FTSI FTS International Inc

PART I

customer. The amount of hydrocarbons produced from a typical oil or natural gas well generally declines quickly. As a result, E&P companies must continually complete new wells to maintain production levels.

Each of our fleets typically consists of approximately 20 hydraulic fracturing units along with ancillary equipment. Our hydraulic fracturing units consist primarily of a high-pressure pump, a diesel or combined diesel and natural gas engine, a transmission and various other supporting equipment mounted on a trailer. The high pressure pump consists of two key assemblies: the fluid-end and the power-end. Although the power-end of our pumps generally lasts several years, the fluid-end, which is the part of the pump through which the fracturing fluid is expelled under high pressure, is a shorter-lasting consumable, typically lasting less than one year. We refer to the group of hydraulic fracturing units, auxiliary equipment and vehicles necessary to perform a typical fracturing job as a “fleet” and the personnel assigned to each fleet as a “crew.” Our fleets operate primarily on a 24-hour-per-day basis, in which we typically staff three crews per fleet, including one crew with the day off.

Each hydraulic fracturing fleet includes a mobile, on-site control center that monitors job data including pressures, rates and volumes. Each control center is equipped with high bandwidth satellite hardware that provides continuous upload and download of data. The data is delivered on a real-time basis to on-site job personnel, the customer and our National Operations Center.

We prefer to enter into service agreements with our customers for one or more “dedicated” fleets, rather than providing our fleets for “spot work.” Under a typical dedicated fleet agreement, we deploy one or more of our hydraulic fracturing fleets exclusively to the customer to follow the customer’s completion schedule until the agreement expires or is terminated in accordance with its terms. By contrast, under a typical spot work agreement, the fleet moves between customers as work becomes available. We believe that our strategy of pursuing dedicated fleet agreements leads to higher fleet utilization, as measured by the number of days each fleet is working per month, which we believe reduces our month-to-month revenue volatility and improves our revenue and profitability. See Note 2 —  “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion of our revenue recognition and pricing under our service agreements.

Wireline Services

In May 2019, we discontinued our wireline operations due to financial underperformance resulting from market conditions. Our wireline services primarily consisted of setting plugs between hydraulic fracturing stages, creating perforations within hydraulic fracturing stages and logging the characteristics of resource formations.

Other

We previously owned a 45% interest in SinoFTS, which is a Chinese joint venture that we formed in June 2014 with Sinopec Oilfield Service Corporation (“Sinopec”) to provide hydraulic fracturing services in China. In August 2019, FTSI closed on the sale of our ownership interest in SinoFTS to Sinopec. In exchange, we received consideration of $26.9 million for the sale of our equity interest and received a royalty fee of $5.8 million for a license for our intellectual property and for future limited technical support of the joint venture’s operations.

Our Strategy 

Our primary business objective is to deliver best in class pressure pumping services to our customers while providing a safe working environment for our employees and maintaining a competitive cost structure. We intend to achieve this objective through the following strategies:

Deepen and expand relationships with customers that value our completions efficiency

We prefer to dedicate one or more of our fleets exclusively to the customer for a period of time, allowing for those fleets to be integrated into the customer’s drilling and completion schedule. As a result, we are able to achieve higher levels of utilization, as measured by the number of days each fleet is working per month, which increases our profitability. Accordingly, we seek to partner with customers that have a large number of wells needing completion and

that value efficiency in the performance of our service. Specifically, we target customers whose completions activity typically involves minimal time between stages, a high number of stages per well, multiple wells per pad and a short distance from one well pad site to the next. This strategy aligns with the strategy of many of our customers, who are trying to achieve a manufacturing-style model of drilling and completing wells at a competitive cost. We plan to leverage this strategy to expand our relationships with our existing and prospective customers.

Capitalize on our uniform fleet and in-house manufacturing to provide superior performance with reduced operating costs

Our uniform fleet allows us to cost-effectively redeploy fleets to capture the best pricing and activity trends. The uniform fleet is easier to operate and maintain, resulting in reduced non-productive time as well as lower training costs and inventory stocking requirements.

Our in-house manufacturing allows us to maintain and refurbish our fleets, with lower operating expenses and capital expenditures compared to utilizing third-party suppliers. We also believe this capability allows us to reactivate equipment quicker and at a lower cost than competitors, which we believe at times is a competitive advantage.

Maintain high safety standards

Safety is at the core of our operations and defines who we are and how we operate as a company. Our safety record for 2019 was the best in our history and we believe significantly better than our peer group, based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2011 through 2018. For the past three years, we believe our total recordable incident rate was less than one third of the industry average.  We believe continually searching for ways to make our operations safer is the right thing to do for our employees, our customers, our suppliers, and our Company.

Rapidly adopt new technologies in a capital efficient manner

Our large scale and culture of innovation allow us to take advantage of leading technological solutions. We have been a fast adopter of new technologies focused on: increasing fracturing effectiveness for our customers, reducing non-productive time on our equipment, reducing the operating costs of our equipment, and enhancing the health, safety and environmental (“HSE”) conditions at our well sites.

Recent examples of initiatives aimed at reducing our operating costs include: vibration sensors with predictive maintenance analytics on our equipment; automated greasing systems; remote start capabilities; the ability to automate certain portions of our operations; and adoption of hardened alloys for our consumables. Recent examples of initiatives aimed at improving our HSE conditions include: dual fuel engines that can run on both natural gas and diesel fuel; electronic pressure relief systems; spill prevention and containment solutions; electronic logging devices; containerized proppant delivery solutions; and advanced fire suppression systems.

Maintain a focus on cost effectiveness and capital efficiency

All levels of our organization focus on providing the safest work environment for our employees and on generating the highest level of cash generation as possible, within the limitations of industry conditions.

We focus on operating our equipment at the highest level of efficiency to maximize billing activity for each of our fleets, which is often measured in terms of stages completed per active fleet. In turn, we strive to charge a competitive rate to our customers and to be compensated for the high level of efficiency that we provide. This ultimately leads to lower costs for our customers.

In addition, we embrace innovation to continually find ways to lower the costs of doing business. This is enabled by our culture and our in-house manufacturing capabilities, which allow us to continuously identify and execute improvements in the design and operation of our equipment.

Reduce debt and achieve a more conservative capital structure

To improve our financial flexibility, we have been focused on reducing our debt and maintaining more than sufficient liquidity. We believe that we are able to not only make the investments necessary to remain a market leader in hydraulic fracturing, but also to continue to strengthen our balance sheet.

Customers

The customers we serve are primarily large, independent E&P companies in North America. The following table shows the customers that represented more than 10% of our total revenue during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017. The loss of any of our largest existing customers could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. While we view revenue as an important metric in assessing customer concentration, we also compare and manage our customer portfolio based on the number of fleets we place with each customer.

*Less than 10%.

Suppliers

We purchase parts used in the refurbishment, repair and manufacturing of major fleet components such as fluid-ends, power-ends, engines, transmissions, radiators and trailers. We do not expect significant interruptions in the supply of any of these materials. While we believe that we will be able to make alternative arrangements in the event of any interruption in the supply of these items, there can be no assurance that there will be no associated price or supply issues.

When requested by the customer, we also purchase the proppants and chemicals we use in our operations and the diesel fuel for our equipment from a variety of suppliers throughout the United States. To date, we have generally been able to obtain the supplies necessary to support our operations on a timely basis at competitive prices. In the past, we have experienced some delays in obtaining these materials during periods of high demand. We have a long-term supply agreement with one vendor to supply a significant portion of the proppant we procure until 2024. This agreement contains a fixed volume of purchases at market-based variable pricing with minimum unconditional purchase obligations.

Competition

The market in which we operate is highly competitive and highly fragmented. Our competition includes multi-national oilfield service companies as well as national and regional competitors. Our major multi-national competitors are Halliburton Company and Schlumberger Limited, each of which has significantly greater financial resources than we do. Our major domestic competitors are NextTier Oilfield Solutions, Inc., ProPetro Holding Corp, Liberty Oilfield Services, Inc., RPC, Inc., Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc., and BJ Services, Inc. Certain of these competitors provide a number of oilfield services and products in addition to hydraulic fracturing. We also face competition from smaller regional service providers in some of the geographies in which we operate.

Competition in our industry is based on a number of factors, including price, service quality, safety, and in some cases, breadth of products. We believe we consistently deliver exceptional service quality, based in part on the durability of our equipment. Our durable equipment reduces non-productive time due to equipment failure and allows our customers to avoid costs associated with delays in completing their wells. By being able to meet the most demanding pressure and flow rate requirements, our equipment also enables us to operate efficiently in challenging geological environments in which some of our competitors cannot operate effectively.

Cyclical Nature of Industry 

We operate in a highly cyclical industry driven mainly by the level of horizontal drilling activity in the United States, which in turn depends largely on current and anticipated future crude oil and natural gas prices and production decline rates. A critical factor in assessing the outlook for the industry is the supply and demand for both oil and natural gas. Demand for oil and natural gas is subject to large and rapid fluctuations. These fluctuations are driven by commodity demand in the industry and corresponding price increases. When oil and natural gas prices increase, producers generally increase their capital expenditures, which generally results in greater revenues and profits for oilfield service companies. However, increased capital expenditures also ultimately result in greater production, which historically, has resulted in increased supplies and reduced prices that, in turn, tend to reduce demand for oilfield services such as hydraulic fracturing services.

The pricing for our services is also driven by the industry capacity of hydraulic fracturing equipment. Historically, the industry has built additional equipment to supply the increased demand. When the demand declines, the industry has more equipment than what is needed by customers. This often leads to a decline in the price for our services until equipment is de-activated and the supply and demand fundamentals are closer to balanced.

