UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
_____________________________________________________________
Form 10-K
(Mark One) | |
þ | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 | |
OR | |
o | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to . | |
Commission file number: 001-33492
_____________________________________________________________
CVR Energy, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) | 61-1512186 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
2277 Plaza Drive, Suite 500 Sugar Land, Texas (Address of Principal Executive Offices) | 77479 (Zip Code) |
Registrant's Telephone Number, including Area Code:
(281) 207-3200
_____________________________________________________________
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of Each Class | Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered |
Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share | The New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 or Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer þ | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer o | Smaller reporting company o |
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | |||
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed based on the New York Stock Exchange closing price on June 28, 2013 (the last business day of the registrant's second fiscal quarter) was $740,972,489. Shares of the registrant's common stock held by each executive officer and director and by each entity or person that, to the registrant's knowledge, owned 10% or more of the registrant's outstanding common stock as of June 28, 2013 have been excluded from this number in that these persons may be deemed affiliates of the registrant. This determination of possible affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.
Class | Outstanding at February 18, 2014 |
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share | 86,831,050 shares |
Documents Incorporated By Reference
Document | Parts Incorporated |
Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders | Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page | ||
1
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS
The following are definitions of certain terms used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (this "Report").
2-1-1 crack spread — The approximate gross margin resulting from processing two barrels of crude oil to produce one barrel of gasoline and one barrel of distillate. The 2-1-1 crack spread is expressed in dollars per barrel.
ammonia — Ammonia is a direct application fertilizer and is primarily used as a building block for other nitrogen products for industrial applications and finished fertilizer products.
barrel — Common unit of measure in the oil industry which equates to 42 gallons.
blendstocks — Various compounds that are combined with gasoline or diesel from the crude oil refining process to make finished gasoline and diesel fuel; these may include natural gasoline, fluid catalytic cracking unit or FCCU gasoline, ethanol, reformate or butane, among others.
bpd — Abbreviation for barrels per day.
bpcd — Abbreviation for barrels per calendar day, which refers to the total number of barrels processed in a refinery within a year, divided by 365 days, thus reflecting all operational and logistical limitations.
Brent — Brent crude oil, a light sweet crude oil characterized by an American Petroleum Institute gravity ("API gravity") of approximately 38 degrees, and a sulfur content of approximately 0.4 weight percent.
bulk sales — Volume sales through third-party pipelines, in contrast to tanker truck quantity rack sales.
capacity — Capacity is defined as the throughput a process unit is capable of sustaining, either on a calendar or stream day basis. The throughput may be expressed in terms of maximum sustainable, nameplate or economic capacity. The maximum sustainable or nameplate capacities may not be the most economical. The economic capacity is the throughput that generally provides the greatest economic benefit based on considerations such as feedstock costs, product values and downstream unit constraints.
catalyst — A substance that alters, accelerates, or instigates chemical changes, but is neither produced, consumed nor altered in the process.
contango market — Market situation in which prices for future delivery are higher than the current or spot market price of the commodity. The opposite of backwardation market.
corn belt — The primary corn producing region of the United States, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.
crack spread — A simplified calculation that measures the difference between the price for light products and crude oil. For example, the 2-1-1 crack spread is often referenced and represents the approximate gross margin resulting from processing two barrels of crude oil to produce one barrel of gasoline and one barrel of distillate.
distillates — Primarily diesel fuel, kerosene and jet fuel.
ethanol — A clear, colorless, flammable oxygenated hydrocarbon. Ethanol is typically produced chemically from ethylene, or biologically from fermentation of various sugars from carbohydrates found in agricultural crops and cellulosic residues from crops or wood. It is used in the United States as a gasoline octane enhancer and oxygenate.
farm belt — Refers to the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
feedstocks — Petroleum products, such as crude oil and natural gas liquids, that are processed and blended into refined products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel during the refining process.
Group 3 — A geographic subset of the PADD II region comprising refineries in Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa. Current Group 3 refineries include the Refining Partnership's Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries; the Valero Ardmore refinery in Ardmore, OK; HollyFrontier's Tulsa refinery in Tulsa, OK and El Dorado refinery in El Dorado, KS; Phillips 66's Ponca City refinery in Ponca City, OK; and NCRA's refinery in McPherson, KS.
heavy crude oil — A relatively inexpensive crude oil characterized by high relative density and viscosity. Heavy crude oils require greater levels of processing to produce high value products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.
2
independent petroleum refiner — A refiner that does not have crude oil exploration or production operations. An independent refiner purchases the crude oil used as feedstock in its refinery operations from third parties.
light crude oil — A relatively expensive crude oil characterized by low relative density and viscosity. Light crude oils require lower levels of processing to produce high value products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.
Magellan — Magellan Midstream Partners L.P., a publicly traded company whose business is the transportation, storage and distribution of refined petroleum products.
MMBtu — One million British thermal units or Btu: a measure of energy. One Btu of heat is required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.
MSCF — One thousand standard cubic feet, a customary gas measurement unit.
natural gas liquids — Natural gas liquids, often referred to as NGLs, are both feedstocks used in the manufacture of refined fuels and products of the refining process. Common NGLs used include propane, isobutane, normal butane and natural gasoline.
Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership IPO — The initial public offering of 22,080,000 common units representing limited partner interests of CVR Partners, LP (the "Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership"), which closed on April 13, 2011.
PADD II — Midwest Petroleum Area for Defense District which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
plant gate price — The unit price of fertilizer, in dollars per ton, offered on a delivered basis and excluding shipment costs.
prepaid sales — Represents customer payments under contracts to guarantee a price and supply of fertilizer in quantities expected to be delivered in the next twelve months. Revenue is not recorded for such sales until the product is considered delivered. Prepaid sales are also referred to as deferred revenue.
petroleum coke (pet coke) — A coal-like substance that is produced during the refining process.
rack sales — Sales which are made at terminals into third-party tanker trucks.
refined products — Petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel, that are produced by a refinery.
Refining Partnership IPO — The initial public offering of 27,600,000 common units representing limited partner interests of CVR Refining, LP (the "Refining Partnership"), which closed on January 23, 2013 (which includes the underwriters' subsequently-exercised option to purchase additional common units).
