CONCENTRATIONS, SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

At September 30, 2017 and 2016 and for each of the nine months then ended, the Company’s revenues and receivables were comprised of the following customer concentrations:



	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2017		Nine Months Ended September 30, 2016
	% of Revenues	% of Receivables	% of Revenues	% of Receivables
Customer 1	19%	—%	24%	10%
Customer 2	13%	3%	9%	4%
Customer 3	10%	7%	9%	7%
Customer 4	9%	23%	5%	—%
Customer 5	—%	10%	—%	13%
Customer 6	4%	3%	12%	5%

At September 30, 2017 and 2016 and for each of the nine months then ended, the Company's segment revenues were comprised of the following customer concentrations:



	% of Revenue by Segment			% Revenue by Segment
	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2017			Nine Months Ended September 30, 2016
	Black Oil	Refining	Recovery	Black Oil	Refining	Recovery
Customer 1	100%	—%	—%	100%	—%	—%
Customer 2	100%	—%	—%	100%	—%	—%
Customer 3	—%	100%	—%	—%	100%	—%
Customer 4	100%	—%	—%	100%	—%	—%
Customer 5	—%	—%	100%	—%	—%	100%
Customer 6	100%	—%	—%	100%	—%	—%

The Company had zero vendors that represented 10% of total purchases for the nine months and three months ended September 30, 2017. The Company had one vendor that represented 10% of total purchases for the nine months ending September 30, 2016.

In February 2013, Bank of America agreed to lease the Company equipment to enhance the Thermal Chemical Extraction Process (“TCEP”) operation, which went into effect in April 2013. Under the current terms of the lease agreement, 13 monthly payments remain of approximately $13,328 each.

The Company’s revenue, profitability and future rate of growth are substantially dependent on prevailing prices for petroleum-based products. Historically, the energy markets have been very volatile, and there can be no assurance that these prices will not be subject to wide fluctuations in the future. A substantial or extended decline in such prices could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, cash flows, access to capital, and the quantities of petroleum-based products that the Company can economically produce.

Litigation:

The Company, in its normal course of business, is involved in various other claims and legal action. We are currently party to the following material litigation proceedings:

Vertex Refining LA, LLC ("Vertex Refining LA"), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, LLC, our wholly-owned subsidiary ("Vertex Operating") was named as a defendant, along with numerous other parties, in five lawsuits filed on or about February 12, 2016, in the Second Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, Case No. 121749, by Russell Doucet et. al., Case No. 121750, by Kendra Cannon et. al., Case No. 121751, by Lashawn Jones et. al., Case No. 121752, by Joan Strauss et. al. and Case No. 121753, by Donna Allen et. al. The suits relate to alleged noxious and harmful emissions from our facility located in Marrero, Louisiana. The suits seek damages for physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and deprivation of the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ homes. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves and oppose the relief sought in the complaints, provided that at this stage of the litigation, the Company has no basis for determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation.

E-Source Holdings, LLC ("E-Source"), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson County, Texas, on April 22, 2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole Environmental, Inc. ("Whole"), made certain allegations against E-Source and Motiva. The claims include Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed for defendants at Motiva's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. The plaintiff alleges it is due monies earned. Defendants have denied any amounts due to plaintiff. The suit seeks damages of approximately $864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to be converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees. E-Source has asserted a counterclaim against Whole for the filing of a mechanic's lien in excess of any amount(s) actually due, as well as a cross-claim against Motiva. Under the terms of E-Source's contract with Motiva, Motiva was to pay all sums due to any sub-contractors of E-Source. In management's opinion, any monies due to Whole, should be paid by Motiva. E-Source seeks to recover the balance due under its contract with Motiva of approximately $1,000,000. The case is set for trial in the spring of 2018. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the complaint. The Company has no basis of determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation.