Thank you, everyone. Good morning, and thank you for joining TETRA's Fourth Quarter 2022 Results Call. I would like to remind you that this conference call may contain statements that are or may be deemed to be forward-looking. These statements are based on certain assumptions and analysis made by TETRA and are based on several factors. These statements are subject to several risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of the company. You are cautioned that such statements are not guarantees of future performance and that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. In addition, in the course of the call, we may refer to EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA gross margins, free cash flow, net debt, net leverage ratio, liquidity or other non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to yesterday's press release or to our public website for reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures to the nearest GAAP measures. These reconciliations are not a substitute for financial information prepared in accordance with GAAP and should be considered within the context of our complete financial results for the period. In addition to our press release announcement that went out yesterday, we encourage you to refer to our 10-K that will be filed yesterday. Brady I will turn it over to you.

Thanks, Elijio, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to TETRA's fourth quarter 2022 earnings call. I'll summarize some highlights for the fourth quarter, comment on the current outlook as well as provide an update on our strategic initiatives before turning it back to Elijio to discuss cash flow, working capital and the balance sheet, liquidity and add some color to the SK 1300 section 19 economic analysis that we issued last night. We closed out a strong year in 2022 with a strong fourth quarter growing revenue sequentially 9% over the third quarter and 42% for the full year over 2021. Adjusted EBITDA of $20.3 million increased from $18.6 million in the third quarter and for the full year excluding market-to-market gains in 2021. Our adjusted EBITDA for 2022 more than doubled, increasing by 112% over 2021 with almost a 30% follow through on incremental EBITDA to incremental revenue. Despite some headwinds during the fourth quarter, that we mentioned at our last quarterly call, including the postponement of PureFlow orders and the need to purchase additional bromine at spot market prices, we more than overcame these challenges by capturing multiple high margin completion fluid sales in an increasingly strengthening offshore market. For the combined markets of the Gulf of Mexico and our international offshore businesses we increased quarterly sequential revenue by 20% and more than 50% year-on-year. The completion of our first UK Neptune job along with continued improvements to the disrupted supply chain for our European chemicals business contributed to our successful Q4 results. We are scheduled for another North Sea Neptune job in the second quarter this time in Norway. We continue to believe we're entering a multiyear growth cycle for the offshore markets and the increases in floater day rates, contract durations and subsea tree orders are underpinnings for that belief. As a result of the offshore deepwater market concentration over the past eight years, certain oilfield services segments are already in a tight supply situation. This is why I say that energy services are projecting a 25% increase in deepwater floater rigs by 2025. In the fourth quarter, we took steps to further strengthen and expand our offshore completion fluids business with two key investments: the acquisition of the North Sea completion fluids business and acquiring New Parks Completion Fluids inventory and deepwater base in Port Bucha and Louisiana, servicing the Gulf of Mexico. These investments will increase TETRA's fluid capacity by 70% in the UK sector of the North Sea and by almost 15% in deepwater Gulf of Mexico operations. Both operations contributed financially upon close, and approximately 40% of the acquired new park inventory has already been sold. The segment results for completion fluids and products for the fourth quarter of 2022 revenue of $66 million increased from the third quarter of 2022 by 12%. Adjusted EBITDA of $16 million increased $1.3 million sequentially, while adjusted EBITDA margins improved by 40 basis points sequentially when excluding unrealized gains and losses from both periods. Shifting to our Water and Flowback segment, revenues of $81 million grew 52% year-on-year and 7% quarter-on-quarter, and flat slightly down in the active frac fleet market in the fourth quarter, somewhat due to year-end weather. This marks the seventh consecutive quarter of sequential revenue increases and the highest quarterly revenue since the second quarter of 2018. Adjusted EBITDA of $12.1 million improved by $5.2 million or 75% year-on-year. Although adjusted fourth quarter EBITDA margins of 14.9% fell slightly from Q3 mainly due to a mix of lower margin services. For the full year, Water and Flowback revenue for 2022 grew by 66% and adjusted EBITDA increased by 191% for a fall through of slightly over 25%. We achieved our target set for 2022 of a 15% adjusted EBITDA margin, with adjusted EBITDA of $43.4 million or 15.5% of revenue. Growth was driven by capital investments made in technology to expand our fleet of TETRA Sandstorm through international expansion from the deployment of the early production facilities in Argentina and leveraging our investments in automation by reducing operations personnel at the job site. We expect adjusted EBITDA margins to rebound in the first quarter and beyond for the full year of 2023. The international contribution is also expected to increase in 2023 as we bring online an additional EPF in Argentina in the second quarter. To date, the two operating EPFs have been operating consistent with expectations. For 2023, we will continue to invest in new capital projects with short-term returns. But our focus will be on EBITDA margin expansion and cash generation like all new growth as we've achieved over the last couple of years. As previously announced in December, we're very pleased with the results of our first field pilot project for desalination of produced water for beneficial reuse in Texas for a major oil and gas operator. The results yielded as high as 92% desalinated water from the reduced water with total dissolved solids below that of the average municipal tap water. The equipment has returned to our R&D facility and is undergoing further enhancements for a final commercial plant design. With the recent and increasing seismicity events in the Permian Basin, along with expected increases in produced water and disposal restrictions, we continue to see significant customer interest in produced water beneficial reuse, including mineral extraction. Finally, in the fourth quarter, we continued to advance our strategic initiatives including the technical and financial analysis for the development of our bromine and lithium brine resources in the Smackover formation in southwest Arkansas. We issued a press release yesterday announcing the progress on our bromine project with an SK-1300 section 19 report available now on our website for review. A few key points regarding this potential project that supports our continued efforts to fully evaluate this resource development. Our current long-term bromine supply agreement has plenty of runway. So we will be very methodical about our evaluation and investment decision. As a reminder, the inferred resource report provides estimates for both bromine and lithium within our targeted 5000 acres. And although our SK-1300 section 19 report focuses on bromine, 35% of the estimated project CapEx in our section 19 report would be for wells and pipelines for brine production that would have both bromine and lithium in the brine. The proposed bromine plant as part of the Hardgrove feed study would initially support 45% to 50% more volume than our current long-term supply agreement. However, the bromine tower itself is designed to accommodate up to 150% of our current supply agreements. If the multiple conditions that are laid out in our press release from yesterday are met that would support us moving forward on this project we could meet our projected oil and gas demand for this upcoming offshore cycle, as well as what we believe to be a conservative estimate of the energy storage demand. Although methodical in our evaluation, we are committed to putting in the right effort and right resources to fully explore this significant opportunity. Finally, progress with our Woodlands Texas R&D center continues on lithium extraction technology as we're establishing pilot units to address each stage of the process, starting with our raw Smackover brine from our well in Arkansas to successfully producing lithium carbonate, which we've already demonstrated at lab scale. We will continue to communicate our progress as this work advances. With that, I'll turn it over to Elijio to provide some additional commentary. Then we'll open it up for some questions.