Secondary Offering — The registered public offering of 12,000,000 common units representing limited partner interests of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, which closed on May 28, 2013.
sour crude oil — A crude oil that is relatively high in sulfur content, requiring additional processing to remove the sulfur. Sour crude oil is typically less expensive than sweet crude oil.
spot market — A market in which commodities are bought and sold for cash and delivered immediately.
sweet crude oil — A crude oil that is relatively low in sulfur content, requiring less processing to remove the sulfur. Sweet crude oil is typically more expensive than sour crude oil.
throughput — The volume processed through a unit or a refinery or transported on a pipeline.
turnaround — A periodically required standard procedure to inspect, refurbish, repair and maintain the refinery or nitrogen fertilizer plant assets. This process involves the shutdown and inspection of major processing units and occurs every four to five years for the refineries and every two to three years for the nitrogen fertilizer plant.
UAN — An aqueous solution of urea and ammonium nitrate used as a fertilizer.
Underwritten Offering — The underwritten offering of 13,209,236 common units of the Refining Partnership, which closed on May 20, 2013 (which includes the underwriters’ subsequently-exercised option to purchase additional common units).
WCS — Western Canadian Select crude oil, a medium to heavy, sour crude oil, characterized by an API gravity of between 20 and 22 degrees and a sulfur content of approximately 3.3 weight percent.
3
WEC — Gary-Williams Energy Corporation, subsequently converted to Gary-Williams Energy Company, LLC and now known as Wynnewood Energy Company, LLC.
WRC — Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC, the owner of the Wynnewood, Oklahoma refinery and related assets with a rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd.
WTI — West Texas Intermediate crude oil, a light, sweet crude oil, characterized by an API gravity between 39 and 41 degrees and a sulfur content of approximately 0.4 weight percent that is used as a benchmark for other crude oils.
WTS — West Texas Sour crude oil, a relatively light, sour crude oil characterized by an API gravity of between 30 and 32 degrees and a sulfur content of approximately 2.0 weight percent.
Wynnewood Acquisition — The acquisition by the Company of all the outstanding shares of WEC and its subsidiaries, which owned the Wynnewood, Oklahoma refinery with a rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd and 2.0 million barrels of storage tanks, on December 15, 2011. As of January 2013, WRC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Refining, LLC. It was previously a wholly-owned subsidiary of WEC.
yield — The percentage of refined products that is produced from crude oil and other feedstocks.
4
PART I
Item 1. Business
CVR Energy, Inc. and, unless the context otherwise requires, its subsidiaries ("CVR Energy," the "Company," "we," "us," or "our") is a diversified holding company primarily engaged in the petroleum refining and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing industries through its holdings in CVR Refining, LP ("CVR Refining" or the "Refining Partnership") and CVR Partners, LP ("CVR Partners" or the "Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership"). The Refining Partnership is an independent petroleum refiner and marketer of high value transportation fuels. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership produces and markets nitrogen fertilizers in the form of UAN and ammonia. We own the general partner and a majority of the common units representing limited partner interests in each of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. CVR Energy's common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "CVI", the Refining Partnership's common units are listed on the NYSE under the symbol "CVRR" and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units are listed on the NYSE under the symbol "UAN."
The petroleum business consists of a complex full coking medium-sour crude oil refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas with a rated capacity of 115,000 bpcd and, as of December 15, 2011, a crude oil unit refinery in Wynnewood, Oklahoma with a rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd. In addition to the refineries, the petroleum business owns and operates:
• | a crude oil gathering system with a gathering capacity of approximately 55,000 bpd serving Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas which is supported by approximately 350 miles of owned and leased pipeline; |
• | a rack marketing division supplying product through tanker trucks directly to customers located in close geographic proximity to Coffeyville, Kansas and Wynnewood, Oklahoma and to customers at throughput terminals on Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ("Magellan") and NuStar Energy, LP's ("NuStar") refined products distribution systems; and |
• | a 145,000 bpd pipeline system that transports crude oil to the Coffeyville refinery with 1.2 million barrels of associated company-owned storage tanks, 0.5 million barrels of company-owned crude oil storage tanks in Wynnewood, Oklahoma, 1.0 million barrels of company owned crude oil storage capacity in Cushing, Oklahoma and an additional 3.3 million barrels of leased crude oil storage capacity located at Cushing. |
The nitrogen fertilizer business consists of a nitrogen fertilizer facility in Coffeyville, Kansas that is the only operation in North America that uses a petroleum coke, or pet coke, gasification process to produce nitrogen fertilizer. The nitrogen fertilizer facility includes a 1,225 ton-per-day ammonia unit, a 3,000 ton-per-day UAN unit and a gasifier complex with built-in redundancy having a capacity of 84 million standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen. A majority of the ammonia produced by the nitrogen fertilizer plant is further upgraded to higher margin UAN, an aqueous solution of urea and ammonium nitrate, which has historically commanded a premium price over ammonia. The nitrogen fertilizer business completed a significant two-year plant expansion in February 2013, which increased its UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons, or approximately 50%, per year. In 2013, the nitrogen fertilizer business produced 930,643 tons of UAN and 401,971 tons of ammonia. Approximately 95% of the produced ammonia tons and substantially all of the purchased ammonia were upgraded into UAN.
We have two business segments: petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer. For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, we generated consolidated net sales of $9.0 billion, $8.6 billion and $5.0 billion, respectively, and operating income of $710.5 million, $1,034.9 million and $566.6 million, respectively. The petroleum business generated $8.7 billion, $8.3 billion and $4.8 billion of net sales and the nitrogen fertilizer business generated $323.7 million, $302.3 million and $302.9 million of net sales, in each case, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The petroleum business generated operating income of $603.0 million, $1,012.5 million and $465.7 million and the nitrogen fertilizer business generated operating income of $124.9 million, $115.8 million and $136.2 million, in each case, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Our consolidated results of operations include certain other unallocated corporate activities and the elimination of intercompany transactions and, therefore, are not a sum of the operating results of the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses.
Our History
The Coffeyville refinery, which began operations in 1906, and the nitrogen fertilizer plant, built in 2000, were operated as components of Farmland Industries, Inc. ("Farmland") until March 3, 2004, the date on which Coffeyville Resources, LLC ("CRLLC") completed the acquisition of these assets through a bankruptcy court auction.
