TETRA TECHNOLOGIES INC

Previous wording

For example, West Texas Intermediate oil prices averaged $94.90, $77.58, and $76.63 per barrel during 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively. Over this same period, U.S. natural gas prices have also been volatile, with the Henry Hub price averaging $6.45, $2.53, and $2.15 per MMBtu during 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively.

Current wording

For example, West Texas Intermediate oil prices averaged $77.58, $76.63, and $65.45 per barrel during 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively. Over this same period, U.S. natural gas prices have also been volatile, with the Henry Hub price averaging $2.53, $2.15, and $3.51 per MMBtu during 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively.

Previous wording

Prolonged volatility and low levels of oil and natural gas prices and supply and demand imbalances generate depressed levels of exploration, development, and production activity. If oil and natural gas prices decline significantly and supply and demand imbalances persist, there would be a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated results of operations, and consolidated financial condition. Should current market conditions worsen for an extended period of time, we may be required to record additional asset impairments. Such potential impairment charges could have a material adverse impact on our operating results.

Current wording

Prolonged volatility and low levels of oil and natural gas prices and supply and demand imbalances generate depressed levels of exploration, development, and production activity. If oil and natural gas prices decline significantly and supply and demand imbalances persist, there would be a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated results of operations, and consolidated financial condition. Should current market conditions worsen for an extended period of time, we may be required to record additional asset impairments. Such potential impairment charges could have a material adverse impact on our operating results. See “Changes in the economic environment have resulted, and could further result, in significant impairments of certain of our long-lived assets.”

Previous wording

Our operating results in general, and gross profit in particular, are determined by market conditions and the products and services we sell in any period. Other factors, such as heightened competition, changes in sales and distribution channels, availability of skilled labor and contract services, shortages in raw materials, or inability to obtain supplies at reasonable prices, may also affect the cost of sales and the fluctuation of gross margin in future periods. Although equipment and materials used in providing our products and services to our customers are normally readily available, market conditions could trigger constraints in the supply chain of certain equipment and raw materials used in providing products and services to our customers. If we experience future supply chain disruptions, or if we experience significant increases in the costs of equipment and materials used in providing our products and services, it could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

Current wording

Our operating results in general, and gross profit in particular, are determined by market conditions and the products and services we sell in any period. Other factors, such as heightened competition, changes in sales and distribution channels, availability of skilled labor and contract services, shortages in raw materials, or inability to obtain supplies, such as bromine, at reasonable prices, may also affect the cost of sales and the fluctuation of gross margin in future periods. Although equipment and materials used in providing our products and services to our customers are normally readily available, market conditions could trigger constraints in the supply chain of certain equipment and raw materials used in providing products and services to our customers. If we experience future supply chain disruptions, or if we experience significant increases in the costs of equipment and materials used in providing our products and services, it could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

Previous wording

Other factors affecting our operating results and activity levels include oil and natural gas industry spending levels for exploration, completion, production, development, and acquisition activities, and impairments of long-lived assets. Customer consolidation may also lead to reductions in capital spending that could have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, Completion Fluids & Products Division profitability in future periods will continue to be affected by the mix of its products and services, including the timing of TETRA CS Neptune completion fluid projects, which are also dependent upon the success of customer offshore exploration and drilling efforts. If our customers reduce capital expenditures, such reductions may have a negative effect on the demand for many of our products and services and on our revenues and results of operations. A large concentration of our operating activities is located in the Permian Basin region of Texas and New Mexico. Our revenues and profitability are particularly dependent upon oil and natural gas industry activity and spending levels in this region. Our operations may also be affected by technological advances, cost of capital, and tax policies. Adverse changes in any of these other factors may have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

Current wording

Other factors affecting our operating results and activity levels include oil and natural gas industry spending levels for exploration, completion, production, development, and acquisition activities, and impairments of long-lived assets. Customer consolidation may also lead to reductions in capital spending that could have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, Completion Fluids & Products Segment profitability in future periods will continue to be affected by the mix of its products and services, including the timing of TETRA Neptune completion fluid projects and sales of TETRA PureFlow Plus, which are also dependent upon the success of customer offshore exploration and drilling efforts. If our customers reduce capital expenditures, such reductions may have a negative effect on the demand for many of our products and services and on our revenues and results of operations. A large concentration of our operating activities is located in the Permian Basin region of Texas and New Mexico. Our revenues and profitability are particularly dependent upon oil and natural gas industry activity and spending levels in this region. Our operations may also be affected by technological advances, cost of capital, and tax policies. Adverse changes in any of these other factors may have a material adverse effect on our revenues and profitability.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, we held investments in Kodiak Gas Services, Inc. (“Kodiak”) and Standard Lithium, which had fair values of $18.4 million and $1.2 million, respectively. Our operating results could be significantly affected by fluctuations in the market value of these investments. In January 2025, we sold our Kodiak shares for proceeds of $19.0 million, net of transaction and broker fees. The value of our remaining investments may be adversely affected by negative changes in Standard Lithium’s results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, we held an investment in Standard Lithium, which had a fair value of $3.6 million. Our operating results could be significantly affected by fluctuations in the market value of this investment. In January 2025, we sold our Kodiak Gas Services, Inc. shares for proceeds of $19.0 million, net of transaction and broker fees. The value of our remaining investment in Standard Lithium may be adversely affected by negative changes in Standard Lithium’s results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, we also held investments valued at approximately $8.6 million in a convertible note, common units and preferred units issued by two privately-held companies. These convertible notes, common units and preferred units are not publicly traded and may not be offered, sold, transferred or pledged until such units are registered pursuant to an effective registration statement or pursuant to an exemption from registration. These investments will be subject to fair value measurement adjustments which will affect our financial results and there can be no assurance that the convertible notes will ultimately be repaid or converted in equity of the issuers.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, we also held investments valued at approximately $8.3 million in a convertible note, common units, and preferred units issued by two privately-held companies. These convertible notes, common units and preferred units are not publicly traded and may not be offered, sold, transferred or pledged until such units are registered pursuant to an effective registration statement or pursuant to an exemption from registration. These investments will be subject to fair value measurement adjustments which have and will affect our financial results and there can be no assurance that the convertible notes will ultimately be repaid or converted in equity of the issuers.