Thank you, Brady. Cash from operating activities was a use of $7 million in the fourth quarter while adjusted free cash flow from continuing operations was a use of $14 million in the quarter. Accounts receivable increased by $24 million from the end of the third quarter to the end of the fourth quarter, reflecting the strong ramp-up in activity by the end of the quarter, driven by some large fluid sales in December that Brady previously mentioned. Working capital at the end of the year was $101 million and compares to $87.5 million at the end of the third quarter. Working capital consumed $18.8 million of cash in the fourth quarter as compared to a use of cash of $8.6 million in the third quarter. Capital expenditures were $7.2 million compared to $12 million in the third quarter. Total year capital expenditures were $38 million and reflect the investments made with quick payback investments such as Sandstorm filtration technology and to strengthen our long-term position in international and offshore markets to the investment in early production facilities in Argentina and increase capacity for our short completion fluids business. The payback on this was very evident if our quarterly EBITDA margins increased materially in the second half of the year compared to the first half of 2022. In 2023, we expect to achieve strong revenue growth on lower CapEx investments while monetizing much of the accounts receivable that was built at the end of the year. These combinations will result in significant free cash flow generation in 2023. Capital expenditures in 2023 is expected to be below where we expended in 2022. At the end of the fourth quarter, unrestricted cash was $14 million and availability under our credit agreements was $72 million. As of yesterday, liquidity had improved by the end of the year by $10 million to $95 million with no borrowings under our existing asset-based lending facility. Long-term debt with a September 2025 maturity is $156 million, while net debt is $143 million. Net debt net leverage ratio was 1.99 times at the end of the fourth quarter. Outstanding balances under our term loan have been reduced by over $57 million from $220 million September 30, 2020 to $163 million as of September 31, 2022. In addition to the liquidity and cash I mentioned earlier, we are holding some significant marketable securities. We're currently holding 400,000 shares of standard lithium, with a market value of approximately $1.7 million based on yesterday's closing price. We do not have any restrictions on selling the shares. We expect to receive another 400,000 shares in May. We are also holding approximately 5.1 million common units of CSI compressed gas, with a market value of approximately $7 million based on yesterday's closing price. We also don't have any restrictions from selling these common units. Our investment in CarbonFree is currently valued at approximately $6 million. This one is not publicly traded. The total of these investments is slightly less than $15 million. Recall that in late 2021 we sold the 1.6 million shares that we had accumulated in standard lithium for slightly under $11 per share, generating almost $18 million of cash proceeds. Also, as a reminder, we accumulated approximately $411 million of tax loss carryforwards in the United States that can offset future taxable income. In addition to the $411 million of federal net operating loss carryforwards we also have significant state income tax loss carryforwards and some international tax loss carryforwards. This will become very important as we continue to improve our profitability allowing a higher conversion of net income to cash flow. In 2022, we generated over $11 million of pre-tax income and paid income taxes overseas but no U.S. income taxes. These tax loss carryforwards will also be valuable to us as we look for profits from our Arkansas bromine and lithium investments in the future. I would like now to spend a few minutes on the other press release that we issued last night. Brady mentioned that some of the work that we have been focused upon using a significant amount of internal and external resources has been accomplished. We are taking a very methodical and measured process to assess our Arkansas assets. I want to ensure that our investor base fully understands this process as there are no imminent significant investments to be made. We'll aim to be very transparent as we go through various gates. We previously announced that we had completed an inferred resource study. We estimated the potential amount of bromine and lithium on our leased acreage. An inferred resource is one that is based on limited sampling and is based on reasonably assumed but limited information. Sample might include data that is publicly available, previous geological maps and well data from the surrounding area allow for reasonable assumptions about the size and scope of this resource. We drilled a test well in 2022 that allowed us to capture incremental data points; other than to make some expenditures to further assess this asset, we would not make any significant investment decisions simply on the basis of an inferred resource study. One step up from an inferred resource is an indicated resource study where the quantity, grade and quality, shape, size and contiguity can be more confidently reported. We are drilling a second well to get to this stage. Then the next step is a major resource which represents the highest level of geological knowledge and competence in a resource. At this stage, the resource characteristics are well established through detailed and reliable exploration work. Economic and technical factors can be more competently