5
On June 24, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC ("CALLC"), which was formed by certain funds affiliated with Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Kelso & Company, L.P. (the "Goldman Sachs Funds" and the "Kelso Funds," respectively), acquired these businesses. CALLC operated our business from June 24, 2005 until CVR Energy's initial public offering in October 2007.
CVR Energy was formed in September 2006 as a subsidiary of CALLC in order to consummate an initial public offering of its businesses. CVR Energy consummated its initial public offering on October 26, 2007. The Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds completely sold their ownership interests by February 2011 and May 2011, respectively.
On April 13, 2011, the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership completed the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership IPO. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership sold 22,080,000 common units at a price of $16.00 per common unit, resulting in gross proceeds of $353.3 million. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units are listed on the NYSE and are traded under the symbol "UAN." In connection with the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership IPO, the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership paid approximately $24.7 million in underwriting fees and incurred approximately $4.4 million of other offering costs. As a result of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership IPO and through May 27, 2013, CVR Energy indirectly owned approximately 70% of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's outstanding common units and 100% of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner with its non-economic general partner interest.
On December 15, 2011, CVR Energy acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of WEC for $593.4 million, consisting of an initial cash payment of $525.0 million, capital expenditure adjustments of $1.8 million and $66.6 million for working capital (the "Wynnewood Acquisition"). Assets acquired include a 70,000 bpcd rated capacity refinery in Wynnewood, Oklahoma and approximately 2.0 million barrels of company-owned storage tanks.
On April 18, 2012, CVR Energy entered into a Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction Agreement") with IEP Energy LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively "IEP"). Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, IEP offered (the "Offer") to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of CVR Energy's common stock for a price of $30.00 per share in cash, without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes, plus one non-transferable contingent cash payment ("CCP") right for each share, which represented the contractual right to receive an additional cash payment per share if a definitive agreement for the sale of CVR Energy was executed on or before August 18, 2013 and such transaction closed. As no sale of the Company was executed by the date outlined in the Transaction Agreement, the CCPs expired on August 19, 2013.
In May 2012, IEP acquired a majority of the common stock of CVR Energy through the Offer. As of December 31, 2013, IEP owned approximately 82% of CVR Energy’s outstanding common stock.
On January 23, 2013, the Refining Partnership completed the Refining Partnership IPO. The Refining Partnership sold 24,000,000 common units at a price of $25.00 per common unit, resulting in gross proceeds of $600.0 million. Of the common units issued, 4,000,000 units were purchased by an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises. Additionally, on January 30, 2013, the underwriters closed their option to purchase an additional 3,600,000 common units at a price of $25.00 per common unit resulting in gross proceeds of $90.0 million. The common units, which are listed on the NYSE, began trading on January 17, 2013 under the symbol "CVRR." In connection with the Refining Partnership IPO, the Refining Partnership paid approximately $32.5 million in underwriting fees and incurred approximately $3.9 million of other offering costs.
Following the Refining Partnership IPO and through May 19, 2013, CVR Energy indirectly owned approximately 81% of the Refining Partnership's outstanding common units and 100% of the Refining Partnership's general partner, which holds a non-economic general partner interest. Prior to the Refining Partnership IPO, CVR owned 100% of the Refining Partnership and net income earned during this period was fully attributable to the Company. Accordingly, our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 contained in this Report do not reflect any noncontrolling interest in the Refining Partnership.
On May 20, 2013, the Refining Partnership completed an underwritten offering (the "Underwritten Offering") by selling 12,000,000 common units to the public at a price of $30.75 per unit. American Entertainment Properties Corporation ("AEPC"), an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises LP, also purchased an additional 2,000,000 common units at the public offering price in a privately negotiated transaction with a subsidiary of CVR Energy, which was completed on May 29, 2013. In connection with the Underwritten Offering, on June 10, 2013, the Refining Partnership sold an additional 1,209,236 common units to the public at a price of $30.75 per unit in connection with a partial exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase additional common units. The transactions described in this paragraph are collectively referred to as the "Transactions." In connection with the Transactions, the Refining Partnership paid approximately $12.2 million in underwriting fees and approximately $0.4 million in offering costs.
The Refining Partnership utilized proceeds of approximately $394.0 million from the Underwritten Offering (including the underwriters' option) to redeem 13,209,236 common units from CVR Refining Holdings, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy. The net proceeds to a subsidiary of CVR Energy from the sale of 2,000,000 common units to AEPC were
6
approximately $61.5 million. The Refining Partnership did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of common units by CVR Energy to AEPC.
Subsequent to the closing of the Transactions and as of December 31, 2013, public security holders held approximately 29% of the total Refining Partnership common units (including units owned by affiliates of Icahn Enterprises representing 4% of the total Refining Partnership common units), and CVR Refining Holdings held approximately 71% of the total Refining Partnership common units. In addition, CVR Refining Holdings, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy, owns 100% of the Refining Partnership’s general partner, CVR Refining GP, LLC, which holds a non-economic general partner interest.
On May 28, 2013, Coffeyville Resources, LLC ("CRLLC") completed a registered public offering (the "Secondary Offering") whereby it sold 12,000,000 Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership common units to the public at a price of $25.15 per unit. The net proceeds to CRLLC from the Secondary Offering were approximately $292.6 million, after deducting approximately $9.2 million in underwriting discounts and commissions. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of common units by CRLLC. In connection with the Secondary Offering, the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership incurred approximately $0.5 million in offering costs.
Subsequent to the closing of the Secondary Offering and as of December 31, 2013, public security holders held approximately 47% of the total outstanding Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership common units, and CRLLC held approximately 53% of the total Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership common units. In addition, CRLLC owns 100% of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s general partner, CVR GP, LLC, which only holds a non-economic general partner interest.
We operate under two business segments: petroleum (the petroleum and related businesses operated by the Refining Partnership) and nitrogen fertilizer (the nitrogen fertilizer business operated by the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership). Throughout the remainder of this document, our business segments are referred to as the "petroleum business" and the "nitrogen fertilizer business," respectively.
7
Organizational Structure and Related Ownership
The following chart illustrates our organizational structure and the organizational structure of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership as of the date of this Report.
8
Petroleum Business
The petroleum business includes a complex full coking medium-sour crude oil refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas with a rated capacity of 115,000 bpcd and, as of December 15, 2011, a crude oil unit refinery in Wynnewood, Oklahoma with a rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd capable of processing 20,000 bpcd of light sour crude oil (within its rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd). The combined crude capacity represents approximately 22% of the region's refining capacity. The Coffeyville refinery is situated on approximately 440 acres in southeast Kansas, approximately 100 miles from Cushing, Oklahoma, a major crude oil trading and storage hub. The Wynnewood refinery is situated on approximately 400 acres located approximately 65 miles south of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and approximately 130 miles from Cushing, Oklahoma.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Coffeyville refinery's product yield included gasoline (47%), diesel fuel (primarily ultra-low sulfur diesel) (42%), and pet coke and other refined products such as natural gas liquids ("NGL") (propane and butane), slurry, sulfur and gas oil (11%). The Wynnewood refinery's product yield included gasoline (49%), diesel fuel (primarily ultra-low sulfur diesel) (37%), asphalt (7%), jet fuel (4%) and other products (3%).
The petroleum business also includes the following auxiliary operating assets:
• | Crude Oil Gathering System. The petroleum business owns and operates a crude oil gathering system serving Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas. The system has field offices in Bartlesville and Pauls Valley, Oklahoma and Plainville, Winfield and Iola, Kansas. The system is comprised of approximately 350 miles of feeder and trunk pipelines, approximately 150 crude oil transports, and associated storage facilities for gathering crude oils purchased from independent crude oil producers in our gathering area. The petroleum business also leases several sections of a pipeline from Magellan, which is incorporated into its crude oil gathering system. The crude oil gathering system has a gathering capacity of approximately 55,000 bpd. Gathered crude oil provides an attractive and competitive base supply of crude oil for the Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries. During 2013, the petroleum business gathered an average of approximately 53,000 bpd. We also have 35,000 bpd of contracted capacity on the Keystone and Spearhead pipelines that allow us to supply price-advantaged Canadian and Bakken crudes to our refineries. |
• | Pipelines and Storage Tanks. The petroleum business owns a proprietary pipeline system capable of transporting approximately 145,000 bpd of crude oil from its Broome Station tank farm located near Caney, Kansas to its Coffeyville refinery. Crude oils sourced outside of the proprietary gathering system are delivered by common carrier pipelines into various terminals in Cushing, Oklahoma, where they are blended and then delivered to the Broome Station tank farm via a pipeline owned by Plains Pipeline L.P. ("Plains"). The petroleum business also controls associated crude oil storage tanks with a capacity of approximately 1.2 million barrels located outside the Coffeyville refinery, 0.5 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity at Wynnewood, Oklahoma, 1.0 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity in Cushing, Oklahoma and leases an additional 3.3 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity located at Cushing. In addition to crude oil storage, the petroleum business owns approximately 4.5 million barrels of combined refinery related storage capacity. |
The refineries' complexity allows the petroleum business to optimize the yields (the percentage of refined product that is produced from crude oil and other feedstocks) of higher value transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel). Complexity is a measure of a refinery's ability to process lower quality crude oil in an economic manner. The two refineries' capacity weighted average complexity is 11.5. As a result of key investments in its refining assets, the Coffeyville refinery's complexity score increased to 12.9 in 2012 from 12.2 in 2010, which remained consistent in 2013. The petroleum business has achieved significant increases in its refinery crude oil throughput rate over historical levels. The Wynnewood refinery has a complexity of 9.3 and is capable of processing a variety of crudes, including WTS, WTI, sweet and sour Canadian and U.S. Gulf Coast crudes. The petroleum business' higher complexity provides it the flexibility to increase its refining margin over comparable refiners with lower complexities.
Crude and Feedstock Supply
The Coffeyville refinery has the capability to process blends of a variety of crude oil ranging from heavy sour to light sweet crude oil. Currently, the Coffeyville refinery crude oil slate consists of a blend of mid-continent domestic grades and various Canadian medium and heavy sours. The early June 2012 reversal of the Seaway Pipeline that now flows from Cushing, Oklahoma to the U.S. Gulf Coast has eliminated the ability to source foreign waterborne crude from around the world, as well as deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico produced sweet and sour crude oil grades. While crude oil has historically constituted over 90% of the Coffeyville refinery's total throughput over the last five years, other feedstock inputs include normal butane, natural gasoline, alkylation feeds, naphtha, gas oil and vacuum tower bottoms.
The Wynnewood refinery has the capability to process blends of a variety of crude oil ranging from medium sour to light sweet crude oil, although isobutane, gasoline components, and normal butane are also typically used. Historically most of the
9
Wynnewood refinery's crude oil has been acquired domestically, mainly from Texas and Oklahoma, but it can also access and process various light and medium Canadian grades.
Crude oil is supplied to the Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries through the wholly-owned gathering system and by pipeline. The petroleum business has continued to increase the number of barrels of crude oil supplied through its crude oil gathering system in 2013 and it now has the capacity of supplying approximately 55,000 bpd of crude oil to the refineries. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the gathering system supplied approximately 40% of the Coffeyville refinery's crude oil demand and 13% of the Wynnewood refinery's crude oil demand, respectively. Locally produced crude oils are delivered to the refineries at a discount to WTI, and although slightly heavier and more sour, offer good economics to the refineries. These crude oils are light and sweet enough to allow the refineries to blend higher percentages of lower cost crude oils such as heavy sour Canadian crude oil while maintaining their target medium sour blend with an API gravity of between 28 and 36 degrees and between 0.9% and 1.2% sulfur. Crude oils sourced outside of the proprietary gathering system are delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma by various pipelines including Basin, Keystone and Spearhead pipelines, and subsequently to the Broome Station tank farm via the Plains pipeline. From the Broome Station tank farm, crude oil is delivered to the Coffeyville refinery via the petroleum business' 145,000 bpd proprietary pipeline system. Crude oils are delivered to the Wynnewood refinery by two separate pipelines, and received into storage tanks at terminals located on or near the refinery.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Coffeyville refinery's crude oil supply blend was comprised of approximately 82% light sweet crude oil and 18% heavy sour crude oil. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Wynnewood refinery's crude oil supply blend was comprised of approximately 76% sweet crude oil and 24% light/medium sour crude oil. The light sweet crude oil supply blend includes its locally gathered crude oil.