For these reasons, our results of operations may fluctuate from quarter to quarter and from year to year, and these fluctuations may distort period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations.

Seasonality

Seasonality has not significantly affected our overall operations. However, toward the end of some years, we experience slower activity in our pressure pumping operations in connection with the holidays and as customers’ capital expenditure budgets are depleted. Similarly, the beginning of some years have a slow start as customers are starting a new capital budget cycle and our operations are more prone to experience winter weather. Occasionally, our operations have been negatively impacted by severe weather conditions that cause disruption to our supply chain or our ability to transport materials and equipment to the job site.

Employees

At December 31, 2019, we had approximately 1,250 total employees, all of whom were full-time. Our employees are not covered by collective bargaining agreements, nor are they members of labor unions. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Insurance

Our operations are subject to hazards inherent in the oil and natural gas industry, including accidents, blowouts, explosions, fires, oil spills and hazardous materials spills. These conditions can cause personal injury or loss of life, damage to or destruction of property, equipment, the environment and wildlife and interruption or suspension of operations, among other adverse effects. If a serious accident were to occur at a location where our equipment and services are being used, it could result in our being named as a defendant to a lawsuit asserting significant claims.

Despite our high safety standards, we from time to time have suffered accidents in the past and we anticipate that we could experience accidents in the future. In addition to the property and personal losses from these accidents, the frequency and severity of these incidents affect our operating costs and insurability, as well as our relationships with customers, employees and regulatory agencies. Any significant increase in the frequency or severity of these incidents, or the general level of compensation awards, could adversely affect the cost of, or our ability to obtain, workers’ compensation and other forms of insurance and could have other adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations.

We carry a variety of insurance coverages for our operations, and we are partially self-insured for certain claims, in types and amounts that we believe to be customary and reasonable for our industry. These coverages and retentions address certain risks relating to commercial general liability, workers’ compensation, business auto, property

and equipment, directors and officers, environment, pollution and other risks. Although we maintain insurance coverage of types and amounts that we believe to be customary in our industry, we are not fully insured against all risks, either because insurance is not available or because of the high premium costs relative to perceived risk.

Safety and Health Regulation

We are subject to the requirements of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is administered and enforced by OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the health and safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard requires that information about the identities and hazards of the chemicals used or produced in operations be maintained and provided to employees, state and local government authorities and the public. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the OSHA requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements, labeling requirements, training requirements and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances. OSHA continues to evaluate worker safety and to propose new regulations, such as but not limited to, Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard, which requires hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil and gas industry to implement engineering controls to limit exposure to respirable silica sand by June 23, 2021. Although it is not possible to estimate the financial and compliance impact of this rule or any other proposed rule, the imposition of more stringent requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Intellectual Property Rights

Our research and development efforts are focused on providing specific solutions to the challenges our customers face when fracturing and stimulating wells. In addition to the design and manufacture of innovative equipment, we have also developed proprietary blends of chemicals that we use in connection with our hydraulic fracturing services. We have three U.S. patents and two patents in Canada relating to fracturing methods, the technology used in fluid-ends, hydraulic pumps and other equipment. We believe the information regarding our customer and supplier relationships are also valuable proprietary assets. We have registered trademarks and pending trademark applications for various names under which our entities do or intend to conduct business and offer products. Except for the foregoing, we do not own or license any patents, trademarks or other intellectual property that we believe to be material to the success of our business.

Environmental Regulation

Our operations are subject to stringent laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment, natural resources, clean air, drinking water, wetlands and endangered species, as well as chemical use and storage, waste management, and transportation of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. Numerous federal, state and local governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), issue regulations that often require difficult and costly compliance measures that carry substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties and may result in injunctive obligations for non-compliance. In addition, some laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment may impose strict liability, joint and several liability or both for environmental contamination. Strict liability means we could be liable for environmental damages and cleanup costs without regard to negligence or fault. Strict adherence with these regulatory requirements increases our cost of doing business and consequently affects our profitability. However, environmental laws and regulations have been subject to frequent changes over the years, and the imposition of more stringent requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Hydraulic Fracturing Activities.  Certain governmental reviews are either underway or being proposed that focus on environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing practices. For example, in December 2016, the EPA released its final report, entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States,” on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The report states that the EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can 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. The report does not make any policy recommendations. Ongoing or proposed studies like these could spur initiatives to further regulate hydraulic fracturing under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) or other regulatory mechanisms. For example, on November 29, 2018, EPA and the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulation (“STRONGER”) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to which EPA and STRONGER will collaborate on oil and natural gas exploration and development regulatory programs.

At the state level, several states have adopted or are considering legal requirements that could impose more stringent permitting, disclosure and well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities. For example, in May 2013, the Railroad Commission of Texas issued a “well integrity rule,” which updates the requirements for drilling, putting pipe down and cementing wells. The rule also includes new testing and reporting requirements, such as (i) the requirement to submit cementing reports after well completion or after cessation of drilling, whichever is later, and (ii) the imposition of additional testing on wells less than 1,000 feet below usable groundwater. The well integrity rule took effect in January 2014. Local governments also may seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular. Some states, counties and municipalities are closely examining water-use issues, such as permit and disposal options for processed water. If new or more stringent state or local legal restrictions relating to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where we operate, we could incur potentially significant added costs to comply with such requirements, experience delays or curtailment in the pursuit of development activities and perhaps even be precluded from drilling wells. See “Risk Factors—Federal and state legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to hydraulic fracturing could result in increased costs and additional operating restrictions or delays” in Item 1A of this annual report.

Remediation of Hazardous Substances.  The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, referred to as “CERCLA” or the “Superfund law,” and comparable state laws generally impose liability, without regard to fault or legality of the conduct at the time it occurred, on certain classes of persons that are considered to be responsible for the release of hazardous substances into the environment. These persons include the current owner or operator of a contaminated facility, a former owner or operator of the facility at the time a release of hazardous substances occurred and those persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substances to an offsite facility. Under CERCLA and comparable state statutes, persons deemed “potentially responsible parties” are subject to strict, joint and several liability for the costs of investigating, monitoring, removing and remediating previously released hazardous substances (including hazardous substances disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or property contamination (including groundwater contamination), for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. In addition, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances released into the environment.

Water Discharges. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, also known as the “Clean Water Act,” the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act and analogous state laws and regulations issued thereunder impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the unauthorized discharge of pollutants, including produced waters and other natural gas and oil wastes, into navigable waters of the United States, as well as state waters. On December 13, 2016, the EPA released a final report which identified discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources as having potential to impact drinking water resources. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by the EPA or the state. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has adopted regulations concerning discharges of storm water, which require covered facilities to obtain permits,  maintain storm water plans and implement practices to minimize risks related to storm water.

These laws and regulations also prohibit certain other activity in wetlands unless authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which we refer to as the “Corps.” In September 2015, a new rule became effective which was issued by the EPA and the Corps defining the scope of the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Corps over wetlands and other waters of the United States. After being challenged in court on the grounds that it unlawfully expanded the reach of Clean Water Act’s programs, on December 11, 2018, EPA proposed a rule that would revise the

definition of “Waters of the United States” and clarify the scope of federal authority under the Clean Water Act. On September 12, 2019, EPA and the Corps announced the repeal of the 2015 rule and the recodification of the regulatory text that existed prior to the 2015 rule until the proposed rule was finalized (the “Step One Rule”). On January 23, 2020, the EPA and Corps did, in fact, finalize the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to define “Waters of the United States”, a rule that streamlines the definition of “Wates of the United States” that are federally regulated under the Clean Water Act to four categories. This rule will become effective and replace the Step One Rule sixty days after publication in the Federal Register. The rapidly changing landscape of federal regulation creates uncertainty in our and our customers’ business. Under the Clean Water Act, we are also subject to Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plan requirements that require appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination of navigable waters. Noncompliance with these requirements may result in substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties, as well as injunctive obligations.

Waste Handling.  Wastes from certain of our operations (such as equipment maintenance and past chemical development, blending, and distribution operations) are subject to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”), and comparable state statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder, which impose requirements regarding the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. With federal approval, the individual states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements. Although certain oil production wastes are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes under RCRA, such wastes may constitute “solid wastes” that are subject to the less stringent requirements of non-hazardous waste provisions. In the EPA’s 2016“Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States” report, the EPA identified disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits as resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.

Administrative, civil and criminal penalties can be imposed for failure to comply with waste handling requirements. Moreover, the EPA or state or local governments may adopt more stringent requirements for the handling of non-hazardous wastes or categorize some non-hazardous wastes as hazardous for future regulation. Legislation has been proposed from time to time in Congress to re-categorize certain oil and natural gas exploration, development and production wastes as “hazardous wastes.” Several environmental organizations have also petitioned the EPA to modify existing regulations to recategorize certain oil and natural gas exploration, development and production wastes as “hazardous.” Any such changes in the laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our capital expenditures and operating expenses.

From time to time, releases of materials or wastes have occurred at locations we own, owned previously or at which we have operations. These properties and the materials or wastes released thereon may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA, the Clean Water Act, and analogous state laws. Under such laws and related regulations, we have been and may be required to investigate, remove or remediate these materials or wastes and make expenditures associated with personal injury or property damage. At this time, with respect to any properties where materials or wastes may have been released, but of which we have not been made aware, it is not possible to estimate the potential costs that may arise from unknown, latent liability risks.