applied. Mining and production planning can give more detailed estimates of economic viability. The economic analysis we published on our website yesterday is from the inferred resource analysis and from the reservoir modeling that we have done, and from a front-end engineering device study we did with a third-party engineering firm. The economics are preliminary and there is no certainty that the economics contained in the report will be realized. However, the outcome was such that it gives us confidence to invest approximately $5 million to get to the next stage, inclusive of the second test well and further economic assessments. Note that the stages that I just mentioned all arrive at an estimated resource, each with a greater degree of confidence, and each with incremental data points. To move from resources to reserves additional work is required beyond proving the quantities of minerals available to us. To move from resources to reserves, we now need to conduct further engineering economic assessments to demonstrate that we can take these resources and commercialize them successfully. Inferred mineral resources are considered to have the lowest level of geological competence of all mineral resources due to their high degree of uncertainty regarding their existence and whether they can be economically or legally commercialized. A significant amount of exploration work must be completed in order to determine whether inferred resource mineral can be upgraded to a higher category. The difference between a resource and a reserve comes down to a feasibility study, which takes into account non-geological factors. These include technical factors, which include extracting the brine and processing the bromine. This also includes additional economic planning, such as detailed engineering design and environmental information analysis. Our reserve is defined as proven when economic extraction is justified. Our next step is to gather incremental data points to move from inferred to indicated and to complete a feasibility study. This will take several months. From here, we can have more confidence that we can successfully, from an economic point of view, proceed with an investment in wells, pipelines, and a processing plant. The fact that Lanxess and Albemarle are doing exactly what we are evaluating gives us confidence that we are likely to have a successful project if and when we make a decision to move forward. And as a reminder, the knowledge and processes have been in practice for many years, and no new technologies or processes need to be developed to accomplish what we're after. The field study we completed with the engineering firm estimated that the cost of the well resource of brine injection and a build-out of the pipelines and construct the brine to bromine processing facility could be approximately $280 million inclusive of $35 million of contingencies and inclusive of about an estimated $20 million of work to allow us to upsize the facility in the future for potential higher volumes of bromine processing. As Brady mentioned earlier, the $99 million identified for wells and pipelines to extract and move the brine can also be used for lithium in the future. Thus, the $280 million entails an investment that includes what we believe to be significant contingencies. Investments lay the groundwork to increase production in the future and pipelines that can leverage future lithium production. The bromine plan, as we mentioned in our press release, has a multipurpose focus. The first step is to increase the amount of cost-effective bromine available to TETRA above the volumes currently available to us from our long-term agreement to address an expected multiyear growth in the offshore oil and gas market, assuming commodity prices remain relatively constant. TETRA is already experiencing an increase in demand that exceeds volume available under long-term supply agreements. The second is to address emerging demand for zinc bromide-based battery storage, which may be significant if TETRA's pure customers are successful in ramping up their operations. The third is to reduce TETRA's dependence on third-party purchases of bromine by producing bromine and potentially materially lowering production costs. The fourth objective will be to control our own supply chain for the longer term and beyond the life of our current multiyear agreement, we still have several years to go. We also mentioned that we have engaged an investment banking firm to help us identify potential strategic partners should we make the decision to potentially proceed after completing an indicated resource study with a feasibility study to move from resources to reserves. At this point, we have not made a decision to proceed with this investment. The economics based on preliminary work look attractive for us only to move to the next phase of analysis and to reach out to identify potential partners. We are also in preliminary discussions with the Department of Energy discussing opportunities for loans and grants for our bromine project. The final item I like to add is that we'll be participating at the Scotia Howard Weil Conference next Tuesday, hosting one-on-ones and making a presentation Tuesday afternoon that will be webcast. If you'd like to participate, please reach out to me or Brady. Again, I encourage everyone to read our news release that we issued yesterday. The bromine project report we posted to our website and the 10-K that we filed yesterday for all the supporting details and additional financial and operational metrics. Please call me if you would like to discuss any of these items further. I will turn it back over to Brady for closing comments.