The Coffeyville refinery is connected to the mid-continent natural gas liquids commercial hub of Conway, Kansas by the inbound Enterprise Pipeline Blue Line. Natural gas liquids feedstock supplies such as butanes and natural gasoline are sourced and delivered directly into the refinery. In addition, Coffeyville's proximity to Conway provides access to the natural gas liquid and liquid petroleum gas ("LPG") fractionation and storage capabilities as well as the commercial markets available at Conway.
The outbound Enterprise Pipeline Red Line provides Coffeyville with access to the NuStar Refined Products Pipeline system. This allows gasoline and ultra-low sulfur diesel ("ULSD") product sales from Kansas up to North Dakota.
Crude Oil Supply Agreement
In August 2012, the petroleum business entered into a Crude Oil Supply Agreement (the "Vitol Agreement") with Vitol Inc. ("Vitol"). Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies us with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps us to reduce our inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. The Vitol Agreement has an initial term commencing August 31, 2012 and extending through December 31, 2014 (the "Initial Term"). Following the Initial Term, the Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term.
Marketing and Distribution
The petroleum business focuses its Coffeyville petroleum product marketing efforts in the central mid-continent area, because of its relative proximity to the refinery and pipeline access. Coffeyville also has access to the Rocky Mountain area. Coffeyville engages in rack marketing, which is the supply of product through tanker trucks directly to customers located in close geographic proximity to the refinery and to customers at throughput terminals on the refined products distribution systems of Magellan and NuStar. Coffeyville also makes bulk sales (sales into third-party pipelines) into the mid-continent markets and other destinations utilizing the product pipeline networks owned by Magellan, Enterprise and NuStar.
The Wynnewood refinery ships its finished product via pipeline, railcar, and truck. It focuses its efforts in the southern portion of the Magellan system which covers all of Oklahoma, parts of Arkansas as well as eastern Missouri, and all other Magellan terminals. The pipeline system is also able to flow in the opposite direction, providing access to Texas markets as well as some adjoining states with pipeline connections. Wynnewood also sells jet fuel to the U.S. Department of Defense via its segregated truck rack and can offer asphalts, solvents and other specialty products via both truck and rail.
Customers
Customers for the refined petroleum products primarily include retailers, railroads, and farm cooperatives and other refiners/marketers in Group 3 of the PADD II region because of their relative proximity to the refineries and pipeline access. The petroleum business sells bulk products to long-standing customers at spot market prices based on a Group 3 basis differential to prices quoted on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX"), which are reported by industry market related indices such as Platts and Oil Price Information Service.
10
The petroleum business also has a rack marketing business supplying product through tanker trucks directly to customers located in proximity to the Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries, as well as to customers located at throughput terminals on refined products distribution systems run by Magellan and NuStar. Rack sales are at posted prices that are influenced by competitor pricing and Group 3 spot market differentials. Additionally, the Wynnewood refinery supplies jet fuel to the U.S. Department of Defense. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the two largest customers accounted for approximately 12% and 9% of the petroleum business sales and approximately 48% of the petroleum business sales were made to its ten largest customers.
Competition
The petroleum business competes primarily on the basis of price, reliability of supply, availability of multiple grades of products and location. The principal competitive factors affecting its refining operations are cost of crude oil and other feedstock costs, refinery complexity, refinery efficiency, refinery product mix and product distribution and transportation costs. The location of the refineries provides the petroleum business with a reliable supply of crude oil and a transportation cost advantage over its competitors. The petroleum business primarily competes against five refineries operated in the mid-continent region. In addition to these refineries, the refineries compete against trading companies, as well as other refineries located outside the region that are linked to the mid-continent market through an extensive product pipeline system. These competitors include refineries located near the Gulf Coast and the Texas panhandle region. The petroleum business refinery competition also includes branded, integrated and independent oil refining companies, such as Phillips 66, HollyFrontier, NCRA, Valero and Flint Hills Resources.
Seasonality
The petroleum business experiences seasonal effects as demand for gasoline products is generally higher during the summer months than during the winter months due to seasonal increases in highway traffic and road construction work. Demand for diesel fuel is higher during the planting and harvesting seasons. As a result, the petroleum business' results of operations for the first and fourth calendar quarters are generally lower compared to its results for the second and third calendar quarters. In addition, unseasonably cool weather in the summer months and/or unseasonably warm weather in the winter months in the markets in which the petroleum business sells its petroleum products can impact the demand for gasoline and diesel fuel. The demand for asphalt is also seasonal and is generally higher during the months of March through October.
Nitrogen Fertilizer Business
The nitrogen fertilizer business, operated by the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, is the only nitrogen fertilizer plant in North America that utilizes a pet coke gasification process to produce nitrogen fertilizer. Historically, pet coke has been less expensive than natural gas on a per ton of fertilizer produced basis and pet coke prices have been more stable when compared to natural gas prices. By using pet coke as the primary raw material feedstock instead of natural gas, we believe the nitrogen fertilizer business has historically been one of the lower cost producers and marketers of UAN and ammonia fertilizers in North America.
Raw Material Supply
The nitrogen fertilizer facility's primary input is pet coke. On average, during the past five years, over 70% of the nitrogen fertilizer business' pet coke requirements were supplied by CVR Refining's adjacent crude oil refinery pursuant to a renewable long-term agreement. Historically the nitrogen fertilizer business has obtained the remainder of its pet coke requirements from third parties such as other Midwestern refineries or pet coke brokers at spot-prices. During 2012, the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership entered into a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation. This agreement expires in December 2014 and may be renewed. If necessary, the gasifier can also operate on low grade coal as an alternative, which provides an additional raw material source. There are significant supplies of low grade coal within a 60-mile radius of the nitrogen fertilizer plant.
Linde LLC ("Linde") owns, operates, and maintains the air separation plant that provides contract volumes of oxygen, nitrogen, and compressed dry air to the gasifiers for a monthly fee. The nitrogen fertilizer business provides and pays for all utilities required for operation of the air separation plant. The agreement with Linde expires in 2020.
Although the nitrogen fertilizer plant has its own boiler that is used to create start-up steam, it also has the ability to import start-up steam for the nitrogen fertilizer plant from the adjacent Coffeyville crude oil refinery and then export steam back to the adjacent crude oil refinery once all units in the nitrogen fertilizer plant are in service. Monthly charges and credits are recorded with steam valued at the natural gas price for the month.