Air Emissions.  The federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and comparable state laws and regulations, regulate emissions of various air pollutants, including through the issuance of permits. In addition, the EPA has developed, and continues to develop, stringent regulations governing emissions of toxic air pollutants from specified sources. Federal and state regulatory agencies can impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance with air permits or other requirements of the Clean Air Act and associated state laws and regulations. We are required to obtain air permits in connection with some activities under applicable laws. These permits impose certain conditions and restrictions on our operations, some of which require significant expenditures for compliance. Changes in these requirements, or in the permits we operate under, could increase our costs or limit operations.

Additionally, the EPA’s Tier IV regulations apply to certain off-road diesel engines used by us to power equipment in the field. Under these regulations, we are required to retrofit or retire certain engines and we are limited in the number of non-compliant off-road diesel engines we can purchase. Tier IV engines are costlier, and until Tier IV-

compliant engines that meet our needs are more widely available, these regulations could limit our ability to acquire a sufficient number of diesel engines to expand our fleet and to replace existing engines as they are taken out of service.

Other Environmental Considerations.  E&P activities on federal lands may be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies, including the Department of Interior, to evaluate major agency actions that have the potential to significantly impact the environment. In the course of such evaluations, an agency will prepare an environmental assessment that assesses the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed project and, if necessary, will prepare a more detailed environmental impact statement that may be made available for public review and comment. E&P activities, as well as proposed exploration and development plans, on federal lands require governmental permits that are subject to the requirements of NEPA. This process has the potential to delay the development of oil and natural gas projects.

Various state and federal statutes prohibit certain actions that adversely affect endangered or threatened species and their habitat, migratory birds, wetlands, and natural resources. These statutes include the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Clean Water Act and CERCLA. Where takings of or harm to species or damages to habitat, jurisdictional waters or natural resources occur or may occur, government entities or private parties may act to prevent oil and natural gas exploration activities. Permanent restrictions imposed to protect endangered species could prohibit drilling in certain areas or require the implementation of expensive mitigation measures. Government entities may require permits and may also seek damages for harm to species, habitat, or natural resources or resulting from filling of jurisdictional streams or wetlands or releases of oil, wastes, hazardous substances or other regulated materials.

The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) has established regulations to govern hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands. In 2016, BLM published the Methane and Waste Reduction Rule to reduce the loss of natural gas through venting, flaring and leaks and reduce air pollution, including greenhouse gases, for oil and natural gas produced on federal and Indian lands. Following a series of legal challenges to the attempts to delay implementation of portions of the 2016 rule throughout 2017 and 2018, on September 28, 2018, BLM published a final rule revising the  Methane and Waste Reduction Rule, which became effective on November 27, 2018. These revisions rescinded a number of the 2016 waste prevention requirements. California and New Mexico, along with a coalition of environmental groups, filed suits challenging the 2018 final rule, and such litigation is ongoing. At this point, we cannot predict the final regulatory requirements or the cost to comply with such requirements with any certainty.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), requires manufacturers of new chemical substances to provide specific information to the Agency for review prior to manufacturing chemicals or introducing them into commerce. EPA has permitted manufacture of new chemical nanoscale materials through the use of consent orders or Significant New Use Rules under TSCA. The Agency has also allowed the manufacture of new chemical nanoscale materials under the terms of certain regulatory exemptions where exposures were controlled to protect against unreasonable risks. On May 19, 2014, the EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to obtain data on hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures. The EPA has not yet proceeded with the rulemaking but may do so in the future. Any changes in TSCA regulations could increase our capital expenditures and operating expenses.

Climate Change. In December 2009, the EPA issued an Endangerment Finding that determined that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases present an endangerment to public health and the environment because, according to the EPA, emissions of such gases contribute to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. The EPA later adopted two sets of related rules, one of which regulates emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and the other of which regulates emissions from certain large stationary sources of emissions. The motor vehicle rule, which became effective in July 2010, limits emissions from motor vehicles. The EPA adopted the stationary source rule, which we refer to as the tailoring rule, in May 2010, and it became effective January 2011. The tailoring rule established new emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources must obtain permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”), and Title V programs of the Clean Air Act. On June 23, 2014, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that stationary sources could not become subject to PSD or Title V permitting solely by reason of their greenhouse gas emissions and invalidated the tailoring rule. However, the Court ruled that the EPA may require installation of best available control technology for greenhouse gas emissions at sources otherwise subject to the PSD and Title V programs. On December 19, 2014, the EPA issued two memoranda providing

guidance on greenhouse gas permitting requirements in response to the Supreme Court’s decision. In its preliminary guidance, the EPA stated that it would undertake a rulemaking action to rescind any PSD permits issued under the portions of the tailoring rule that were vacated by the Court. In the interim, the EPA issued a narrowly crafted “no action assurance” indicating it will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement of the terms and conditions relating to greenhouse gases in an EPA-issued PSD permit, and for related terms and conditions in a Title V permit. On April 30, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule allowing permitting authorities to rescind PSD permits issued under the invalid regulations. In October 2015, the EPA amended the greenhouse gas reporting rule to add the reporting of emissions from oil wells using hydraulic fracturing. Because of this continued regulatory focus, future greenhouse gas emission regulations of the oil and natural gas industry remain a possibility, which could increase the cost of our operations.

In addition, the U.S. Congress occasionally attempts to adopt legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and many states have taken legal measures to reduce emissions primarily through the planned development of greenhouse gas emission inventories, carbon pricing policies or regional cap and trade programs. Although the U.S. Congress has not yet adopted such legislation, it may do so in the future. Several states continue to pursue related regulations as well. 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. The resulting Paris Agreement calls for the parties to undertake “ambitious efforts” to limit the average global temperature, and to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases. The Paris Agreement, which came into force on November 4, 2016, establishes a framework for the parties to cooperate and report actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although the Trump Administration has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement, many state and local officials have publicly stated they intend to abide by the terms of the Paris Agreement. Restrictions on emissions of methane or carbon dioxide that may be imposed in various states could adversely affect the oil and natural gas industry which could have a material adverse effect on future demand for our services. At this time, it is not possible to accurately estimate how potential future laws or regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions would impact our customers’ business and consequently our own.

In addition, claims have been made against certain energy companies alleging that greenhouse gas emissions from oil and natural gas operations constitute a public nuisance under federal or state common law. Private parties, as well as local governments, have also filed lawsuits against certain energy companies seeking compensation for climate change related damages, including personal injury or property damages. Future climate change litigation could increase our operating costs or negatively impact demand for our services.

NORM. In the course of our operations, some of our equipment may be exposed to naturally occurring radioactive materials (“NORM”) associated with oil and natural gas deposits and, accordingly may result in the generation of wastes and other materials containing NORM. NORM exhibiting levels of naturally occurring radiation in excess of established state standards are subject to special handling and disposal requirements, and any storage vessels, piping and work area affected by NORM may be subject to remediation or restoration requirements. Because certain of the properties presently or previously owned, operated or occupied by us may have been used for oil and natural gas production operations, it is possible that we may incur costs or liabilities associated with NORM.

Pollution Risk Management.  We seek to minimize the possibility of a pollution event through equipment and job design, as well as through employee training. We also maintain a pollution risk management program if a pollution event occurs. This program includes an internal emergency response plan that provides specific procedures for our employees to follow in the event of a chemical or hazardous substance release or spill. In addition, we have contracted with several third-party emergency responders in our various operating areas that are available on a 24-hour basis to handle the remediation and clean-up of any chemical or hazardous substance release or spill. We carry insurance designed to respond to foreseeable environmental exposures. This insurance portfolio has been structured in an effort to address incidents that result in bodily injury or property damage and any ensuing investigation and clean up needed at our owned and leased facilities as a result of the mobilization and utilization of our fleet, as well as any claims resulting from our operations.

We also seek to manage environmental liability risks through provisions in our contracts with our customers that allocate risks relating to surface activities associated with the fracturing process, other than water disposal, to us and

risks relating to “downhole” liabilities to our customers. Our customers are responsible for the disposal of the fracturing fluid that flows back out of the well as waste water. The customers remove the water from the well using a controlled flow-back process, and we are not involved in that process or the disposal of the fluid. Our contracts generally require our customers to indemnify us against pollution and environmental damages originating below the surface of the ground or arising out of water disposal, or otherwise caused by the customer, other contractors or other third parties. In turn, we indemnify our customers for pollution and environmental damages originating at or above the surface caused solely by us. We seek to maintain consistent risk-allocation and indemnification provisions in our customer agreements to the greatest extent possible. Some of our contracts, however, contain less explicit indemnification provisions, which typically provide that each party will indemnify the other against liabilities to third parties resulting from the indemnifying party’s actions, except to the extent such liability results from the indemnified party’s gross negligence, willful misconduct or intentional act.

Company Information

Our principal executive office is located at 777 Main Street, Suite 2900, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102 and our telephone number is 817-862-2000. Our website address is www.ftsi.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports are available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. In addition, copies of our annual report will be made available, free of charge, on written request.

Volatility or weakness in oil and natural gas prices (or the perception that oil and natural gas prices will decrease or remain depressed) generally leads to decreased spending by our customers, which in turn negatively impacts drilling, completion and production activity. In particular, the demand for new or existing drilling, completion and production work is driven by available investment capital for such work. When these capital investments decline, our customers’ demand for our services declines. Because these types of services can be easily “started” and “stopped,” and oil and natural gas producers generally tend to be risk averse when commodity prices are low or volatile, we typically experience a more rapid decline in demand for our services compared with demand for other types of energy services. Any negative impact on the spending patterns of our customers may cause lower pricing and utilization for our services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Oil and natural gas prices are volatile and have declined significantly in past periods, which has adversely affected, and may again adversely affect, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The demand for our services depends on the level of spending by oil and natural gas companies for drilling, completion and production activities, which are affected by short-term and long-term trends in oil and natural gas prices, including current and anticipated oil and natural gas prices. Oil and natural gas prices, as well as the level of drilling, completion and production activities, historically have been extremely volatile and are expected to continue to be highly volatile. When oil prices have declined significantly in past periods, including during the second half of 2018 and 2019, we have correspondingly experienced a decline in pressure pumping activity levels across our customer base during these periods. The volatile oil and natural gas prices adversely affected, and could continue to adversely affect, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our customers may not be able to maintain or increase their reserve levels going forward.

