facilities could impair our ability to use our facilities and have a material adverse impact on our revenue and increase our costs and expenses. Alternative facilities with sufficient capacity may not be available, may cost substantially more or may take a significant time to increase production or qualify with our customers, any of which could negatively impact our business, results of operations and/or financial condition. Long‑term production disruptions may cause our customers to seek alternative supply which could further adversely affect our profitability.

Unplanned production disruptions may occur for external reasons including natural disasters, weather, disease, strikes, transportation interruption, government regulation, political unrest or terrorism, or internal reasons, such as fire, unplanned maintenance or other manufacturing problems. Any such production disruption could have a material impact on our operations, operating results and financial condition.

In addition, we rely on a number of vendors, suppliers, and in some cases sole‑source suppliers, service providers, toll manufacturers and collaborations with other industry participants to provide us with chemicals, feedstocks and other raw materials, along with energy sources and, in certain cases, facilities that we need to operate our business. If the business of these third parties is disrupted, some of these companies could be forced to reduce their output, shut down their operations or file for bankruptcy protection. If this were to occur, it could adversely affect their ability to provide us with the raw materials, energy sources or facilities that we need, which could materially disrupt our operations, including the production of certain of our chemical products. Moreover, it could be difficult to find replacements for certain of our business partners without incurring significant delays or cost increases. All of these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

While we maintain business recovery plans that are intended to allow us to recover from natural disasters or other events that could disrupt our business, we cannot provide assurances that our plans would fully protect us from the effects of all such disasters or from events that might increase in frequency or intensity due to climate change. In addition, insurance may not adequately compensate us for any losses incurred as a result of natural or other disasters. In areas prone to frequent natural or other disasters, insurance may become increasingly expensive or not available at all.

We operate in a highly competitive industry, which may intensify as our competitors expand their operations, that may causethereby causing us to lose market share, and which could negatively affect our ability to expand our operations.

The oilfield water solutionsmanagement business is highly competitive and includes numerous small companies capable of competing effectively in our markets on a local basis. Some of our larger diversified competitors have a similarly broad geographic scope, as well as greater financial and other resources than we do,us, while others focus on specific basins only and may have locallocally competitive cost efficiencies as a result. Additionally, there may be new companies that enter the water solutions businessour markets, or our existing and potential customers may choose to develop their own water solutions businesses.management solutions. Our ability to maintain current revenue and cash flows, and our ability to expand our operations, could be adversely affected by the activities of our competitors and our customers. IfWe may be unable to effectively compete if our competitors substantially increase the resources they devote to the development and marketing of competitivethe services that we offer, or substantially decrease the prices at which they offer their services, we may be unable to effectively compete.services. If our existing and potential customers develop their own water solutions, businesses, we may not be able to effectively replace that revenue. All of these competitive pressures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The oil and gas services industry is intensely competitive, and in certain businesses we compete with other companies that have greater resources than us. Many of our larger competitors provide a broader base of services on a regional, national or worldwide basis. These companies may have a greater ability to continue oilfield service activities during periods of low commodity prices, to contract for equipment, to secure trained personnel, to secure contracts and permits and to absorb the burden of present and future federal, state, provincial, local and other laws and regulations (as applicable). Any inability to compete effectively with larger companies could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

require skilled workers who can perform physically demanding work. As a result of our industry volatility, including the recent and pronounced decline in drilling activity, as well as the demanding nature of the work, many workers have left the oilfield services section to pursue employment in different fields. If we are unable to retain or meet growing demand for skilled technical personnel, our operating results and our ability to execute our growth strategies may be adversely affected.

Delays or restrictions in obtaining permits by us for our operations or by our E&P customers for their operations could impair our business.

In most states, ourOur operations and the operations of our oil and gas producingE&P customers in most states require permits from one or more governmental agencies in order to perform drilling and completion activities, secure water rights, construct impoundmentsimpoundment tanks and operate pipelines or trucking services. In the United States, suchSuch permits are typically issued by state agencies, but federal and local governmental permits may also be required. Similarly, in Canada, permits are generally issued by provincial agencies. However, federal permits are required for certain activities, such as where a project occurs on lands under federal jurisdiction. Where projects occur on unoccupied Crown lands, treaty lands or in proximity to Reserves, project proponents may face significant delays due to challenges from First Nations people because First Nations have constitutionally guaranteed rights to hunt, trap and fish. Project proponents must conduct adequate consultation with affected First Nations, and projects may encounter lengthy delays if court challenges are made in regards to inadequate consultation. The requirements for such permits vary depending on the location where such drilling and completion, and pipeline and gathering, activities will be conducted. As with all governmental permitting processes, there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether a permit will be granted, the time it will take for a permit to be issued, the conditions that may be imposed in connection with the granting of the permit and whether the permit may be terminated. In addition, some of our customers’ drilling and completion activities in the U.S. may take place on federal land or Native American lands, requiring leases and other approvals from the federal government or Native American tribes to conduct such drilling and completion activities. Under certain circumstances, federal agencies may cancel proposed leases for federal lands and refuse to grant or delay required approvals. Therefore, our customers’ operations in certain areasMoreover, President Biden has indicated his intent to restrict hydraulic fracturing on federal lands through delays or bans on issuance of the United Statesdrilling permits on such lands and his administration may be interrupted or suspended for varying lengths of time, causing a loss of revenue to uspursue regulatory initiatives, executive actions and adversely affecting our results of operationslegislation in support of those customers.his regulatory agenda. See Part I, Item 1. “Business – Environmental and Occupational Safety and Health Matters” for more discussion on possible actions under the Biden Administration that may adversely affect oil and natural gas leasing and permitting activities.