11
Nitrogen Production Process
The nitrogen fertilizer plant was completed in 2000 and is the newest nitrogen fertilizer plant built in North America. The nitrogen fertilizer plant has two separate gasifiers to provide redundancy and reliability. The plant uses a gasification process to convert pet coke to high purity hydrogen for subsequent conversion to ammonia. The nitrogen fertilizer plant is capable of processing approximately 1,400 tons per day of pet coke from the Coffeyville crude oil refinery and third-party sources and converting it into approximately 1,225 tons per day of ammonia. A majority of the ammonia is converted to approximately 3,000 tons per day of UAN. Typically 0.41 tons of ammonia is required to produce one ton of UAN. The nitrogen fertilizer business completed a significant two-year plant expansion in February 2013, which increased UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons or approximately 50%, per year. The expanded facility was operating at full rates at the end of the first quarter of 2013.
The nitrogen fertilizer business schedules and provides routine maintenance to its critical equipment using its own maintenance technicians. Pursuant to a Technical Services Agreement with an affiliate of the General Electric Company ("General Electric"), which licenses the gasification technology to the nitrogen fertilizer business, General Electric experts provide technical advice and technological updates from their ongoing research as well as other licensees' operating experiences. The pet coke gasification process is licensed from General Electric pursuant to a license agreement that is fully paid. The license grants the nitrogen fertilizer business perpetual rights to use the pet coke gasification process on specified terms and conditions.
Distribution, Sales and Marketing
The primary geographic markets for the nitrogen fertilizer business' fertilizer products are Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado and Texas. The nitrogen fertilizer business markets the UAN products to agricultural customers and the ammonia products to industrial and agricultural customers.
UAN and ammonia are distributed by truck or by railcar. If delivered by truck, products are sold on a freight-on-board basis, and freight is normally arranged by the customer. The nitrogen fertilizer business leases and owns a fleet of railcars for use in product delivery, and also negotiates with distributors that have their own leased railcars to utilize these assets to deliver products. The nitrogen fertilizer business operates eight rail loading and two truck loading racks for UAN. It also operates four rail loading and two truck loading racks for ammonia.
The nitrogen fertilizer business owns all of the truck and rail loading equipment at the nitrogen fertilizer facility. The nitrogen fertilizer business also utilizes two separate UAN storage tanks and related truck and railcar load-out facilities. Each of these facilities, located in Phillipsburg and Dartmouth, Kansas, has a UAN storage tank that has a capacity of two million gallons. The Phillipsburg property that the terminal was constructed on is owned by a subsidiary of CVR Refining, which operates the terminal. The Dartmouth terminal is located on leased property owned by the Pawnee County Cooperative Association, which operates the terminal. The purpose of the UAN terminals is to collectively distribute approximately 40,000 tons of UAN fertilizer annually. These UAN terminals are currently operational.
The nitrogen fertilizer business markets agricultural products to destinations that produce strong margins. The UAN market is primarily located near the Union Pacific Railroad lines or destinations that can be supplied by truck. The ammonia market is primarily located near the Burlington Northern Santa Fe or Kansas City Southern Railroad lines or destinations that can be supplied by truck.
The nitrogen fertilizer business uses forward sales of fertilizer products to optimize its asset utilization, planning process and production scheduling. These sales are made by offering customers the opportunity to purchase product on a forward basis at prices and delivery dates that it proposes. The nitrogen fertilizer business uses this program to varying degrees during the year and between years depending on market conditions and has the flexibility to increase or decrease forward sales depending on management's view as to whether price environments will be increasing or decreasing. Fixing the selling prices of nitrogen fertilizer products months in advance of their ultimate delivery to customers typically causes the nitrogen fertilizer business reported selling prices and margins to differ from spot market prices and margins available at the time of shipment. Cash received as a result of prepayments is recognized as deferred revenue on the Consolidated Balance Sheet upon receipt, and revenue and resultant net income and EBITDA are recorded as the product is actually delivered to the customer.
Customers
The nitrogen fertilizer business sells UAN products to retailers and distributors. In addition, it sells ammonia to agricultural and industrial customers. Some of its larger customers include Gavilon Fertilizer, LLC, United Suppliers, Inc., Crop Production Services, Inc., J.R. Simplot, Inc., Interchem and MFA. Given the nature of its business, and consistent with industry practice, the nitrogen fertilizer business does not have long-term minimum purchase contracts with any of its customers.
12
For the year ended December 31, 2013, the top five customers in the aggregate represented 43% of the nitrogen fertilizer business' sales. The nitrogen fertilizer business' top two customers on a consolidated basis accounted for approximately 15% and 13%, respectively, of the nitrogen fertilizer business' net sales.
Competition
Competition in the nitrogen fertilizer industry is dominated by price considerations. However, during the spring and fall application seasons, farming activities intensify and delivery capacity is a significant competitive factor. The nitrogen fertilizer business maintains a large fleet of leased and owned railcars and seasonally adjusts inventory to enhance its manufacturing and distribution operations.
Domestic competition, mainly from regional cooperatives and integrated multinational fertilizer companies, is intense due to customers' sophisticated buying tendencies and production strategies that focus on cost and service. Also, foreign competition exists from producers of fertilizer products manufactured in countries with lower cost natural gas supplies. In certain cases, foreign producers of fertilizer who export to the United States may be subsidized by their respective governments. The nitrogen fertilizer business' major competitors include Agrium, Koch Nitrogen, Potash Corporation and CF Industries.
Based on third-party expert data regarding total United States demand for UAN and ammonia, we estimate that the nitrogen fertilizer plant's UAN production in 2013 represented approximately 7% of total U.S. UAN use and that the net ammonia produced and marketed at Coffeyville represented less than 1% of total U.S. ammonia use.
Seasonality
Because the nitrogen fertilizer business primarily sells agricultural commodity products, its business is exposed to seasonal fluctuations in demand for nitrogen fertilizer products in the agricultural industry. As a result, the nitrogen fertilizer business typically generates greater net sales in the first half of each calendar year, which is referred to as the planting season, and its net sales tend to be lower during the second half of each calendar year, which is referred to as the fill season.