Previous wording

Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), we review the carrying value of our long-lived assets when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of these assets may not be recoverable, based on their expected future cash flows. The impact of reduced expected future cash flow could require the write-down of all or a portion of the carrying value for these assets, which would result in additional impairments, resulting in decreased earnings. During the three-year period ending December 31, 2024, we recorded a total of $5.9 million of impairments and other charges for certain right-of-use lease assets, inventory and long-lived assets other than goodwill. See Note 6 - “Impairments and other charges” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of impairments. Depressed commodity prices and/or adverse changes in the economic environment could result in a greater decrease in the demand for many of our products and services, which could impact the expected utilization rates of certain of our long-lived assets, including plant facilities, operating locations, and operating equipment.

Current wording

Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), we review the carrying value of our long-lived assets when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of these assets may not be recoverable, based on their expected future cash flows. The impact of reduced expected future cash flow could require the write-down of all or a portion of the carrying value for these assets, which would result in additional impairments, resulting in decreased earnings. During the three-year period ending December 31, 2025, we recorded a total of $7.2 million of impairments and other charges for certain right-of-use lease assets, inventory and long-lived assets other than goodwill. See Note 5 - “Impairments and other charges” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of impairments. Depressed commodity prices and/or adverse changes in the economic environment could result in a greater decrease in the demand for many of our products and services, which could impact the expected utilization rates of certain of our long-lived assets, including plant facilities, operating locations, and operating equipment.

Previous wording

We sell a variety of CBFs to the oil and gas industry and non-energy markets, including calcium chloride, calcium bromide, zinc bromide, zinc calcium bromide, sodium bromide, formate-based brines, and our TETRA CS Neptune fluids, some of which we manufacture and some of which are purchased from third parties. Sales of these products contribute significantly to our revenues. In our manufacture of calcium chloride, we use brines, hydrochloric acid, and other raw materials purchased from third parties. In our manufacture of brominated CBF products, we use elemental bromine, hydrobromic acid, and other raw materials that are purchased from third parties. There are several raw materials for which there are only a limited number of suppliers or a single supplier. To mitigate potential supply constraints, we enter into supply agreements with particular suppliers. For example, we are currently required to purchase all of our requirements of elemental bromine, up to a certain specified maximum and subject to a specified annual minimum, from LANXESS under a long-term supply agreement. We also evaluate alternative sources of supply to avoid reliance on limited or sole-source suppliers when possible. Although we have long-term supply agreements with LANXESS, there is no assurance that we will have an adequate supply of elemental bromine or the other raw materials required for all of our CBF opportunities, or that such raw materials will be available at reasonable prices. Economic sanctions and other regulations imposed by the United States and other international countries as a result of the conflict involving Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza region, hostilities in the Middle East, or maritime piracy attacks may disrupt supplies or affect the prices of certain raw materials. Should the conflict in Ukraine or other international locations further escalate, it is difficult to anticipate the extent to which current or future sanctions could increase our costs, disrupt our supplies, reduce our sales or otherwise affect our operations. Additionally, new or increased tariffs could impact raw material prices and the cost of component parts. If we are unable to acquire these raw materials at reasonable prices, or at all, for a prolonged period, our Completion Fluids & Products Division business could be materially and adversely affected.

Current wording

We sell a variety of CBFs to the oil and gas industry and non-energy markets, including calcium chloride, calcium bromide, zinc bromide, zinc calcium bromide, sodium bromide, formate-based brines, and our TETRA Neptune fluids, some of which we manufacture and some of which are purchased from third parties. Sales of these products contribute significantly to our revenues. In our manufacture of calcium chloride, we use brines, hydrochloric acid, and other raw materials purchased from third parties. In our manufacture of brominated CBF products, we use elemental bromine, hydrobromic acid, and other raw materials that are purchased from third parties. There are several raw materials for which there are only a limited number of suppliers or a single supplier. To mitigate potential supply constraints, we enter into supply agreements with particular suppliers. For example, we are currently required to purchase all of our requirements of elemental bromine, up to a certain specified maximum and subject to a specified annual minimum, from LANXESS under a long-term supply agreement. We also evaluate alternative sources of supply to avoid reliance on limited or sole-source suppliers when possible. Although we have long-term supply agreements with LANXESS, there is no assurance that we will have an adequate supply of elemental bromine or the other raw materials required for all of our CBF opportunities, that we will be able to find other long-term supply agreements if needed or that such raw materials will be available at reasonable prices. Economic sanctions and other regulations imposed by the United States and other international countries as a result of the conflict involving Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza region, hostilities in the Middle East, or maritime piracy attacks has disrupted and may again disrupt supplies or affect the prices of certain raw materials. Should the conflict in Ukraine or other international locations further escalate, it is difficult to anticipate the extent to which current or future sanctions could increase our costs, disrupt our supplies, reduce our sales or otherwise affect our operations. Additionally, new or increased tariffs could impact raw material prices and the cost of component parts. If we are unable to acquire these raw materials at reasonable prices, or at all, for a prolonged period, our Completion Fluids & Products Segment business could be materially and adversely affected.

Previous wording

We may not be able to economically extract lithium or bromine from the leased acreage in our Arkansas brine leases.

Current wording

We may not be able to economically extract lithium, bromine or other minerals from the leased acreage in our Arkansas brine leases.

Previous wording

In addition to proven bromine reserves, our Arkansas brine leases currently contain probable bromine reserves and inferred, indicated and measured resources of lithium and bromine, and we may never convert any of these resources to proven mineral reserves on these properties, or enough of them to justify the decision to engage in the extraction of lithium and/or bromine. There can be no assurance that any future exploration efforts on these properties will be successful.

Current wording

In addition to proven bromine reserves, our Arkansas brine leases currently contain probable bromine reserves, inferred, indicated and measured resources of lithium and bromine and measured and indicated resources of magnesium, and we may never convert any of these resources to proven mineral reserves on these properties, or enough of them to justify the decision to engage in the extraction of lithium, bromine, magnesium and/or other minerals. There can be no assurance that any future exploration efforts on these properties will be successful.