Thank you, Elijio. To recap 2022, not only did our base business perform very well, but we've also made significant investments in our business to expand our earnings base in the coming years. Over the last several quarters, we've nearly doubled our fleet of TETRA Sandstorm advanced cyclone technology which remained at a very high utilization. We've also invested in international markets, the deployment of EPS, as well as our completion of fluids business expansion. And we have invested to boost our capacity in the Gulf of Mexico to support increasing deepwater activity. While increased offshore activities are already contributing very meaningfully to our earnings, significant upside remains with deepwater projects due to the CS Neptune offering. As Elijio mentioned, we expect to achieve strong growth in '23 over 2022. That, coupled with our focus on margin expansion and cash generation, will drive meaningful cash flow generation in 2023. We're excited and committed to fully evaluating the Arkansas brine resource, and we'll continue to communicate updates as appropriate. With that, we'll open up to questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. Our first question comes from Martin Malloy with Johnson Rice. Please go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I want to ask about the offshore completion fluids market and certainly seems like there's an inflection point here and activity going on. Could you maybe talk about the pipeline and the visibility as you talk with customers and maybe in particular on the Neptune product?

Yes, Martin. So as we mentioned, we covered our first UK Neptune job. We've previously performed Neptune jobs both in the Gulf of Mexico and in Norway. We have another Norway project that we plan to execute in the second quarter. Our objective has been to get more repetitive projects in our business, as opposed to the lumpiness that we've seen in the past, and I think we're getting some traction with that, certainly in the North Sea. I think we expect to have more repetitive jobs in the North Sea business. The Gulf of Mexico, obviously, these are much larger projects, those four pipelines, where we're very engaged with our customers on those projects. We may see some projects come forward before the end of this year. But it's more likely that we won't see a meaningful uptick in our Neptune opportunities until we get into '24 and beyond.

Great, thank you. And my second question, I want to ask about your flow. And your ability to ramp up assuming that your customers are able to increase capacity and throughput and get the government funding that they're looking for. Can you maybe talk about your ability to ramp PureFlow and any additional CapEx that would be required?

Yes. Our ability to ramp up production of PureFlow through our West Memphis facility requires very little to no capital at our West Memphis production facility. We have plenty of capacity at that plant. The issue really for the longer term is the ramp-up and energy storage. If our customers are successful, as you noted in ramping up the demand levels, it will dramatically exceed our current supply agreement for bromine, which is one of the reasons why we're looking so carefully at our Arkansas project and the timing of that Arkansas project as it relates to the success, potential success of our PureFlow customers because if they are successful based on the demand opportunities, it will have a meaningful impact on the bromine market.