Environmental Matters
The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. These laws and regulations, their underlying regulatory requirements and the enforcement thereof impact the petroleum business and operations and the nitrogen fertilizer business and operations by imposing:
• | restrictions on operations or the need to install enhanced or additional controls; |
• | the need to obtain and comply with permits, licenses and authorizations; |
• | requirements for the investigation and remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at current and former facilities (if any) and liability for off-site waste disposal locations; and |
• | specifications for the products marketed by the petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business, primarily gasoline, diesel fuel, UAN and ammonia. |
Our operations require numerous permits, licenses and authorizations. Failure to comply with these permits or environmental laws and regulations could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions or a revocation of our permits. In addition, the laws and regulations to which we are subject are often evolving and many of them have become more stringent or have become subject to more stringent interpretation or enforcement by federal or state agencies. The ultimate impact on our business of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that our operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs.
The principal environmental risks associated with our businesses are outlined below.
The Federal Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations, as well as the corresponding state laws and regulations that regulate emissions of pollutants into the air, affect the petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business both directly and indirectly. Direct impacts may occur through the federal Clean Air Act's permitting requirements and/or emission control
13
requirements relating to specific air pollutants, as well as the requirement to maintain a risk management program to help prevent accidental releases of certain regulated substances. The federal Clean Air Act indirectly affects the petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business by extensively regulating the air emissions of sulfur dioxide ("SO2"), volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides and other substances, including those emitted by mobile sources, which are direct or indirect users of our products.
Some or all of the standards promulgated pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, or any future promulgations of standards, may require the installation of controls or changes to the petroleum business or the nitrogen fertilizer facilities in order to comply. If new controls or changes to operations are needed, the costs could be material. These new requirements, other requirements of the federal Clean Air Act, or other presently existing or future environmental regulations could cause us to expend substantial amounts to comply and/or permit our facilities to produce products that meet applicable requirements.
The regulation of air emissions under the federal Clean Air Act requires that we obtain various construction and operating permits and incur capital expenditures for the installation of certain air pollution control devices at the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer operations when regulations change or we add new equipment or modify existing equipment. Various regulations specific to our operations have been implemented, such as National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAP"), New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") and New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("NSR"). We have incurred, and expect to continue to have to make, substantial capital expenditures to attain or maintain compliance with these and other air emission regulations that have been promulgated or may be promulgated or revised in the future.
On September 12, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") published in the Federal Register final revisions to its NSPS for process heaters and flares at petroleum refineries. The EPA originally issued final standards in June 2008, but the portions of the rule relating to process heaters and flares were stayed pending reconsideration of certain provisions. The final standards regulate emissions of nitrogen oxide from process heaters and emissions of SO2 from flares, as well as require certain work practice and monitoring standards for flares. We do not believe that the costs of complying with the rule will be material.
On August 14, 2012, the EPA sent both the Wynnewood and Coffeyville refineries letters regarding the EPA's recently issued enforcement alert entitled EPA Enforcement Targets Flaring Efficiency Violations signaling the agency's intention to begin a national enforcement program to conduct compliance evaluations and take enforcement actions against petroleum refining companies that operate flares that are not in compliance with standards articulated in the Enforcement Alert. The Enforcement Alert identified new standards that refiners are required to meet for combustion efficiency. The EPA has already commenced enforcement against several refining companies and we understand that other settlement negotiations are underway. Because the EPA has not specifically told us that our operations are not in compliance, we cannot say with certainty whether or when we may become an enforcement target under this initiative.
In March 2004, Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC ("CRRM") and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT") entered into a Consent Decree (the "2004 Consent Decree") with the EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (the "KDHE") to resolve air compliance concerns raised by the EPA and KDHE related to Farmland's prior ownership and operation of the Coffeyville crude oil refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities. Under the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM agreed to install controls to reduce emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from its fluid catalytic cracking unit ("FCCU") by January 1, 2011. In addition, pursuant to the 2004 Consent Decree, CRRM and CRT assumed clean-up obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal facilities.
In March 2012, CRRM entered into a second consent decree (the "Second Consent Decree") with the EPA, which replaces the 2004 Consent Decree, as amended (other than certain financial provisions associated with corrective action at the refinery and terminal under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). The Second Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on April 19, 2012. The Second Consent Decree gives CRRM more time to install the FCCU controls from the 2004 Consent Decree and expands the scope of the settlement so that it is now considered a "global settlement" under the EPA's "National Petroleum Refining Initiative." Under the National Petroleum Refining Initiative, the EPA alleged industry-wide non-compliance with four "marquee" issues under the Clean Air Act: New Source Review, Flaring, Leak Detection and Repair, and Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. The National Petroleum Refining Initiative has resulted in most U.S. refineries (representing more than 90% of the US refining capacity) entering into consent decrees requiring the payment of civil penalties and the installation of air pollution control equipment and enhanced operating procedures. The EPA has indicated that it will seek to have all refiners enter into "global settlements" pertaining to all "marquee" issues. Under the Second Consent Decree, CRRM was required to pay a civil penalty of approximately $0.7 million, complete the installation of FCCU controls required under the 2004 Consent Decree, add controls to certain heaters and boilers and enhance certain work practices relating to wastewater and fugitive emissions. The remaining costs of complying with the Second Consent Decree are expected to be approximately $40.0 million. CRRM also agreed to complete a voluntary environmental project that will reduce air emissions and conserve water at an estimated cost of approximately $1.2 million.
14
Additional incremental capital expenditures associated with the Second Consent Decree will not be material and will be limited primarily to the retrofit and replacement of heaters and boilers over a five to seven year timeframe.
Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC ("WRC") entered into a Consent Order with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality ("ODEQ") in August 2011 (the "Wynnewood Consent Order"). The Wynnewood Consent Order addresses certain historic Clean Air Act compliance issues related to the operations of the refinery by the prior owner. Under the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC paid a civil penalty of $950,000, and agreed to install certain controls, enhance certain compliance programs, and undertake additional testing and auditing. A substantial portion of the costs of complying with the Wynnewood Consent Order were expended during the last turnaround. The remaining costs are expected to be approximately $3.0 million. In consideration for entering into the Wynnewood Consent Order, WRC received a release from liability from ODEQ for the matters described in the ODEQ order.