Previous wording

While we continue to evaluate the next steps regarding the potential development of our brine leases, we have only very recently completed a definitive feasibility study with respect to bromine and an updated technical resources report for our Evergreen Brine Unit, and we are not currently able to determine the economic viability of the extraction of the lithium and bromine from the leased acreage. In addition, the extraction of lithium and bromine from these brine leases will likely require a significant amount of time and capital, which may exceed current estimates and which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. In August 2024, we published a definitive feasibility study for the production of bromine from our Evergreen Unit. Prior to producing lithium and bromine from the Evergreen Brine Unit, we must complete a lithium FEED study and a feasibility study for our lithium acreage, validate the lithium technologies used, coordinate with the local utility co-op for the construction of power infrastructure to supply electricity to our plant site, complete detailed engineering for a processing facility, obtain permits for our extraction activities which could be subject to delays or onerous conditions, as well as finalize any contractual agreements with our potential joint venture partner, Saltwerx. We and Saltwerx continue to evaluate the potential development of and the negotiation of the joint venture for the Evergreen Brine Unit and are continuing to advance the engineering studies required to more precisely define the lithium project economics. Unless and until we finalize any contractual agreements with Saltwerx, including a joint venture agreement, our relationship with Saltwerx will be governed by the MOU and the Brine Unit Operating Agreement approved by the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. See “Item 2. Properties—Bromine and Lithium Resources” for more information regarding the MOU. As a result of these uncertainties, no assurance can be given that any future exploration programs will result in the discovery of commercially viable mineral resources or reserves.

Current wording

While we continue to evaluate the next steps regarding the potential development of our brine leases, we have only very recently completed a definitive feasibility study with respect to bromine and an updated technical resources report for our Evergreen Brine Unit, and we are not currently able to determine the economic viability of the extraction of the lithium and bromine from the leased acreage. In addition, the extraction of lithium, bromine, magnesium and other minerals from these brine leases will likely require a significant amount of time and capital, which may exceed current estimates and which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. In September 2025, we published an updated definitive feasibility study and updated our technical resources report with respect to bromine, lithium, magnesium, manganese and other key minerals from our Evergreen Brine Unit. Prior to producing magnesium, lithium and/or bromine from TETRA’s brine leases, including the Evergreen Brine Unit, we must complete a lithium FEED study and a feasibility study for our lithium acreage, validate the lithium technologies used before lithium production begins, coordinate with the local utility co-op for the construction of power infrastructure to supply electricity to our plant site, complete detailed engineering for a processing facility, obtain permits for our extraction activities which could be subject to delays or onerous conditions, as well as finalize any contractual agreements with our potential joint venture partners, Saltwerx and Magrathea Metals, Inc. (“Magrathea”). We and Saltwerx continue to evaluate the potential development of and the negotiation of the joint venture for the Evergreen Brine Unit and are continuing to advance the engineering studies required to more precisely define the lithium project economics. Unless and until we finalize any contractual agreements with Saltwerx, including a joint venture agreement, our relationship with Saltwerx will be governed by the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and the Brine Unit Operating Agreement approved by the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. See “Item 2. Properties—Bromine and Lithium Resources” for more information regarding the MOU. In addition, we signed a term sheet with Magrathea regarding a potential joint venture and we are evaluating the potential development of our magnesium resources and the negotiation of a joint venture with respect to magnesium from our brine leases. As a result of these uncertainties, no assurance can be given that any future exploration programs will result in the discovery of commercially viable mineral resources or reserves.

Previous wording

Failure to effectively and timely execute any of our low carbon energy initiatives could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Current wording

Failure to effectively and timely execute any of our strategic growth initiatives could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Previous wording

Our future success may depend on our ability to effectively execute on our low carbon energy initiatives. This strategy depends on our ability to effectively identify, develop, and scale new technologies, expand application of our global infrastructure and chemistry expertise and on the economic viability of the extraction of lithium and bromine from our Arkansas brine leases. Furthermore, execution of our low carbon initiatives are subject to a number of permitting, real estate, and project development risks, which could delay, limit, or even prevent the successful execution of these initiatives. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that the low carbon initiatives we may identify will meet the expectations of our various stakeholders. Even if successful, we could face increased costs from our pursuit of low carbon initiatives. For example, the exploration, development and extraction of brine and lithium from our Arkansas brine leases will likely require significant time and capital, and there is no guarantee of a return from these operations. Our low carbon energy initiatives may also depend in part on successful development of partnerships with other companies, such as our partnership and investments in privately-held companies and our MOU and potential joint venture partnership with Saltwerx, and such partners’ execution of their own respective projects and business strategies. Moreover, successful execution of these initiatives may turn on the timely issuance of permits or other authorizations for activities, which we cannot control. If we, or the projects or partners we invest in, fail to execute our low carbon energy initiatives as planned, or if execution of such initiatives requires more time and capital than expected, demand for our technologies, services and mineral assets and consequently, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Current wording

Our future success may depend on our ability to effectively execute on our strategic growth initiatives, including our low carbon energy initiatives. This strategy depends on our ability to effectively identify, develop, and scale new technologies, such as TETRA Oasis TDS, expand application of our global infrastructure and chemistry expertise and on the economic viability of the extraction of lithium, bromine and other minerals from our Arkansas brine leases. In addition, the demand for our new technologies or products, such TETRA Oasis TDS and TETRA PureFlow Plus, may not materialize as expected. Furthermore, execution of our strategic growth initiatives are subject to a number of permitting, real estate, and project development risks, which could delay, limit, or even prevent the successful execution of these initiatives. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that the strategic growth initiatives we may identify will meet the expectations of our various stakeholders. Even if successful, we could face increased costs from our pursuit of our strategic growth initiatives. For example, the exploration, development and extraction of bromine, lithium and other minerals from our Arkansas brine leases will likely require significant time and capital, and there is no guarantee of a return from these operations. Our strategic growth initiatives may also depend in part on successful development of partnerships with other companies, such as our partnership and investments in privately-held companies and our MOU and potential joint venture partnership with Saltwerx and potential joint venture with Magrathea, and such partners’ execution of their own respective projects and business strategies. Moreover, successful execution of these initiatives may turn on the timely issuance of permits or other authorizations for activities, which we cannot control. If we, or the projects or partners we invest in, fail to execute our strategic growth initiatives as planned, or if execution of such initiatives requires more time and capital than expected, demand for our technologies, services and mineral assets and consequently, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

In certain markets, the Water & Flowback Services Division’s onshore water management services can be dependent on adequate water supplies being available to our customers. To the extent severe drought or other weather-related conditions prevent our customers from obtaining needed water, frac water operations may not be possible and our Water & Flowback Services Division business may be negatively affected.