Thanks. Good morning, everybody. Two things for me. And pardon if you hear background noise because I'm in a lobby of a hotel. So I'm sorry about that. When we think about the quarter, it was obviously very good on the top line. And as I started to think about the progression going forward. Was there anything in the quarter that I should be contemplating as I think about sequential performance in the first quarter of 2023? And maybe in addition to that, how should we think about the water and flowback business if we given sort of a plateauing in North American activity right now?

Yes. Yes, Stephen. I will cover the water flow back first. I'd mentioned we've had significant growth in this business for us, quite frankly, the pace of growth that we achieved in 2022 well exceeded the market. When you grow like that, you typically take on some costs, and it's difficult to be as efficient as you would like to be with your business. That caught up with us in the fourth quarter. Some of it was a mix issue where we dropped slightly on our margins, but we fully see a rebound to back to increasing margins as we go forward in Q1 and beyond for the full year. I think from a margin expectation, we would build on the second half of the margins for our water and flow business, the activity that you saw. We feel pretty good about that as well as getting additional contribution from international, particularly Argentina, as we get full years of growth and margins from the two EPS that we have deployed, as well as a third one that is due to come online in the end of the second quarter or start of the third quarter. We fully expect to grow in 2023 based off the investments that we made in 2022 contributions from international but also get back to expanding our origins as we have them. Probably the completion fluid side of the business in Q1. When the market can remain strong, there's always a bit more lumpiness in larger projects that come and go on the completion fluid side, but we feel extremely well positioned to take advantage of this market as we go through the full year of 2023. There's nothing exceptional about the Q1 relative to our Q4 that I would note. We do plan to ramp up in our typical second quarter with our TCE European chemicals business. That business has recovered very nicely, not back to 100% yet due to supply chain disruption that we had. But we are well on our way to getting back to that just in time for our second quarter ramp.

Thank you. And then two other things. One pretty straightforward. Do you think the target for 100 million EBITDA in '23 is reasonable? That's not your target, the street's target I mean that's in the ballpark? You think.

We're going to refrain from providing I'm sorry, we're going to refrain from providing full year guidance. We believe that there's still too many economic factors that move around it unpredictably, such as the recent drop in the price of gas that is out there. So we won't be commenting on full year guidance.

Thank you, Elijio. Considering the exciting opportunities you have right now, if we look ahead 24 months to early 2025, where do you see the company? What do you think will be the main drivers of earnings, and how do you envision TETRA in two years?

Yes. So I mean, I think we're very pleased with the current position of our two business segments. I think our water and flowback business, even though frac activity may have plateaued some, we still have considerable growth opportunities on the produced water side, particularly with our desalination and beneficial reuse and mineral extraction. I think that's a whole new market that no one is benefiting from today. We actually think we have a really good leadership position in that space to benefit from whether it's 24 months or whether it's 48 months that will be remaining to be determined, but the opportunities are there. We feel good about our ability to lead in that effort. On our completion fluid side, as I said, I think we're in the early stages of a really strong offshore market. I think our Neptune projects will be hitting with a higher cadence, certainly in that period of time. I'm hopeful that our Arkansas project will be fully evaluated, and we will have met the criteria that we've listed to move forward with that project, which if we're successful, will be somewhat game-changing for the company.

Thanks. And it was nice to see the detailed preliminary economic assessment on the bromine project. My first question, Elijio, how should we think about free cash flow generation potentially for this year that you could have a little bit more calcium chloride supply build-up? Just kind of wondering is 30 million free cash flow in the realm of possibility, given all the puts and takes?

So we expect EBITDA '23 to be above '24. We expect capital expenditures to be lower '23 versus '22. While we will be pleased to see a spike in yearend activity, like we saw at the end of '22, we don't think that's going to happen. So we think working capital will be neutral, worst case, positive best case. So we expect that we will be strongly free cash flow positive in 2023.

Yes. That's helpful. And you reported the volume potential for the bromine project compared to your long-term supply. It was nice to see that it was 45% to 50% more. Can you give us any rough sense of maybe how much lower your cost of bromine could be after the project's done, I don't know, a year out after it's proficiently operating well, compared to your supply now. I mean, we talking like a 30% savings?

Yes, Tim. For competitive reasons, we're not giving specifics on that. Hopefully, you can tell from the financial information that we included in our economic assessment what the profitability of the project could be if we're successful. But we're not giving specific details on bromine costs or purchase prices that we pay.

Understood. I had to try. But I heard your comments earlier. Has mentioned, maybe I misunderstood that did you expect to spend 5 million more for kind of a second-stage drilling and any sense of maybe what your exploration pre-development cost could be this year, and I believe they were 6.6 million last year?