In addition to the impact of future oil and natural gas prices on our financial performance over time, our ability to grow future revenues and increase profitability will depend largely upon our customers’ ability to find, develop or acquire additional shale oil and natural gas reserves that are economically recoverable to replace the reserves they produce. Hydraulic fractured wells are generally more short-lived than conventional wells. Our customers own or have access to a finite amount of shale oil and natural gas reserves in the United States that will be depleted over time. The production rate from shale oil and natural gas properties generally declines as reserves are depleted, while related per-unit production costs generally increase as a result of decreasing reservoir pressures and other factors. If our customers are unable to replace the shale oil reserves they own or have access to at the rate they produce such reserves, their proved reserves and production will decline over time. Reductions in production levels by our customers over time may reduce

the future demand for our services and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our business has been and may continue to be adversely affected by a deterioration in general economic conditions or a weakening of the broader energy industry.

Our results of operations have been adversely affected by the slowdown in the E&P industry. A continued or prolonged slowdown in the E&P industry could continue to adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, a prolonged economic slowdown or recession in the United States or adverse events relating to the energy industry or regional, national and global economic conditions and factors could negatively impact our operations and therefore adversely affect our results. The risks associated with our business are more acute during periods of economic slowdown or recession because such periods may be accompanied by decreased exploration and development spending by our customers, decreased demand for oil and natural gas and decreased prices for oil and natural gas.

Competition in our industry has intensified during the current industry downturn and may intensify during future industry downturns, and we have not and may not be able to provide services that meet the specific needs of our customers at competitive prices.

The markets in which we operate are generally highly competitive and have relatively few barriers to entry. The principal competitive factors in our markets are price, service quality, safety, and in some cases, breadth of products. We compete with large national and multi-national companies that have longer operating histories, greater financial, technical and other resources and greater name recognition than we do. Several of our competitors provide a broader array of services and have a stronger presence in more geographic markets. In addition, we compete with several smaller companies capable of competing effectively on a regional or local basis. Our competitors may be able to respond more quickly to new or emerging technologies and services and changes in customer requirements. Some contracts are awarded on a bid basis, which further increases competition based on price. Pricing is often the primary factor in determining which qualified contractor is awarded a job. The competitive environment may be further intensified by mergers and acquisitions among oil and natural gas companies or other events that have the effect of reducing the number of available customers. As a result of increased competition during the second half of 2018 and 2019, we had to lower the prices for our services, which adversely affected our results of operations. If competition remains the same or increases as a result of a continued industry downturn or future industry downturns, we may be required to lower our prices, which would adversely affect our results of operations. In the future, we may lose market share or be unable to maintain or increase prices for our present services or to acquire additional business opportunities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Pressure on pricing for our services resulting from the increased competition in the second half of 2018 and 2019 impacted our ability to maintain utilization and pricing for our services or implement price increases, which may also be impacted in future downturns. During any future periods of declining pricing for our services, we may not be able to reduce our costs accordingly, which could further adversely affect our results of operations. Also, we may not be able to successfully increase prices without adversely affecting our utilization levels. The inability to maintain our utilization and pricing levels, or to increase our prices as costs increase, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, some E&P companies have begun performing hydraulic fracturing on their wells using their own equipment and personnel. Any increase in the development and utilization of in-house fracturing capabilities by our customers could decrease the demand for our services and have a material adverse impact on our business.

Strategic determinations, including the allocation of capital and other resources to strategic opportunities, are challenging, and a failure to appropriately allocate capital and resources among our strategic opportunities may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our business is cyclical and depends on the willingness of our customers to make operating and capital expenditures to explore for, develop and produce shale oil and natural gas in the United States. In developing our business plan, we consider allocating capital and other resources to various aspects of our business including

maintenance, upgrades and refurbishment of our equipment, corporate items and other alternatives. We also consider our likely sources of capital, including cash generated from operations and borrowings under our Credit Agreement entered into February 22, 2018 (the “Credit Facility”). Notwithstanding the determinations made in the development of our business plan, new business opportunities periodically come to our attention, including possible acquisitions and dispositions. If we fail to identify optimal business strategies or fail to optimize our capital investment and capital raising opportunities and the use of our other resources in furtherance of our business strategies, our financial condition and future growth may be adversely affected. Moreover, economic or other circumstances may change from those contemplated by our business plan and our failure to recognize or respond to those changes may limit our ability to achieve our objectives.

A negative shift in investor sentiment of the oil and gas industry could have adverse effects on our operations and on our ability to raise debt and equity capital.

Certain segments of the investor community have developed negative sentiment towards investing in our industry. Recent equity returns in the sector versus other industry sectors have led to lower oil and gas and related services representation in certain key equity market indices. In addition, some investors, including investment advisors and certain sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, university endowments and family foundations, have stated policies to disinvest in the oil and gas sector based on their social and environmental considerations. Certain other stakeholders have also pressured commercial and investment banks to stop financing oil and gas production and related infrastructure projects, which adversely affects our customers. Such developments, including environmental activism and initiatives aimed at limiting climate change and reducing air pollution, could result in downward pressure on the stock prices of oilfield service companies, including ours. This may also potentially result in a reduction of available capital funding for potential development projects, impacting our future financial results.

Additionally, negative public perception regarding our industry may lead to increased regulatory scrutiny, which may, in turn, lead to new state and federal safety and environmental laws, regulations, guidelines and enforcement interpretations. Additionally, environmental groups, landowners, local groups and other advocates may oppose our customers’ operations through organized protests, attempts to block or sabotage our customers’ operations, intervene in regulatory or administrative proceedings involving our customers’ assets, or file lawsuits or other actions designed to prevent, disrupt or delay the development or operation of our customers’ assets. These actions may cause operational delays or restrictions, increased operating costs, additional regulatory burdens and increased risk of litigation for our customers, which could reduce our customers’ production levels over time and, as a result, may reduce demand for our services. Moreover, governmental authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance and the public may engage in the permitting process, including through intervention in the courts. Negative public perception could cause the permits that our customers require to conduct their operations to be withheld, delayed or burdened by requirements that restrict our customers’ ability to profitably conduct their businesses, which would also reduce demand for our services. Recently, activists concerned about the potential effects of climate change have directed their attention towards 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 energy-related activities. Ultimately, this could make it more difficult to secure funding for our operations.

We are dependent on a few customers operating in a single industry. The loss of one or more significant customers could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our customers are engaged in the E&P business in the United States. Historically, we have been dependent upon a few customers for a significant portion of our revenues. Our four largest customers generated approximately
45%, 40% and 32% of our total revenue in 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. For a discussion of our customers that make up 10% or more of our revenues, see “Business—Customers” in Item 1 of this annual report.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if one or more of our significant customers ceases to engage us for our services on favorable terms or at all or fails to pay or delays in paying us significant amounts of our outstanding receivables. Although we do have contracts for multiple projects with certain of our customers, most of our services are provided on a project-by-project basis.

Additionally, the E&P industry is characterized by frequent consolidation activity. Changes in ownership of our customers may result in the loss of, or reduction in, business from those customers, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition.

We extend credit to our customers, which presents a risk of nonpayment of our accounts receivable.

We extend credit to all our customers. During industry downturns in past periods, many of our customers experienced financial and operational challenges, and some of our customers filed for bankruptcy protection or delayed payment for our services. Given the cyclical nature of the E&P industry, our customers may continue to experience similar challenges in the future. As a result, we may have difficulty collecting outstanding accounts receivable from, or experience longer collection cycles with, some of our customers, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and cash flows.

Decreased demand for proppant has adversely affected, and could continue to adversely affect, our commitments under supply agreements.

We have purchase commitments with certain vendors to supply the proppant used in our operations. Some of these agreements have minimum purchase obligations. During industry downturns in past periods, our minimum contractual commitments have exceeded and in the future may continue to exceed the amount of proppant needed in our operations. As a result, we made or may be required to continue to make minimum payments for proppant that we were unable to use. Furthermore, some of our customers have bought and in the future may buy sand mines or proppant directly from vendors, reducing our need for proppant. If market conditions do not improve, or our customers buy their own sand mines or proppant directly from vendors, we may be required to make minimum payments in future periods, which may adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.

We may be unable to employ a sufficient number of key employees, technical personnel and other skilled or qualified workers.

The delivery of our services and products requires personnel with specialized skills and experience who can perform physically demanding work. As a result of the volatility in the energy service industry and the demanding nature of the work, workers may choose to pursue employment with our competitors or in fields that offer a more desirable work environment. Our ability to be productive and profitable will depend upon our ability to employ and retain skilled workers. In addition, our ability to further expand our operations according to geographic demand for our services depends in part on our ability to relocate or increase the size of our skilled labor force. The demand for skilled workers in our areas of operations can be high, the supply may be limited and we may be unable to relocate our employees from areas of lower utilization to areas of higher demand. A significant increase in the wages paid by competing employers could result in a reduction of our skilled labor force, increases in the wage rates that we must pay, or both. Furthermore, a significant decrease in the wages paid by us or our competitors as a result of reduced industry demand could result in a reduction of the available skilled labor force, and there is no assurance that the availability of skilled labor will improve following a subsequent increase in demand for our services or an increase in wage rates. If any of these events were to occur, our capacity and profitability could be diminished and our growth potential could be impaired.