Current wording

In certain markets, the Water & Flowback Services Segment’s onshore water management services can be dependent on adequate water supplies being available to our customers. To the extent severe drought or other weather-related conditions prevent our customers from obtaining needed water, frac water operations may not be possible and our Water & Flowback Services Segment business may be negatively affected.

Previous wording

During 2024, the closing price for our common stock ranged from a high of $4.93 per share to a low of $2.76 per share. In recent years, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price for companies in industries similar to ours. Some of these fluctuations have been unrelated to operating performance and are attributable, in part, to outside factors such as general economic conditions, including the impact of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, conflict in the Israel-Gaza region, continued hostilities in the Middle East, maritime piracy attacks, and fear of a global recession. The volatility of our common stock may make it difficult to resell shares of our common stock at attractive prices.

Current wording

During 2025, the closing price for our common stock ranged from a high of $9.40 per share to a low of $2.13 per share. In recent years, the stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price for companies in industries similar to ours. Some of these fluctuations have been unrelated to operating performance and are attributable, in part, to outside factors such as general economic conditions, including the impact of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, conflict in the Israel-Gaza region, continued hostilities in the Middle East, maritime piracy attacks, inflation, and fear of a global recession. The volatility of our common stock may make it difficult to resell shares of our common stock at attractive prices.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, our total long-term debt outstanding of $179.7 million consisted of the carrying amount outstanding under our credit facility. Our credit facility matures in January 2030 and consists of a $190.0 million funded term loan and a $75.0 million delayed-draw term loan (collectively the “Term Credit Agreement”). We also have availability under our Asset-Based Credit Agreement (the “ABL Credit Agreement”), and under our revolving credit facility for seasonal working capital needs of subsidiaries in Sweden (“Swedish Credit Facility”).

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, our total long-term debt outstanding of $181.4 million consisted of the carrying amount outstanding under our Term Credit Agreement, which matures in January 2030. We also have availability under our Asset-Based Credit Agreement (the “ABL Credit Agreement”), and under our revolving credit facility for seasonal working capital needs of subsidiaries in Sweden (“Swedish Credit Facility”).

Previous wording

The Term Credit Agreement contains certain affirmative and negative covenants, including covenants that restrict the ability of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries to take certain actions including, among other things and subject to certain significant exceptions, the incurrence of debt, the granting of liens, engaging in mergers and other fundamental changes, the making of investments, entering into transactions with affiliates, the payment of dividends and other restricted payments, the prepayment of other indebtedness and the sale of assets. The Term Credit Agreement also requires the Company to maintain a Leverage Ratio (as defined in the new term loan credit agreement) of not more than 4.0 to 1.0 as of the end of each fiscal quarter and Liquidity (as defined in the New Term Credit Agreement) of not less than $50.0 million at all times.

Current wording

The Term Credit Agreement contains certain affirmative and negative covenants, including covenants that restrict the ability of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries to take certain actions including, among other things and subject to certain significant exceptions, the incurrence of debt, the granting of liens, engaging in mergers and other fundamental changes, the making of investments, entering into transactions with affiliates, the payment of dividends and other restricted payments, the prepayment of other indebtedness and the sale of assets. The Term Credit Agreement also requires the Company to maintain a Leverage Ratio (as defined in the new term loan credit agreement) of not more than 4.0 to 1.0 as of the end of each fiscal quarter and Liquidity (as defined in the Term Credit Agreement) of not less than $50.0 million at all times.

Previous wording

Our continuing ability to comply with covenants in our Long-Term Debt Agreements depends largely upon our ability to generate adequate earnings and operating cash flow.

Current wording

Our continuing ability to comply with covenants in our Long-Term Debt Agreements depends largely upon our ability to generate adequate earnings and operating cash flow. Our failure to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default. If there were an event of default under our Long-Term Debt Agreements, or any future instruments governing our indebtedness, the holders of the affected indebtedness could declare all of the affected indebtedness immediately due and payable, which, in turn, could cause the acceleration of the maturity of all of our other indebtedness. We may not have sufficient funds available, or we may not have access to sufficient capital from other sources, to repay any accelerated debt. If amounts outstanding under the ABL Credit Agreement were accelerated, the lenders under the ABL Credit Agreement could foreclose on the liens securing such agreement, and we could lose the assets securing such agreement. Any event of default under our Long-Term Debt Agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Previous wording

We may not be able to utilize all or a portion of our net operating loss carryforwards or other tax benefits to offset future taxable income for U.S. federal, state or foreign tax purposes, which could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. We have adopted a Tax Benefits Preservation Plan (the “Tax Plan”) that is designed to protect our Tax Attributes.

Current wording

We may not be able to utilize all or a portion of our net operating loss carryforwards or other tax benefits to offset future taxable income for U.S. federal, U.S. state or non-U.S. tax purposes, which could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Our Board of Directors adopted a Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, which is designed to preserve our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax benefits.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, we had deferred tax assets associated with federal, state, and foreign net operating loss carryforwards/carrybacks (“NOLs”) equal to approximately $72.4 million, $9.0 million, and $7.7 million, respectively. In those countries and states in which NOLs are subject to an expiration period, our NOLs, if not utilized, will expire at various dates beginning in 2025 through 2043.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, we had deferred tax assets associated with U.S. federal, U.S. state, and non-U.S. net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) equal to approximately $66.3 million, $8.5 million, and $9.1 million, respectively. In the jurisdictions in which NOLs are subject to an expiration period, our NOLs, if not utilized, will expire at various dates beginning in 2026 through 2041.

Previous wording

We may be limited in the portion of our NOLs that we can use in the future to offset taxable income for United States, federal, state, and foreign income tax purposes. Utilization of these NOLs depends on many factors, including our future taxable income, which cannot be assured and our future assessments may be materially different from the current estimate.