So we're going to drill an exploration well; that's probably going to run into $2.5 million to $3 million range. But we have some other efforts that we plan to kick off this year, potentially a pre-feasibility study, some additional engineering that is accounted for in our full budget for this year for our consultant. Our intention is really to ensure we get to an indicated resource report. We've got one well planned for that. We're hopeful that will be enough information to get us to an indicated resource report. But until we drill that well and get the results there could always be another well, we may have to get that to finally get there. But that's our expectations.

That's helpful. Thanks for that color. And I’m just curious on how's that new automated drill-out technology going and when do you think maybe those sales could be a material figure? Do they kick in more spring or summer?

Yes. We actually have a lot of interest in that unit. We, at this point, because of the capital associated with a term, we're probably only going to do take or pay for long-term contracts for that unit. We are in discussions with several operators in that regard. That's an area we're going to be ensuring we have long-term commitments before we start putting additional capital into it. We think we'll get there. But those are ongoing discussions.

That's helpful. And then just lastly, my last question is on the desalination and produced water. I'm always curious about this. I've got a two-part question. Is there any update on the regulatory agencies review and possible approval timing? And then it also sounds like you've learned a few things, doing that pilot. Just wondering if you can elaborate on that you refined the membrane sizes for pre-treatment, or do you have any tiny tweaks that are showing better efficiency?

Right. So on the regulatory side, it's apparent that each operator of the produced water is going to have to get their own permits for the produced water projects. The project that we work on with our pilot project is in process. We've seen the requirements for the regulatory and we feel very confident that our technology will meet those requirements, but each operator is going to have to go through a permitting process before we can deploy a desalination unit to the project. As far as the pilot goes itself, the membrane technologies, whether it's the KMS, or the high pressure technology that we have negotiated agreements with, performed extremely well. In this case, the pretreatment also performed well, but we've got to do some field worthiness and kind of long-term plant design upgrades to both, primarily the pre-treatment, that's pretty critical to the process. And that's the stage that we're performing right now before we would be ready to take on a long-term plan.

Hey, guys. So most of my questions have been answered, but I wanted to drill down a little bit more on this produce water initiative. So you mentioned that each operator needs their own permit for their own projects. I'm kind of wondering how you're thinking about that in terms of as you do start to deploy this technology? Are you taking a similar model as like how you deploy the sandstorm technology where you're just going to lease it? Or do you need to partner up with a large producer to have more scale as you start to roll out that new initiative?

Yes, Samantha, good morning. So, each project, I think, is going to be very specific to that operator. I think you're going to see projects range from a 10,000 barrel a day, which will be a smallish project but again, this is a 10, 15-year, 20-year potentially type of plan and up to potentially 100,000 barrels a day or more. The capital costs associated with each of those are going to be very different. Whether the customers will fund the capital for the projects or we will fund them, if they're smaller, we're going to take that on a case-by-case basis, Samantha, based on how we see the opportunity and the operators that kind of partnership agreement. So for deepwater I think we gave an example in our press release yesterday our team estimates about 70% of the deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico, as an example, require a bromine-based completion fluid. We estimate we have roughly a 30% market share of what we call high-value completion fluids, which typically contain bromine and that would be North Sea deepwater, Gulf of Mexico deepwater, and Brazil deepwater. A little less so in other markets, but overall, we think we have a very strong position with our high-value completion fluids business.

The next question is a follow-up from Martin Malloy with Johnson Rice. Please go ahead.

Thank you, just had one follow-up. CarbonFree. I saw the announcement that they made with respect to collaborating with BP on developing solutions for industrial facilities. Anything to report there in terms of the potential demand for calcium chloride for these type of projects?

Yes. We saw the announcement as well. And we know that CarbonFree had been working with BP for some time and is actually one of our investors in CarbonFree. We continue to engage very carefully with CarbonFree as they look for the deployments of their plants. I know you have a stay in touch with their CFO quite a bit for any update from your side?

Yes, so CarbonFree from our dialogue with them continues to make progress with their pilot plant, whether the design of technology. Clearly the announcement with BP is a further endorsement of their technology. We believe that their next step is to secure the proper capital, then launch their program. Once they get to that stage, we expect to participate with them. But practically speaking, we think that any significant calcium chloride sales to them is still quite a bit out, a minimum of a year before they have any significant impact.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Murphy for any closing remarks.

Thank you very much for joining us on our call. That concludes our Q4 earnings call. Thank you.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may all now disconnect.