We depend heavily on the efforts of executive officers, managers and other key employees to manage our operations. The unexpected loss or unavailability of key members of management or technical personnel may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, prospects or results of operations.

Our operations are subject to inherent risks, including operational hazards. These risks may not be fully covered under our insurance policies.

Our operations are subject to hazards inherent in the oil and natural gas industry, such as accidents, blowouts, explosions, craters, fires and oil spills. These hazards may lead to property damage, personal injury, death or the discharge of hazardous materials into the environment. The occurrence of a significant event or adverse claim in excess of the insurance coverage that we maintain or that is not covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

As is customary in our industry, our service contracts generally provide that we will indemnify and hold harmless our customers from any claims arising from personal injury or death of our employees, damage to or loss of our equipment, and pollution emanating from our equipment and services. Similarly, our customers agree to indemnify and hold us harmless from any claims arising from personal injury or death of their employees, damage to or loss of their equipment, and pollution caused from their equipment or the well reservoir. Our indemnification arrangements may not protect us in every case. In addition, our indemnification rights may not fully protect us if the customer is insolvent or becomes bankrupt, does not maintain adequate insurance or otherwise does not possess sufficient resources to indemnify us. Furthermore, our indemnification rights may be held unenforceable in some jurisdictions. Our inability to fully realize the benefits of our contractual indemnification protections could result in significant liabilities and could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We maintain customary insurance coverage against these types of hazards. We are self-insured up to retention limits with regard to, among other things, workers’ compensation and general liability. We maintain accruals in our consolidated balance sheets related to self-insurance retentions by using third-party data and historical claims history. The occurrence of an event not fully insured against, or the failure of an insurer to meet its insurance obligations, could result in substantial losses. In addition, we may not be able to maintain adequate insurance in the future at rates we consider reasonable. Insurance may not be available to cover any or all of the risks to which we are subject, or, even if available, it may be inadequate.

We are subject to laws and regulations regarding issues of health, safety, and protection of the environment, under which we may become liable for penalties, damages, or costs of remediation.

Our operations are subject to stringent laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment, natural resources, clean air, drinking water, wetlands, endangered species and worker health and safety, as well as chemical use and storage, waste management, and transportation of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. These laws and regulations subject us to risks of environmental liability, including leakage from an operator’s casing during our operations or accidental spills or releases onto or into surface or subsurface soils, surface water, groundwater or ambient air.

Some environmental laws and regulations may impose strict liability, joint and several liability or both. Strict liability means that 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 third parties without regard to whether we caused or contributed to the conditions. Additionally, environmental concerns, including climate change, air and drinking water contamination and seismic activity could lead to the enactment of regulations that potentially could have a material adverse impact on our business. Sanctions for noncompliance with environmental laws and regulations could result in fines and penalties (administrative, civil or criminal), revocations of permits, expenditures for investigation or remediation, and issuance of corrective action orders, and actions arising under these laws and regulations or the common law could result in liability for property damage, exposure to waste and other hazardous materials, nuisance or personal injuries. Such claims or sanctions could cause us to incur substantial costs or losses and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Changes in laws and regulations could prohibit, restrict or limit our operations, increase our operating costs, adversely affect our results or result in the disclosure of proprietary information resulting in competitive harm.

Various legislative and regulatory initiatives have been undertaken or are being discussed that could result in additional requirements or restrictions being imposed on our operations, ban hydraulic fracturing or end new fossil fuel leases and/or hydraulic fracturing on public lands. If any of these initiatives are implemented our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected. Legislation and/or regulations are being considered at the federal, state and local levels that could impose chemical disclosure requirements (such as restrictions on the use of certain types of chemicals or prohibitions on hydraulic fracturing operations in certain areas) and prior approval requirements. If they become effective, these regulations would establish additional levels of regulation that could lead to operational delays and increased operating costs. Disclosure of our proprietary chemical information to third parties or to the public, even if inadvertent, could diminish the value of our trade secrets and could result in competitive harm to us, which could have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, some jurisdictions are or have considered zoning and other ordinances that could impose a de facto ban on drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing operations, and are closely examining permit and disposal options for processed water, which if imposed could have a material adverse impact on our operating costs. Moreover, any moratorium or increased regulation of our raw materials vendors, such as our proppant suppliers, could increase the cost of those materials and adversely affect the results of our operations.

We are subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard, which requires employers to limit worker exposures to respirable crystalline silica and to take other steps to protect workers, such as medical surveillance, providing employee training, and implementing a written exposure control plan. These requirements became applicable to hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil and gas industry on June 23, 2018. The rule also requires hydraulic fracturing operations in the oil and gas industry to implement engineering controls to limit exposures to the respirable silica by June 23, 2021. The Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard has and will continue to impose increased operating costs on our and our customers’ business. Employee exposure to silica presents a source of potential liability to our and our customers’ business, which if realized could increase our costs or otherwise adversely affect our business or operations.

We are also subject to various transportation regulations that include certain permit requirements of highway and vehicle and hazardous material safety authorities. These regulations govern such matters as the authorization to engage in motor carrier operations, safety, equipment testing, driver requirements and specifications and insurance requirements. As these regulations develop and any new regulations are proposed, we have experienced and may continue to experience an increase in related costs. We receive a portion of the proppant used in our operations by rail. Any delay or failure in rail services due to changes in transportation regulations, work stoppages or labor strikes, could adversely affect the availability of proppant. We cannot predict whether, or in what form, any legislative or regulatory changes or municipal ordinances applicable to our logistics operations will be enacted and to what extent any such legislation or regulations could increase our costs or otherwise adversely affect our business or operations.

Federal and state legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to hydraulic fracturing could result in increased costs and additional operating restrictions or delays.

Our business is dependent on our ability to conduct hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities. Hydraulic fracturing is used to stimulate production of hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas, from tight formations, including shales. The process, which involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals, or proppants, under pressure into formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production, is typically regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions. However, federal agencies have asserted regulatory authority over certain aspects of the process. For example, on May 9, 2014, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on the development of regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act to require companies to disclose information regarding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The EPA has not proceeded further with this rulemaking but could do so in the future. On June 28, 2016, the EPA published a final rule prohibiting the discharge of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and natural gas extraction facilities to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. The EPA also conducted a study of private wastewater treatment facilities (also known as centralized waste treatment (“CWT”) facilities) accepting oil and natural gas extraction wastewater and in May 2018 published data and information related to the extent to which CWT facilities accept such wastewater, available treatment technologies (and their associated costs), discharge characteristics, financial characteristics of CWT facilities and the environmental impacts of discharges from CWT facilities. Furthermore, legislation to amend the SDWA, to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing (except when diesel fuels are used) from the definition of “underground injection” and require federal permitting and regulatory control of hydraulic fracturing, as well as legislative proposals to require disclosure of the chemical constituents of the fluids used in the fracturing process, were proposed in recent sessions of Congress. Additionally, BLM has established regulations imposing drilling and construction requirements for operations on federal or Indian lands including management requirements for surface operations and public disclosures of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing fluids. However, on December 29, 2017, BLM published a rescission of these regulations. Future imposition of these or other regulations could cause us or our customers to incur substantial compliance costs and any failure to comply could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

On May 12, 2016, the EPA amended the New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) under the federal Clean Air Act to impose new standards for methane and volatile organic compounds, emissions for certain new, modified, and reconstructed equipment, processes, and activities across the oil and natural gas sector. On the same day, the EPA finalized a plan to implement its minor new source review program in Indian country for oil and natural gas production. The EPA proposed changes to the 2016 NSPS rule on September 11, 2018, which if finalized would streamline implementation of the rule. The EPA is expected to publish a final revised rule in 2020. On May 2, 2019, the EPA signed amendments to the 2016 federal implementation plan for the minor new source review program in Indian country that streamlined authorization for new and modified sources in the oil and natural gas sector. Finally, in addition to the September 2018 action, on August 28, 2019, the EPA proposed further amendments to the NSPS for the Oil and Gas Industry that, if implemented, would remove regulatory duplication and rescind certain methane requirements in the 2016 NSPS rule.

In November 2016, BLM promulgated regulations aimed at curbing air pollution, including greenhouse gases, for oil and natural gas produced on federal and Indian lands. Following a series of legal challenges to the attempts to delay implementation of portions of the November 2016 rule through 2017 and 2018, BLM finalized revisions to its November 2016 rule on September 28, 2018. These revisions rescinded a number of the 2016 waste prevention requirements. California and New Mexico, along with a coalition of environmental groups, filed suits challenging the 2018 final rule, and such litigation is ongoing. At this point, we cannot predict the final regulatory requirements or the cost to comply with such requirements with any certainty.

There are certain governmental reviews either underway or being proposed that focus on the environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing practices. These ongoing or proposed studies, depending on their degree of pursuit and whether any meaningful results are obtained, could spur initiatives to further regulate hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA or other regulatory authorities. The EPA continues to evaluate the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources and the induced seismic activity from disposal wells and has recommended strategies for managing and minimizing the potential for significant injection-induced seismic events. For example, in December 2016, the EPA released its final report, entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States,” on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The report states that the EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can 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. Other governmental agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, have evaluated or are evaluating various other aspects of hydraulic fracturing. These ongoing or proposed studies could spur initiatives to further regulate hydraulic fracturing, and could ultimately make it more difficult or costly to perform fracturing and increase the costs of compliance and doing business for our customers. Furthermore, the EPA plans to continue an enforcement initiative to ensure energy extraction activities comply with federal laws.