Current wording

We may be limited in the portion of our NOLs that we can use in the future to offset taxable income for U.S. federal, U.S. state, and non-U.S. income tax purposes. Utilization of these NOLs depends on many factors, including our future taxable income, which cannot be assured and our future assessments may be materially different from the current estimate.

Previous wording

Under Section 382 (“Section 382”) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if a corporation experiences an “ownership change,” any NOLs, losses or deductions attributable to a “net unrealized built-in loss” and other tax attributes (“Tax Attributes”) could be substantially limited, and timing of the usage of such Tax Attributes could be substantially delayed. A corporation generally will experience an ownership change if one or more stockholders (or group of stockholders) who are each deemed to own at least 5% of the corporation’s stock increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a testing period (generally, a rolling three-year period). Utilization of our Tax Attributes may be subject to a significant annual limitation as a result of prior or future “ownership changes.” Determining the limitations under Section 382 is technical and highly complex, and no assurance can be given that, upon further analysis, our ability to take advantage of our NOLs or other Tax Attributes will not be limited to a greater extent than we currently anticipate.

Current wording

Under Section 382 (“Section 382”) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if a corporation experiences an “ownership change,” its NOLs and certain other tax attributes (“Tax Attributes”) could be substantially limited and the timing of the usage of such Tax Attributes could be substantially delayed. A corporation generally will experience an ownership change if one or more stockholders (or group of stockholders) who are each deemed to own at least 5% of the corporation’s stock increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a testing period (generally, a rolling three-year period). Utilization of our Tax Attributes may be subject to a significant annual limitation as a result of prior or future “ownership changes.” Determining the limitations under Section 382 is technical and highly complex, and no assurance can be given that, upon further analysis, our ability to utilize our NOLs or other Tax Attributes will not be limited to a greater extent than we currently anticipate.

Previous wording

The Board of Directors has adopted the Tax Plan to protect the availability of the Company’s Tax Attributes. The Tax Plan is designed to reduce the likelihood that we experience an ownership change by deterring certain acquisitions of our common stock. There can be no assurances, however, that the deterrent mechanism will be effective, and, therefore, such acquisitions may still occur. In addition, the Tax Plan could adversely affect the marketability of our common stock by discouraging existing or potential investors from acquiring our common stock or additional shares of our common stock. If the Company is unable to use the Tax Attributes in years in which it has taxable income, the Company will pay significantly more in cash tax than if it were able to utilize the Tax Attributes, and those tax costs would negatively impact the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Current wording

Our Board of Directors has adopted the Tax Plan to preserve the availability of our Tax Attributes. The Tax Plan contributes to the preservation of our Tax Attributes by deterring certain acquisitions of our common stock, and is intended to reduce the risk that an ownership change under Section 382 occurs. There can be no assurances, however, that the deterrent mechanism will be effective, and, therefore, such acquisitions may still occur. In addition, the Tax Plan could adversely affect the marketability of our common stock by discouraging existing or potential investors from acquiring our common stock or additional shares of our common stock. If we are unable to use the Tax Attributes in years in which we have taxable income, we would likely pay significantly more in cash tax than if we were able to utilize the Tax Attributes, and those tax costs would negatively impact our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Previous wording

From 2001 to 2012, our former subsidiary, Maritech Resources, Inc. (“Maritech”), acquired, produced, and operated various oil and gas properties in the Gulf of America and eventually sold the various oil and gas producing properties in numerous transactions to different buyers. In connection with those sales, the buyers generally assumed the decommissioning liabilities associated with the properties sold (the “Legacy Liabilities”) and generally became the successor operator. In some cases, we provided guaranties of certain liabilities retained by Maritech, and we provided guaranties to the entities which originally sold the properties to Maritech. To the extent that a buyer, or subsequent buyer, of these properties fails to perform the decommissioning work required, Maritech or we may be required to perform operations to satisfy the Legacy Liabilities.

Current wording

From 2001 to 2012, our former subsidiary, Maritech, acquired, produced, and operated various oil and gas properties in the Gulf of America and eventually sold the various oil and gas producing properties in numerous transactions to different buyers. In connection with those sales, the buyers generally assumed the decommissioning liabilities associated with the properties sold (the “Legacy Liabilities”) and generally became the successor operator. In some cases, we provided guaranties of certain liabilities retained by Maritech, and we provided guaranties to the entities which originally sold the properties to Maritech. To the extent that a buyer, or subsequent buyer, of these properties fails to perform the decommissioning work required, Maritech or we may be required to perform operations to satisfy the Legacy Liabilities.

Previous wording

In March 2018, pursuant to a series of transactions, Maritech sold the remaining offshore leases held by Maritech to Orinoco Natural Resources, LLC (“Orinoco”) and, immediately thereafter, we sold all equity interest in Maritech to Orinoco. Under the Maritech Asset Purchase Agreement, Orinoco assumed all of Maritech’s decommissioning liabilities related to the leases conveyed to Orinoco (the “Orinoco Lease Liabilities”) and, under the Maritech Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, Orinoco assumed all other liabilities of Maritech, including the Legacy Liabilities and liabilities pertaining to properties still operated by Maritech, subject to limited exceptions unrelated to the decommissioning liabilities. Pursuant to a Bonding Agreement entered into as part of the Orinoco transactions (the “Bonding Agreement”), Orinoco provided non-revocable performance bonds in an aggregate amount of $46.8 million to cover the Orinoco Lease Liabilities (the “Initial Bonds”) and agreed to replace the Initial Bonds with other non-revocable performance bonds in the aggregate sum of $47.0 million (collectively, the “Replacement Bonds”). In the event Orinoco does not provide the Replacement Bonds, Orinoco is required to make certain cash escrow payments to us. However, as of the date of this report, the Replacement Bonds have not been received and no cash escrow payments have been made. In the event that Orinoco fails to perform, our guarantees may still cover these liabilities. Separately, significant decommissioning liabilities that were assumed by the buyers of the Maritech properties in these previous sales remain unperformed. If these buyers, or any successor owners of the Maritech properties, are unable to satisfy and extinguish their decommissioning liabilities due to bankruptcy or other liquidity issues, the U.S. Department of the Interior may seek to impose those obligations on Maritech and on us. The amount of cash necessary to satisfy these obligations could be significant and, if Maritech or Orinoco is unable to cover any deficiency between any bond payment and the decommissioning liability, we may be liable for a portion of the costs and our financial condition and results of operations may be negatively affected. For example, Maritech is liable, with other third parties, for certain decommissioning obligations in the Gulf of America. While the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted, we could potentially be liable for an estimated amount in the range of $5.8 million to $19.4 million, depending on the outcome of negotiations and whether other partners or property owners in the chain of title fulfill their respective obligations under their agreements. Such estimates are based on information known to us as of the time of this report and are subject to change.