In the futureWe are subject to cybersecurity risks. A cyber incident could occur and result in information theft, data corruption, operational disruption and/or financial loss.

The oil and gas services industry has become increasingly dependent on digital technologies to conduct certain processing activities. For example, we may face increased obligations relatingdepend on digital technologies to the closingperform many of our wastewater disposal facilitiesservices and to process and record financial and operating data. At the same time, cyber incidents, including deliberate attacks or unintentional events, have increased. The U.S. government has issued public warnings that indicate that energy assets might be specific targets of cybersecurity threats. Our technologies, systems and networks, and those of our vendors, suppliers and other business partners, may become the target of cyber attacks or information security breaches that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of proprietary and other information, or other disruption of business operations. In addition, certain cyber incidents, such as surveillance, may remain undetected for an extended period. Our systems for protecting against cybersecurity risks may not be sufficient. As cyber incidents

If we are unable to fully protect our intellectual property rights, we may suffer a loss in our competitive advantage or market share.

We do not have patents or patent applications relating to many of our proprietary chemicals. If we are not able to maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets, or if our competitors are able to replicate our technology or services, our competitive advantage would be diminished. We also cannot assure you that any patents we may obtain in the future would provide us with any significant commercial benefit or would allow us to prevent our competitors from employing comparable technologies or processes.

Technology advancements in well service technologies, including those involving recycling of saltwater or the replacement of water in fracturing fluid, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The oilfield services industry is characterized by rapid and significant technological advancements and introductions of new products and services using new technologies. The saltwater disposal industry is subject to the introduction of new waste treatment and disposal techniques and services using new technologies including those involving recycling of saltwater, some of which may be subject to patent protection. As competitors and others use or develop new technologies or technologies comparable to ours in the future, we may lose market share or be placed at a competitive disadvantage. For example, some oil and gas producers are focusing on developing and utilizing non‑waternon-water fracturing techniques, including those utilizing propane, carbon dioxide or nitrogen instead of water. Further, we may face competitive pressure to implement or acquire certain new technologies at a substantial cost. Some of our competitors may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources than we do, which may allow them to gain technological advantages or implement new technologies before we can. Additionally, we may be unable to implement new technologies or products at all, on a timely basis or at an acceptable cost. New technology could also make it easier for our customers to vertically integrate their operations or reduce the amount of waste produced in oil and gas drilling and production activities, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for third‑partythird-party disposal. Limits on our ability to effectively use or implement new technologies may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be adversely affected by uncertainty in the global financial markets and a worldwide economic downturn.

Our future results may be impacted by uncertainty caused by a worldwide economic downturn, continued volatility or deterioration in the debt and equity capital markets, inflation, deflation or other adverse economic conditions that may negatively affect us or parties with whom we do business resulting in a reduction in our customers’ spending and their non‑paymentnon-payment or inability to perform obligations owed to us, such as the failure of customers to honor their commitments or the failure of major suppliers to complete orders. The COVID-19 pandemic has created global uncertainty that has negatively affected our business and industry and will continue to do so. Additionally, credit market conditions may change, slowing our collection efforts as customers may experience increased difficulty in obtaining requisite financing, potentially leading to lost revenue and higher than normal accounts receivable. In the event of the financial distress or bankruptcy of a customer, we could lose all or a portion of such outstanding accounts receivable associated with that customer. Further, if a customer was to enter into bankruptcy, it could also result in the cancellation of all or a portion of our service contracts with such customercould be cancelled at significant expense or loss of expected revenues to us.us if a customer was to enter into bankruptcy.

The current global economic environment may adversely impact our ability to issue debt. Any economic uncertainty may cause institutional investors to respond to their borrowers by increasing interest rates, enacting tighter lending standards or refusing to refinance existing debt upon its maturity or on terms similar to the expiring debt. However, dueDue to the above listedabove-listed factors, we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available if needed and, to the extent required, on acceptable terms.