In addition to bans on hydraulic fracturing activities in Maryland, New York and Vermont, several states, including Texas and Ohio, as well as regional authorities like the Delaware River Basin Commission, have adopted or are considering adopting regulations that could restrict or prohibit hydraulic fracturing in certain circumstances, impose more stringent operating standards and/or require the disclosure of the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids. Any increased regulation of hydraulic fracturing, in these or other states, could reduce the demand for our services and materially and adversely affect our revenues and results of operations.

There has been increasing public controversy regarding hydraulic fracturing with regard to the use of fracturing fluids, induced seismic activity, impacts on drinking water supplies, use of water and the potential for impacts to surface water, groundwater and the environment generally. A number of lawsuits and enforcement actions have been initiated across the country implicating hydraulic fracturing practices. If new laws or regulations are adopted that significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing, such laws could make it more difficult or costly for us to perform fracturing to stimulate

production from tight formations as well as make it easier for third parties opposing the hydraulic fracturing process to initiate legal proceedings based on allegations that specific chemicals used in the fracturing process could adversely affect groundwater. In addition, if hydraulic fracturing is further regulated at the federal, state or local level, our customers’ fracturing activities could become subject to additional permitting and financial assurance requirements, more stringent construction specifications, increased monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, plugging and abandonment requirements and also to attendant permitting delays and potential increases in costs. Such legislative or regulatory changes could cause us or our customers to incur substantial compliance costs, and compliance or the consequences of any failure to comply by us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the impact on our business of newly enacted or potential federal, state or local laws governing hydraulic fracturing.

Existing or future laws and regulations related to greenhouse gases and climate change could have a negative impact on our business and may result in additional compliance obligations with respect to the release, capture, and use of carbon dioxide that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Changes in environmental requirements related to greenhouse gases and climate change may negatively impact demand for our services. For example, oil and natural gas exploration and production may decline as a result of environmental requirements, including land use policies responsive to environmental concerns. Local, state, and federal agencies have been evaluating climate-related legislation and other regulatory initiatives that would restrict emissions of greenhouse gases in areas in which we conduct business. Because our business depends on the level of activity in the oil and natural gas industry, existing or future laws and regulations related to greenhouse gases and climate change, including incentives to conserve energy or use alternative energy sources, could have a negative impact on our business if such laws or regulations reduce demand for oil and natural gas. Likewise, such restrictions may result in additional compliance obligations with respect to the release, capture, sequestration, and use of carbon dioxide or other gases that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Delays in obtaining, or inability to obtain or renew, permits or authorizations by our customers for their operations or by us for our operations could impair our business.

In most states, our customers are required to obtain permits or authorizations from one or more governmental agencies or other third parties to perform drilling and completion activities, including hydraulic fracturing. Such permits or approvals are typically required by state agencies, but can also be required by federal and local governmental agencies or other third parties. The requirements for such permits or authorizations vary depending on the location where such drilling and completion activities will be conducted. As with most permitting and authorization processes, there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether a permit will be granted, the time it will take for a permit or approval to be issued and the conditions which may be imposed in connection with the granting of the permit. In some jurisdictions, such as New York State and within the jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Commission, certain regulatory authorities have delayed or suspended the issuance of permits or authorizations while the potential environmental impacts associated with issuing such permits can be studied and appropriate mitigation measures evaluated. In Texas, rural water districts have imposed restrictions on water use and may require permits for water used in drilling and completion activities. Additionally, in Utah, we work on Indian lands that require permits for drilling and completion activities. Permitting, authorization or renewal delays, the inability to obtain new permits or the revocation of current permits could cause a loss of revenue and potentially have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, prospects or results of operations.

Restrictions on drilling activities intended to protect certain species of wildlife may adversely affect our ability to conduct drilling activities in some of the areas where we operate.

Oil and natural gas operations in our operating areas can be adversely affected by seasonal or permanent restrictions on drilling activities designed to protect various wildlife, which may limit our ability to operate in protected areas. Permanent restrictions imposed to protect endangered species could prohibit drilling in certain areas or require the implementation of expensive mitigation measures. Additionally, the designation of previously unprotected species as

threatened or endangered in areas where we operate could result in increased costs arising from species protection measures. Restrictions on oil and natural gas operations to protect wildlife could reduce demand for our services.

Conservation measures and technological advances could reduce demand for oil and natural gas and our services.

Fuel conservation measures, alternative fuel requirements, increasing consumer demand for alternatives to oil and natural gas, technological advances in fuel economy and energy generation devices could reduce demand for oil and natural gas, resulting in reduced demand for oilfield services. The impact of the changing demand for oil and natural gas services and products may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We have experienced a reduction in demand and there may be a continued reduction in demand for our future services due to competition from alternative energy sources.

Oil and natural gas competes with other sources of energy for consumer demand. There are significant governmental incentives and consumer pressures to increase the use of alternative energy sources in the United States and abroad. A number of automotive, industrial and power generation manufacturers are developing more fuel efficient engines, hybrid engines and alternative clean power systems using fuel cells, clean burning fuels and batteries. In 2019, we experienced a reduction in demand of our services as a result of alternative energy sources, including natural gas and electric fleets. Greater use of these alternatives as a result of governmental incentives or regulations, technological advances, consumer demand, improved pricing or otherwise over time will reduce the demand for our products and services and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows going forward.

Limitations on construction of new natural gas pipelines or increases in federal or state regulation of natural gas pipelines could decrease demand for our services.

There has been increasing public controversy regarding construction of new natural gas pipelines and the stringency of current regulation of natural gas pipelines. Delays in construction of new pipelines or increased stringency of regulation of existing natural gas pipelines at either the state or federal level could reduce the demand for our services and materially and adversely affect our revenues and results of operations.

Our existing fleets require significant amounts of capital for maintenance, upgrades and refurbishment and any new fleets we build or acquire may require significant capital expenditures.

Our fleets require significant capital investment in maintenance, upgrades and refurbishment to maintain their effectiveness. While we manufacture many of the components necessary to maintain, upgrade and refurbish our fleets, labor costs have increased in the past and may increase in the future with increases in demand, which will require us to incur additional costs to upgrade any of our existing fleets or build any new fleets.

Additionally, competition or advances in technology within our industry may require us to update or replace existing fleets or build or acquire new fleets. Such demands on our capital or reductions in demand for our existing fleets and the increase in cost of labor necessary for such maintenance and improvement, in each case, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our operations require substantial capital and we may be unable to obtain needed capital or financing on satisfactory terms or at all, which could limit our ability to grow.

The oilfield services industry is capital intensive. In conducting our business and operations, we have made, and expect to continue to make, substantial capital expenditures. Our total capital expenditures were $54.4 million, $100.5 million and $64.0 million, respectively, in 2019, 2018 and 2017. Since 2015, we have financed capital expenditures primarily with funding from cash on hand. We may be unable to generate sufficient cash from operations and other capital resources to maintain planned or future levels of capital expenditures which, among other things, may prevent us from properly maintaining our existing equipment or acquiring new equipment. Furthermore, any disruptions or

continuing volatility in the global financial markets may lead to an increase in interest rates or a contraction in credit availability impacting our ability to finance our operations. This circumstance could put us at a competitive disadvantage or interfere with our growth plans. Furthermore, our actual capital expenditures for future years could exceed our capital expenditure budgets. In the event our capital expenditure requirements at any time are greater than the amount we have available, we could be required to seek additional sources of capital, which may include debt financing, joint venture partnerships, sales of assets, offerings of debt or equity securities or other means. We may not be able to obtain any such alternative source of capital. We may be required to curtail or eliminate contemplated activities. If we can obtain alternative sources of capital, the terms of such alternative may not be favorable to us. In particular, the terms of any debt financing may include covenants that significantly restrict our operations. Our inability to grow as planned may reduce our chances of maintaining and improving profitability.

A third party may claim we infringed upon its intellectual property rights, and we may be subjected to costly litigation.

Our operations, including equipment, manufacturing and fluid and chemical operations may unintentionally infringe upon the patents or trade secrets of a competitor or other company that uses proprietary components or processes in its operations, and that company may have legal recourse against our use of its protected information. If this were to happen, these claims could result in legal and other costs associated with litigation. If found to have infringed upon protected information, we may have to pay damages or make royalty payments in order to continue using that information, which could substantially increase the costs previously associated with certain products or services, or we may have to discontinue use of the information or product altogether. Any of these could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

New technology may cause us to become less competitive.

The oilfield services industry is subject to the introduction of new drilling and completion techniques and services using new technologies, some of which may be subject to patent or other intellectual property protections. Although we believe our equipment and processes currently give us a competitive advantage, as competitors and others use or develop new or comparable technologies in the future, we may lose market share or be placed at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, we may face competitive pressure to implement or acquire certain new technologies at a substantial cost. Some of our competitors have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that may allow them to enjoy technological advantages and implement new technologies before we can. We cannot be certain that we will be able to implement all new technologies or products on a timely basis or at an acceptable cost. Thus, limits on our ability to effectively use and implement new and emerging technologies may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Loss or corruption of our information or a cyberattack on our computer systems could adversely affect our business.

We are heavily dependent on our information systems and computer-based programs, including our well operations information and accounting data. If any of such programs or systems were to fail or create erroneous information in our hardware or software network infrastructure, whether due to cyberattack or otherwise, possible consequences include our loss of communication links and inability to automatically process commercial transactions or engage in similar automated or computerized business activities. Any such consequence could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The oil and natural gas industry has become increasingly dependent on digital technologies to conduct certain activities. At the same time, cyberattacks have increased. The U.S. government has issued public warnings that indicate that energy assets might be specific targets of cyber security threats. Our technologies, systems and networks may become the target of cyberattacks or information security breaches. These could result in the unauthorized access, misuse, loss or destruction of our proprietary and other information or other disruption of our business operations. Any access or surveillance could remain undetected for an extended period. Our systems for protecting against cyber security risks may not be sufficient. As cyber incidents continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any vulnerability to cyber

incidents. Additionally, our insurance coverage for cyberattacks may not be sufficient to cover all the losses we may experience as a result of such cyberattacks. Any additional costs could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

One or more of our directors may not reside in the United States, which may prevent investors from obtaining or enforcing judgments against them.

Because one or more of our directors may not reside in the United States, it may not be possible for investors to effect service of process within the United States on our non-U.S. resident directors, enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws against our non-U.S. resident directors, enforce in foreign courts U.S. court judgments based on civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws against our non-U.S. resident directors, or bring an original action in foreign courts to enforce liabilities based on the U.S. federal securities laws against our non-U.S. resident directors.

Adverse weather conditions could impact demand for our services or impact our costs.

Our business could be adversely affected by adverse weather conditions. For example, unusually warm winters could adversely affect the demand for our services by decreasing the demand for natural gas or unusually cold winters could adversely affect our capability to perform our services, for example, due to delays in the delivery of equipment, personnel and products that we need in order to provide our services and weather-related damage to facilities and equipment, resulting in delays in operations. Our operations in arid regions can be affected by droughts and limited access to water used in our hydraulic fracturing operations. These constraints could adversely affect the costs and results of operations.

A terrorist attack, armed conflict or health threat could harm our business.

Terrorist activities, anti-terrorist efforts and other armed conflicts involving the United States, or global or national health concerns, including the outbreak of pandemic or contagious disease, such as the ongoing coronavirus outbreak emanating from China at the beginning of 2020, could adversely affect the U.S. and global economies and could prevent us from meeting financial and other obligations. We could experience loss of business, delays or defaults in payments from payors or disruptions of fuel supplies and markets if wells, operations sites or other related facilities are direct targets or indirect casualties of an act of terror or war or if such facilities, their workforce or supply chains are affected by a global or national health concern. Such activities or events could reduce the overall demand for oil and natural gas, which, in turn, could also reduce the demand for our products and services. Terrorist activities, the threat of potential terrorist activities and global or national health concerns and any resulting economic downturn could adversely affect our results of operations, impair our ability to raise capital or otherwise adversely impact our ability to realize certain business strategies.

We and certain of our directors, executive officers and stockholders are currently subject to securities class action litigation in connection with our IPO, and other litigation and legal proceedings that are expensive and time consuming, and if resolved adversely, could harm our business, financial condition or results or operation.

A purported securities class action was filed against us and certain of our directors, executive officers and stockholders alleging violation of federal securities laws. While we believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it, there can be no assurances that a favorable final outcome will be obtained. In connection with this litigation, we could incur substantial costs and such costs and any related settlements or judgments may not be covered by insurance, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, several of our co-defendants have requested and we have agreed to indemnify them in connection with this lawsuit. These costs are not covered by insurance and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We could also suffer an adverse impact on our reputation and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition to the class action lawsuit, we are involved in other lawsuits and legal proceedings, including arbitration, in the ordinary course of our business. Any litigation or other legal proceedings, including arbitration, could

result in an onerous or unfavorable judgment that may not be reversed upon appeal or in payments of substantial monetary damages or fines, or we may decide to settle lawsuits on similarly unfavorable terms, either of which could adversely affect our business, financial conditions, or results of operation.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain tax amortization deductions may be delayed or limited.

As of December 31, 2019, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards (“NOLs”) in excess of $1,700 million, which if not utilized will begin to expire starting in 2032 for federal purposes and 2020 for state purposes. We may use these NOLs to offset against taxable income for U.S. federal and state income tax purposes. Additionally, we are allowed to deduct approximately $190 million of amortization expense on our federal and state tax returns per year for tax years 2020 through 2025. However, Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, may reduce the amount of the NOLs we may use or tax amortization we may deduct for U.S. federal income tax purposes in the event of certain changes in ownership of our Company. A Section 382 “ownership change” generally occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who own at least 5% of a company’s stock (with owners holding less than 5% of the company’s stock being consolidated together into one or more “public groups”) increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a rolling three year period—for example, if we and/or our three largest stockholders were to sell shares of our common stock, so that following such sales, the “public group” owned more than 50% of our common stock, an “ownership change” would occur for purposes of Code Section 382. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. Future issuances or sales of our stock, including by our large stockholders or certain other transactions involving our stock that are outside of our control, could cause an “ownership change.” If an “ownership change” has occurred in the past or occurs in the future, Section 382 would impose an annual limit on the amount of pre-ownership change NOLs and other tax attributes, potentially including a portion of our tax amortization deduction, that we can use to reduce our taxable income each year, potentially increasing and accelerating our liability for income taxes, and also potentially causing those tax attributes to expire unused. Any limitation of our tax amortization deduction or use of NOLs could, depending on the extent of such limitation and the amount of NOLs previously used, result in our retaining less cash after payment of U.S. federal and state income taxes during any year in which we have taxable income, rather than losses, than we would be entitled to retain if such NOLs or tax amortization deductions were not reduced as an offset against such income for U.S. federal and state income tax reporting purposes, which could adversely impact our operating results.

Risks Relating to Our Indebtedness

We have substantial indebtedness. Any failure to meet our debt obligations would adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition.

As of December 31, 2019, we had $459.9 million of long-term indebtedness outstanding. Our indebtedness affects our operations in several ways, including the following:

If our cash flow and other capital resources are insufficient to fund our obligations under our debt agreements on a current basis and at maturity, or if we are otherwise unable to comply with the covenants in those agreements, we will need to refinance or restructure our debt. The proceeds of future borrowings may not be sufficient to refinance or repay the debt, and we may be unable to complete such transactions in a timely manner, on favorable terms, or at all. In addition, if we finance our operations through additional indebtedness, then the risks that we now face relating to our current debt level would intensify, and it would be more difficult to satisfy our existing financial obligations.

Furthermore, if a default occurs under one debt agreement, then this could cause a cross-default under other debt agreements.

Liquidity is essential to our business, and it has been and may continue to be adversely affected.

Liquidity is essential to our business to service our debt and purchase the labor, materials and equipment that we use to operate our business. Additionally, we believe that a service provider’s liquidity is important to our customers because adequate liquidity provides assurance that a service provider will have the financial resources to continue to operate in challenging industry conditions.

Our liquidity has been adversely affected by industry downturns in past periods due to low or non-existent profit margins for utilization of our services. Our liquidity may be further impaired by unforeseen cash expenditures, which may arise due to circumstances beyond our control.

Additionally, the terms of our existing debt instruments restrict, and any future debt instruments may further restrict, our ability to incur additional indebtedness, sell certain assets and engage in certain business activities. These restrictions prohibit activities that we could use to increase our liquidity. Also, our current lenders and investors hold a first lien on a portion of our assets as collateral, including substantially all of our revenue-generating equipment. New lenders and investors may require additional collateral, which could additionally impair our access to liquidity. If alternate financing is not available on favorable terms or at all, we would be required to decrease our capital spending to an even greater extent. Any additional decrease in our capital spending would adversely affect our ability to sustain or improve our profits. Refinancing may not be available, and any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates, which could further adversely affect our liquidity.

Increases in interest rates could negatively affect our financing costs and our ability to access capital.

We have exposure to future interest rates based on the variable rate debt under our term loan due April 16, 2021 (the “Term Loan”) and our asset based lending facility under the Credit Facility and to the extent we raise additional debt in the capital markets at variable rates, including any future revolving credit facility, to meet maturing debt obligations or to fund our capital expenditures and working capital needs. Daily working capital requirements are typically financed with operational cash flow and through the use of our existing borrowings. The interest rate on the Term Loan and Credit Facility is generally determined from the applicable LIBOR rate at the borrowing date plus a pre-set margin. We are therefore subject to market interest rate risk on that portion of our long-term debt that relates to the Term Loan and Credit Facility. We do not employ risk management techniques, such as interest rate swaps, to hedge against interest rate volatility, and accordingly significant and sustained increases in market interest rates could materially increase our financing costs and negatively impact our reported results.

In July 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority (the authority that regulates LIBOR) announced it intends to stop compelling banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021. The Alternative Reference Rates Committee (“ARRC”) has proposed that the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) is the rate that represents best practice as the alternative to USD-LIBOR for use in derivatives and other financial contracts that are currently indexed to USD-LIBOR. ARRC has proposed a paced market transition plan to SOFR from USD-LIBOR and organizations are currently working on industry wide and company specific transition plans as it relates to derivatives and cash markets exposed to USD-LIBOR. We have material contracts that are indexed to USD-LIBOR. As such, the potential effect of any such transition on our cost of capital cannot yet be determined and any changes to benchmark interest rates could increase our financing costs, which could impact our results of operations and cash flows.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

Our three largest stockholders control a significant percentage of our common stock, and their interests may conflict with those of our other stockholders.