Current wording

“Replacement Bonds”). In the event Orinoco does not provide the Replacement Bonds, Orinoco is required to make certain cash escrow payments to us. However, as of the date of this report, the Replacement Bonds have not been received and no cash escrow payments have been made. In the event that Orinoco fails to perform, our guarantees may still cover these liabilities. Separately, significant decommissioning liabilities that were assumed by the buyers of the Maritech properties in these previous sales remain unperformed. If these buyers, or any successor owners of the Maritech properties, are unable to satisfy and extinguish their decommissioning liabilities due to bankruptcy or other liquidity issues, the U.S. Department of the Interior may seek to impose those obligations on Maritech and on us. The amount of cash necessary to satisfy these obligations could be significant and, if Maritech or Orinoco is unable to cover any deficiency between any bond payment and the decommissioning liability, we may be liable for a portion of the costs and our financial condition and results of operations may be negatively affected. For example, Maritech is liable, with other third parties, for certain decommissioning obligations in the Gulf of America.

Previous wording

In addition, Maritech and certain other interest owners have received decommissioning orders from BSEE and could receive additional decommissioning orders in the future. Such decommissioning orders received by Maritech and other interest owners relate to asset retirement obligations for certain properties in the Gulf of America. From time to time, we also receive demand notices from third parties related to certain corporate guarantees or other arrangements covering such decommissioning liabilities. While the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted at this time, if Maritech or other interest owners default, BSEE or third parties may seek to enforce certain corporate guarantees or third party indemnity agreements against us for a portion of such decommissioning obligations, which may be significant. On February 13, 2025, Arena Energy, LLC filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking indemnification from us and Maritech for decommissioning costs related to a Maritech oil and gas platform in the Gulf of America. We are evaluating the allegations included in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the claims brought by Arena Energy, LLC but are presently unable to predict the duration, scope or result of this proceeding.

Current wording

In addition, Maritech and certain other interest owners have received decommissioning orders from BSEE and could receive additional decommissioning orders in the future. Such decommissioning orders received by Maritech and other interest owners relate to asset retirement obligations for certain properties in the Gulf of America. From time to time, we also receive demand notices from third parties related to certain corporate guarantees or other arrangements covering such decommissioning liabilities. While the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted at this time, if Maritech or other interest owners default, BSEE or third parties may seek to enforce certain corporate guarantees or third party indemnity agreements against us for a portion of such decommissioning obligations, which may be significant. On February 13, 2025, Arena Energy, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking indemnification from us and Maritech for decommissioning costs related to a Maritech oil and gas platform in the Gulf of America. The estimated remaining decommissioning costs for such property are approximately $24.5 million, before TETRA’s bond proceeds of $8.1 million. Additionally, on November 3, 2025, Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC (“Anadarko”) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for amounts exceeding $27.0 million asserting Maritech and TETRA are allegedly in breach of certain purported obligations to address plugging and abandonment and decommissioning obligations for certain outer continental shelf leases and related infrastructure located in the Gulf of America. While the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted, we could potentially be liable for an estimated amount in the range of $11.3 million to $27.0 million, before Maritech’s proportionate share of the bond proceeds (approximately $3.9 million), depending on the outcome of negotiations and whether other partners or property owners in the chain of title fulfill their respective obligations under their agreements. Such estimates are based on information known to us as of the time of this report and are subject to change. We are evaluating the allegations included in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend against the claims brought by Arena Energy, LLC and Anadarko, but are presently unable to predict the duration, scope or result of this proceeding. The estimates above exclude attorney fees, which cannot be reasonably determined.

Previous wording

The U.S. Department of the Interior also increased its estimates for decommissioning liabilities in the Gulf of America, causing the potential need for additional supplemental bonding and/or other financial assurances to be dramatically increased. When coupled with any volatility with respect to the prices of oil and gas, it is difficult to predict the impact of BOEM’s 2024 rule and regulatory changes already promulgated, and any other changes as may be forthcoming by the U.S. Department of the Interior relating to financial assurance for decommissioning liabilities. We cannot predict what actions, if any, and on what timing, the new Administration may take with respect to these matters; however, the ultimate impact of BOEM’s 2024 rule, and other rulemaking, is presently unclear given a recent Executive Order issued by the Trump Administration. Still, any further revisions to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s supplemental bonding requirements that increase their stringency could result in demands for the posting of increased financial assurances by owners and operators in the Gulf of America, including Maritech, Orinoco and the other entities to whom Maritech divested its Gulf of America assets, but such demands cannot be directly placed on us due to the fact that we are only a former parent company of Maritech and are only a guarantor as opposed to an actual lease owner or operator. This may force lease owners and operators of leases and other infrastructure in the Gulf of America to obtain additional surety bonds or other forms of financial assurance, the costs of which could be significant. Moreover, the changes to the bonding and financial assurance program for the Gulf of America (to include loss of supplemental bonding waivers, exceedances of the surety bond market’s ability to meet current demands, and resultant bankruptcies) could increase the risk that we may be required to step in and satisfy remaining decommissioning liabilities of Maritech and any buyer of the Maritech properties, including Orinoco, through our third-party indemnity agreements and private guarantees. Such obligations could be significant and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Current wording

The U.S. Department of the Interior also increased its estimates for decommissioning liabilities in the Gulf of America, causing the potential need for additional supplemental bonding and/or other financial assurances to be dramatically increased. When coupled with any volatility with respect to the prices of oil and gas, it is difficult to predict the impact of BOEM’s 2024 rule and regulatory changes already promulgated, and any other changes as may be forthcoming by the U.S. Department of the Interior relating to financial assurance for decommissioning liabilities. We cannot predict what actions, if any, and on what timing, the current administration may take with respect to these matters; however, the ultimate impact of BOEM’s 2024 rule, and other rulemaking, is presently unclear given a recent Executive Order issued by the current administration. Still, any further revisions to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s supplemental bonding requirements that increase their stringency could result in demands for the posting of increased financial assurances by owners and operators in the Gulf of America, including Maritech, Orinoco and the other entities to whom Maritech divested its Gulf of America assets, but such demands cannot be directly placed on us due to the fact that we are only a former parent company of Maritech and are only a guarantor as opposed to an actual lease owner or operator. This may force lease owners and operators of leases and other infrastructure in the Gulf of America to obtain additional surety bonds or other forms of financial assurance, the costs of which could be significant. Moreover, the changes to the bonding and financial assurance program for the Gulf of America (to include loss of supplemental bonding waivers, exceedances of the surety bond market’s ability to meet current demands, and resultant bankruptcies) could increase the risk that we may be required to step in and satisfy remaining decommissioning liabilities of Maritech and any buyer of the Maritech properties, including Orinoco, through our third-party indemnity agreements and private guarantees. Such obligations could be significant and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Previous wording

In August 2022, President Biden signed the IRA 2022 into law. The IRA 2022 contains hundreds of billions in incentives for the development of renewable energy, clean hydrogen, clean fuels, electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure and carbon capture and sequestration, amongst other provisions. In addition, the IRA 2022 imposes the first ever federal fee on the emission of greenhouse gases through a methane emissions charge. The IRA 2022 amends the federal Clean Air Act to impose a fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), including those sources in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production and gathering and boosting source categories. The methane emissions charge began in calendar year 2024 at $900 per ton of methane, increases to $1,200 in 2025, and will be set at $1,500 for 2026 and each year after. Calculation of the fee is based on certain thresholds established in the IRA 2022. While the tax incentives created by the IRA for carbon capture and sequestration may increase demand for some of the services we provide as part of our low carbon solutions business, the methane charge imposed on our oil and natural gas customers could further accelerate the transition of the economy away from the use of fossil fuels towards lower- or zero-carbon emissions alternatives. We cannot predict whether, how, or when the incoming Trump administration might take action to revise or repeal the methane emissions charge. Additionally, Congress may take actions to repeal or revise the IRA, including with respect to the methane emissions charge, which timing or outcome similarly cannot be predicted. To the extent that the methane emissions charge is implemented as originally promulgated, it could decrease demand for oil and gas and consequently adversely affect the business of our customers, thereby reducing demand for our other services.

Current wording

In August 2022, President Biden signed the IRA 2022 into law. The IRA 2022 contains hundreds of billions in incentives for the development of renewable energy, clean hydrogen, clean fuels, electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure and carbon capture and sequestration, amongst other provisions. In addition, the IRA 2022 imposes the first ever federal fee on the emission of greenhouse gases through a methane emissions charge. The IRA 2022 amends the federal Clean Air Act to impose a fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), including those sources in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production and gathering and boosting source categories. The methane emissions charges were set to begin in calendar year 2024; however the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law on July 4, 2025, postponed the effective date of methane emissions charges until 2034. As a result, while the obligation for the fee remains, implementation is stalled until new rules are developed and take effect, which may not occur until 2034. To the extent that the methane emissions charge is implemented in 2034, it could decrease demand for oil and gas and consequently adversely affect the business of our customers, thereby reducing demand for our other services.

Previous wording

In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level, though laws such as the IRA 2022 advance numerous climate-related objectives. Following the U.S. Supreme Court finding that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA adopted regulations that, among other things, established construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, required the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the United States, and together with the DOT, implemented GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. However, from time to time certain administrations have taken actions to repeal or revise such climate-related actions. For example, the regulation of methane from oil and gas facilities has been subject to uncertainty in recent years. For more information, see our disclosures titled “The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy and could impose new costs on our customers’ operations.” Given the long-term trend toward increasing regulation, further federal GHG regulations of the oil and gas industry remain a significant possibility. For more information, see our disclosures titled “Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs Regulation” set forth in Item 1 of this Annual Report. Moreover, certain international jurisdictions continue to impose more stringent regulations with respect to GHGs, and other stakeholders may pressure us or our customers to take additional action beyond any applicable regulatory requirements.

Current wording

In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level, though laws such as the IRA 2022 advance numerous climate-related objectives. Following the U.S. Supreme Court finding that GHG emissions constitute a pollutant under the CAA, the EPA adopted regulations that, among other things, established construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, required the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain petroleum and natural gas system sources in the United States, and together with the DOT, implemented GHG emissions limits on vehicles manufactured for operation in the United States. However, from time to time certain administrations have taken actions to repeal or revise such climate-related actions. For example, in February 2026, the EPA rescinded its 2009 GHG (“GHG”) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond. It is unclear at this time what the effect on the Company will be of this action or whether it will be upheld if challenged in court. For more information, see our disclosures titled “The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy and could impose new costs on our customers’ operations.” Given the long-term trend toward increasing regulation, further federal GHG regulations of the oil and gas industry remain a significant possibility. For more information, see our disclosures titled “Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs Regulation” set forth in Item 1 of this Annual Report. Moreover, certain international jurisdictions continue to impose more stringent regulations with respect to GHGs, and other stakeholders may pressure us or our customers to take additional action beyond any applicable regulatory requirements.

Previous wording

There have also recently been increasing financial risks for companies in the fossil fuel sector as certain shareholders currently invested in such companies may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into other sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies or seek to require more aggressive action with respect to climate-related risks, although this trend has waned recently and several high-profile banks and institutional investors have withdrawn from various associations that aim to limit financing of industries that emit significant GHG emissions. Limitation of investments in and financing for fossil fuel energy companies could result in the restriction, delay or cancellation of drilling programs or development or production activities, which could reduce demand for our products and services. Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission published a final rule in March 2024 that would require registrants to make certain climate-related disclosures, including any climate targets and goals, and data on Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions. However, the future of the rule is uncertain at this time given that its implementation has been stayed pending the outcome of legal challenges; moreover, on February 11, 2025, SEC Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit not schedule argument in the case while the Commission reconsiders the final rule. The Commission under the current administration may seek to repeal or otherwise modify the rule, though we cannot predict whether such action will occur or its timings. Several states have also enacted or are considering enhanced climate-related disclosure requirements. While we cannot predict the final form or substance of these various rules, this may result in additional costs to comply with any such disclosure requirements. Additionally, we cannot predict how financial institutions and investors might consider information disclosed under such rules, and as a result it is possible that we could face increases with respect to the costs of, or restrictions imposed on, our access to capital.