Before our initial public offering (the “IPO”) in February 2018, we were controlled by an investor group comprised mainly of Maju Investments (Mauritius) Pte Ltd (“Maju”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Temasek

Holdings (Private) Limited (“Temasek”), CHK Energy Holdings, Inc. (“Chesapeake”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, and Senja Capital Ltd (“Senja”), an investment company affiliated with RRJ Capital Limited (“RRJ”). As of February 21, 2020, Maju, Chesapeake and Senja beneficially own approximately 38.9%, 20.5% and 11.1%, respectively, of our common stock. As a result, Maju, Chesapeake and Senja, together, exercise significant influence over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, changes to our organizational documents and significant corporate transactions. Furthermore, several individuals who serve as our directors are nominees of Maju, Chesapeake and Senja. This concentration of ownership and relationships with Maju, Chesapeake and Senja make it unlikely that any other holder or group of holders of our common stock will be able to affect the way we are managed or the direction of our business. In addition, we have engaged, and expect to continue to engage, in related party transactions involving Chesapeake. Furthermore, we have entered into investors’ rights agreements with Maju, Chesapeake, Senja and Hampton Asset Holding Ltd. (“Hampton”), which contain agreements regarding, among other things, director nomination, information and observer rights. The interests of Maju, Chesapeake and Senja with respect to matters potentially or actually involving or affecting us, such as future acquisitions and financings, may conflict with the interests of our other stockholders. This continued concentrated ownership will make it more difficult for another company to acquire us and for our investors to receive any related takeover premium for their shares unless these stockholders approve the acquisition.

A significant reduction by our major stockholders of their ownership interests in us could adversely affect us.

We believe that the substantial ownership interests of Maju, Chesapeake and Senja in us provides them with an economic incentive to assist us to be successful. If Maju, Chesapeake or Senja sell all or a substantial portion of their ownership interest in us, they may have less incentive to assist in our success and their nominees that serve as members of our board of directors may resign. Such actions could adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our business strategies which could adversely affect our cash flows or results of operations. In addition, such actions may prohibit us from utilizing all or a portion of our net operating loss carryforwards. See “—Risks Related to our Business—Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards may be limited.”

Our stock price has been and may continue to be volatile.

On January 31, 2020, we received written notice from the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) notifying us that, over a period of 30 consecutive trading days, the average closing price of our common stock was below the minimum $1.00 per share requirement for continued listing on the NYSE under Item 802.01C of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. In accordance with applicable NYSE procedures, we timely notified the NYSE that we intend to cure the $1.00 per share deficiency. We have six months following the receipt of the noncompliance notice to cure the deficiency and regain compliance with the NYSE continued listing requirement. There can be no assurance that any of our plans, including a reverse stock split, would be successful and that we will regain compliance with the continued listing requirements of the NYSE. If we continue to fail to comply with the continued listing requirements of the NYSE by the required date, the NYSE may determine to delist our common stock.

A delisting and/or trading suspension of our common stock from the NYSE would (1) reduce the liquidity, trading volume and market price of our common stock; (2) reduce the number of investors willing to hold or acquire our common stock, which could negatively impact our ability to raise equity financing; (3) limit our ability to use a registration statement to offer and sell freely tradable securities, thereby preventing us from accessing the public capital markets; (4) impair our ability to provide liquid equity incentives to our employees; and (5) have negative reputational impact for us with our customers, suppliers, employees and other persons with whom we transact from time to time.

Additionally, the market price of our common stock has varied significantly and could continue to vary significantly in the future as a result of a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control. In the event of a further or sustained drop in the market price of our common stock, our investors could lose a substantial part or all of their investment in our common stock. Consequently, our investors may not be able to sell shares of our common stock at prices equal to or greater than the price they paid.

The following factors, among others, could affect our stock price:

The stock markets in general have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.

The requirements of being a public company, including compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) and the Dodd-Frank Act, may increase our costs. We may be unable to comply with these requirements in a timely or cost-effective manner.

As a public company with listed equity securities, we have to comply with numerous laws, regulations and requirements, certain corporate governance provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, related regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the requirements of the national stock exchange on which our common stock is listed. Complying with these statutes, regulations and requirements require time and attention from our board of directors and management and increase our costs and expenses. We are required to:

In addition, being a public company subject to these rules and regulations required us to obtain increased director and officer liability insurance coverage and we incurred substantial costs to obtain and renew such coverage.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us more difficult, limit attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management and limit the market price of our common stock.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control or changes in our management. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws:

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management. In addition, we will opt out of the provisions of Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (“DGCL”), which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any “interested” stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an “interested” stockholder. However, our amended and

restated certificate of incorporation provides substantially the same limitations as are set forth in Section 203 but also provides that Maju and Chesapeake and their affiliates and any of their direct or indirect transferees and any group as to which such persons are a party do not constitute “interested stockholders” for purposes of this provision.

We are subject to certain requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If we are unable to timely comply with Section 404 or if the costs related to compliance are significant, our profitability, stock price, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

We are required to comply with certain provisions of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Section 404 requires that we document and test our internal control over financial reporting and issue management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting. This section also requires that our independent registered public accounting firm opine on those internal controls upon becoming an accelerated filer, as defined in the SEC rules. During the course of our ongoing evaluation, we may identify areas requiring improvement, and we may have to design enhanced processes and controls to address issues identified through this review. For example, we anticipate the need to hire, or contract with, additional administrative and accounting personnel to enable us to comply with these provisions while maintaining sound financial reporting practices. We believe that the out-of-pocket costs, the diversion of management’s attention from running the day-to-day operations and operational changes caused by the need to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could be significant. If the time and costs associated with such compliance exceed our current expectations and our results of operations could be adversely affected.

If we fail to comply with the requirements of Section 404 or if we or our auditors identify and report such material weaknesses, the accuracy and timeliness of the filing of our annual and quarterly reports may be materially adversely affected and could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common stock. In addition, a material weakness in the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting could result in an increased chance of fraud and the loss of customers, reduce our ability to obtain financing and require additional expenditures to comply with these requirements, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not pay dividends on our common stock and, consequently, investors would achieve a return on investment only if the price of our stock appreciates.

We may not declare dividends on shares of our common stock. Additionally, we are currently limited in our ability to make cash distributions to stockholders or repurchase shares of our common stock pursuant to the terms of our Term Loan, Credit Facility and the indenture governing our 6.250% senior secured notes due May 1, 2022 (the “2022 Senior Notes”). If we do not make cash distributions to stockholders or otherwise return cash to stockholders, a return on investment in us will only be achieved if the market price of our common stock appreciates, which may not occur, and our investors sell their shares at a profit. There is no guarantee that the price of our common stock in the market will exceed the price that our investors pay.

Future sales of our common stock in the public market could lower our stock price, and any additional capital raised by us through the sale of equity or convertible securities may dilute our investors’ ownership in us.

We may sell additional shares of common stock in subsequent public offerings and may also issue securities convertible into our common stock. We have registered shares of our common stock owned by our three largest stockholders and granted, or are able to grant, equity awards under the FTS International, Inc. Amended and Restated 2018 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2018 Plan”).

We cannot predict the size of future issuances of our common stock or the effect, if any, that future issuances and sales of shares of our common stock will have on the market price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock (including shares issued in connection with an acquisition), or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices of our common stock.

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, publish inaccurate or unfavorable research or if they downgrade our stock or our sector, our common stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. We do not control these analysts. Furthermore, if one or more of the analysts who do cover us downgrade our stock or our industry, or the stock of any of our competitors, or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

We may issue preferred stock whose terms could adversely affect the voting power or value of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes us to issue, without the approval of our stockholders, one or more classes or series of preferred stock having such designations, preferences, limitations and relative rights, including preferences over our common stock respecting dividends and distributions, as our board of directors may determine. The terms of one or more classes or series of preferred stock could adversely impact the voting power or value of our common stock. For example, we might grant holders of preferred stock the right to elect some number of our directors in all events or on the happening of specified events or the right to veto specified transactions. Similarly, the repurchase or redemption rights or liquidation preferences we might assign to holders of preferred stock could affect the residual value of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for certain types of claims, which may limit a stockholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation specifies that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum, for (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the corporation, (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of the Company to the Company or the Company's stockholders, (c) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, or the Company's certificate of incorporation or bylaws or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or (d) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. There is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce this provision with respect to the claims under the Securities Act and our stockholders cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. The exclusive forum provision may limit a stockholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes against us and our directors, officers and other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits, or may require increased costs to bring a claim.

We also lease a 22-acre, 250,000 square foot facility in Williamsport, Pennsylvania that we used as a district office until August 2015. We currently sublease this facility. We also lease a 10,950 square foot facility in Yukon, Oklahoma and a 3-acre, 28,000 square foot facility in Charleroi, Pennsylvania. In January 2020 we leased a 5.86 acre, 18,827 square foot facility in Vernal, Utah that we plan to use as a district office.

Manufacturing and Maintenance Facilities

We manufacture the proprietary, high-pressure pumps, including the fluid-ends and power-ends, as well as certain other equipment that we use in our hydraulic fracturing operations in an 89,522 square foot facility owned by us in Fort Worth, Texas.

We own a 94,050 square foot facility in Aledo, Texas that is used for equipment repair, maintenance and electronics installation. We also manufacture, refurbish and assemble certain components of our hydraulic fracturing units and other service equipment at this facility.

We also own a 55,000 square foot maintenance facility in Shreveport, Louisiana and lease a 12,000 square foot maintenance facility in Hobbs, New Mexico and a 33,700 square foot maintenance facility in Seminole, Texas.

Principal Executive Offices

We maintain principal executive offices in Fort Worth, Texas. As of December 31, 2019, we leased approximately 33,000 square feet. We are actively seeking to sublease approximately 11,000 square feet of these offices.

Sales Offices

We have five sales offices, which we lease in Houston and Midland, Texas, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, and Denver, Colorado.