Current wording

There have also recently been increasing financial risks for companies in the fossil fuel sector as certain shareholders currently invested in such companies may elect in the future to shift some or all of their investments into other sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies or seek to require more aggressive action with respect to climate-related risks, although this trend has waned recently and several high-profile banks and institutional investors have withdrawn from various associations that aim to limit financing of industries that emit significant GHG emissions. Limitation of investments in and financing for fossil fuel energy companies could result in the restriction, delay or cancellation of drilling programs or development or production activities, which could reduce demand for our products and services. Additionally, the SEC published a final rule in March 2024 that would require registrants to make certain climate-related disclosures, including any climate targets and goals, and data on Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions. However, the future of the rule is uncertain at this time given that its implementation has been stayed pending the outcome of legal challenges. On March 27, 2025, the SEC voted to end its defense of the rules requiring disclosure of climate-related risks and greenhouse gas emissions. On September 12, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered that the litigation would again be held in abeyance until such time as the SEC reconsiders or renews it defense of the rule. In its order, the Eighth Circuit emphasized that the SEC has the “responsibility to determine whether its Final Rules will be rescinded, repealed, modified, or defended in litigation.” Therefore, unless or until the SEC reconsiders or resumes defending the rules, the litigation will remain paused. Several states have also enacted or are considering enhanced climate-related disclosure requirements. While we cannot predict the final form or substance of these various rules, this may result in additional costs to comply with any such disclosure requirements. Additionally, we cannot predict how financial institutions and investors might consider information disclosed under such rules, and as a result it is possible that we could face increases with respect to the costs of, or restrictions imposed on, our access to capital.

Previous wording

Furthermore, our reputation, as well as our stakeholder relationships, could be adversely impacted as a result of, among other things, any failure to meet our ESG plans or goals or stakeholder perceptions of statements made by us, our employees and executives, agents, or other third parties or public pressure from investors or policy groups to change our policies. Certain statements with respect to ESG matters are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, related to the risk of potential “greenwashing.” For example, the SEC has recently taken enforcement action against companies for ESG-related misconduct, including greenwashing. Certain regulators, such as the SEC and various state agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and other private actors have also filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG-statements, goals or standards were misleading, false or otherwise deceptive. Additionally, certain employment practices and social initiatives are the subject of scrutiny by both those calling for the continued advancement of such policies, as well as those who believe they should be curbed, including government actors, and the complex regulatory and legal frameworks applicable to such initiatives continue to evolve. We cannot be certain of the impact of such regulatory, legal and other developments on our business. More recent political developments could mean that the Company faces increasing criticism or litigation risks from certain “anti-ESG” parties, including various governmental agencies. Such sentiment may focus on the Company’s environmental commitments (such as reducing GHG emissions) or its pursuit of certain employment practices or social initiatives that are alleged to be political or polarizing in nature or are alleged to violate laws based, in part, on changing priorities of, or interpretations by, federal agencies or state governments. Consideration of ESG-related factors in the Company’s decision-making could be subject to increasing scrutiny and objection from such anti-ESG parties. As a result, we may face increased litigation risks from private parties and governmental authorities related to our ESG efforts. Moreover, any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to negative sentiment towards our company or industry. To the extent that we are unable to respond timely and appropriately to any negative publicity, our reputation could be harmed. Damage to our overall reputation could have a negative impact on our financial results and require additional resources to rebuild our reputation.

Current wording

Furthermore, our reputation, as well as our stakeholder relationships, could be adversely impacted as a result of, among other things, any failure to meet our ESG plans or goals or stakeholder perceptions of statements made by us, our employees and executives, agents, or other third parties or public pressure from investors or policy groups to change our policies. Certain statements with respect to ESG matters are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, related to the risk of potential “greenwashing.” Additionally, certain employment practices and social initiatives are the subject of scrutiny by both those calling for the continued advancement of such policies, as well as those who believe they should be curbed, including government actors, and the complex regulatory and legal frameworks applicable to such initiatives continue to evolve. We cannot be certain of the impact of such regulatory, legal and other developments on our business. More recent political developments could mean that the Company faces increasing criticism or litigation risks from certain “anti-ESG” parties, including various governmental agencies. Such sentiment may focus on the Company’s environmental commitments (such as reducing GHG emissions) or its pursuit of certain employment practices or social initiatives that are alleged to be political or polarizing in nature or are alleged to violate laws based, in part, on changing priorities of, or interpretations by, federal agencies or state governments. Consideration of ESG-related factors in the Company’s decision-making could be subject to increasing scrutiny and objection from such anti-ESG parties. As a result, we may face increased litigation risks from private parties and governmental authorities related to our ESG efforts. Moreover, any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to negative sentiment towards our company or industry. To the extent that we are unable to respond timely and appropriately to any negative publicity, our reputation could be harmed. Damage to our overall reputation could have a negative impact on our financial results and require additional resources to rebuild our reputation.

Previous wording

We and our affiliates operate in countries where governmental corruption has been known to exist. While we and our subsidiaries are committed to conducting business in a legal and ethical manner, there is a risk of violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K Bribery Act, or laws or legislation promulgated pursuant to the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions or other applicable anti-corruption regulations that generally prohibit the making of improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business. Violation of these laws could result in monetary penalties against us or our subsidiaries and could damage our reputation and our ability to do business.

Current wording

We and our affiliates operate in countries where governmental corruption has been known to exist. While we and our subsidiaries have policies designed to enhance our conduct of business in a legal and ethical manner, there is a risk of violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act, or laws or legislation promulgated pursuant to the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions or other applicable anti-corruption regulations that generally prohibit the making of improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business. Violation of these laws could result in monetary penalties against us or our subsidiaries and could damage our reputation and our ability to do business.