From time to time, ODEQ conducts air inspections of the Wynnewood refinery and pursues enforcement related to any alleged non-compliance seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief, which may necessitate the installation of controls. In January 2014, ODEQ issued a full compliance evaluation report covering the period from December 2010 through June 2013, which covered periods of the previous owner's ownership and operation and, in some cases, continued into CVR Refining's ownership of the Wynnewood refinery. ODEQ has indicated that it will pursue enforcement related to the alleged non-compliance and that it expects to enter into a second consent order with WRC, which would necessitate the payment of a civil penalty and the implementation of injunctive relief to address the alleged non-compliance. The costs of any such enforcement action cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on our experience related to Clean Air Act enforcement and control requirements, we do not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material.
On September 23, 2011, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), acting on behalf of the EPA and the United States Coast Guard, filed suit against CRRM in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas seeking recovery from CRRM related to alleged non-compliance with the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program ("RMP"), the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA") (in addition to other matters described below, (see "— Environmental Remediation"). DOJ's CWA and OPA claims related to a flood and oil spill at the refinery that occurred on June 30/July 1, 2007. CRRM reached an agreement with the DOJ to resolve its claims under the CWA and the OPA. The agreement is memorialized in a Consent Decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on February 12, 2013 and March 25, 2013, respectively (the "2013 Consent Decree"). On April 19, 2013, CRRM paid a civil penalty (including accrued interest) in the amount of $0.6 million related to the CWA claims and reimbursed the Coast Guard for oversight costs under OPA in the amount of $1.7 million. The 2013 Consent Decree also requires CRRM to make small capital upgrades to the Coffeyville refinery crude oil tank farm, develop flood procedures and provide employee training.
The parties also reached an agreement to settle DOJ’s claims related to alleged non-compliance with RMP. The agreement is memorialized in a separate consent decree that was filed with and approved by the Court on May 21, 2013 and July 2, 2013, respectively (the "RMP Consent Decree"), and provided for a civil penalty of $0.3 million. On July 29, 2013, CRRM paid the civil penalty related to the RMP claims. The RMP Consent Decree also requires CRRM to conduct several audits related to compliance with RMP requirements.
The Coffeyville refinery's Clean Air Act Title V operating permit has expired, and has not yet been re-issued. The Coffeyville refinery submitted an application for renewal and currently operates under a permit shield, which authorizes permittees who timely submit their renewal application, to continue operations until the permit is re-issued. The permit renewal process has begun, and capital costs or expenses, if any, related to changes to these permits are not known yet, but are not expected to be material.
The Federal Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, as well as the corresponding state laws and regulations that regulate the discharge of pollutants into the water, affect the petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business. Direct impacts occur through the federal Clean Water Act's permitting requirements, which establish discharge limitations based on technology standards, water quality standards, and restrictions on the total maximum daily load ("TMDL") of pollutants that may be released to a particular water body based on its use. In addition, water resources are becoming and in the future may become scarcer, and many refiners, including CRRM and WRC, are subject to restrictions on their ability to use water in the event of low availability conditions. Both CRRM and WRC have contracts in place to receive additional water during low-flow conditions, but these conditions could change over time if water becomes scarce.
The Wynnewood refinery's Clean Water Act permit ("OPDES permit") has expired. The refinery currently operates under a permit shield, which authorizes permittees who timely submit their renewal application to continue discharging under an
15
expired permit until the permitting authority re-issues the permit. Capital costs or expenses related to changes to this permit, if any, are not expected to be material.
WRC has entered into a series of Clean Water Act consent orders with ODEQ. The latest consent order (the "CWA Consent Order"), which supersedes other consent orders, became effective in September 2011. The CWA Consent Order addresses alleged non-compliance by WRC with its OPDES permit limits. The CWA Consent Order requires WRC to take corrective action steps, including undertaking studies to determine whether the Wynnewood refinery's wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient. The Wynnewood refinery may need to install additional controls or make operational changes to satisfy the requirements of the CWA Consent Order. The cost of additional controls, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on our experience with wastewater treatment and controls, we do not anticipate that the costs of any required additional controls or operational changes would be material.
In January 2014, ODEQ issued a Notice of Violation to the Wynnewood refinery related to alleged violations of its OPDES permit. The costs of any related enforcement action cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on our experience related to CWA enforcement, we do not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material.
Release Reporting
The release of hazardous substances or extremely hazardous substances into the environment is subject to release reporting requirements under federal and state environmental laws. Our facilities periodically experience releases of hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances. For example, the nitrogen fertilizer facility periodically experiences minor releases of hazardous and extremely hazardous substances from its equipment. It experienced significant releases in August and September 2010 due to a heat exchanger leak and a UAN vessel rupture. Our facilities periodically have excess emission events from flaring and other planned and unplanned start-up, shutdown and malfunction events. Such releases are reported to the EPA and relevant state and local agencies. From time to time, the EPA has conducted inspections and issued information requests to us with respect to our compliance with release reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ("EPCRA"). If we fail to timely or properly report a release, or if the release violates the law or our permits, it could cause us to become the subject of a governmental enforcement action or third-party claims. Government enforcement or third-party claims relating to releases of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances could result in significant expenditures and liability.
Fuel Regulations
Tier II, Low Sulfur Fuels. In February 2000, the EPA promulgated the Tier II Motor Vehicle Emission Standards Final Rule for all passenger vehicles, establishing standards for sulfur content in gasoline that were required to be met by 2006. In addition, in January 2001, the EPA promulgated its on-road diesel regulations, which required a 97% reduction in the sulfur content of diesel fuel sold for highway use by June 1, 2006, with full compliance by January 1, 2010. The refineries are in compliance with the EPA's low sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel standards.
Tier III. In 2013, the EPA proposed "Tier 3" gasoline sulfur standards. Based on the proposed standards, CRRM anticipates it will incur less than $20.0 million of capital expenditures to install controls in order to meet the anticipated new standards. The project is expected to be completed during the Coffeyville refinery’s next scheduled turnaround in 2016. It is not anticipated that the Wynnewood refinery will require additional controls or capital expenditures to meet the anticipated new standard.
Mobile Source Air Toxic II Emissions
In 2007, the EPA promulgated the Mobile Source Air Toxic II ("MSAT II") rule that requires the reduction of benzene in gasoline by 2011. CRRM and WRC each were considered to be "small refiners" under the MSAT II rule and compliance with the rule is extended until 2015 for small refiners. However, the change in control resulting from the IEP acquisition in 2012 triggered the loss of small refiner status. Accordingly, the MSAT II projects have been accelerated by three months. Capital expenditures to comply with the rule are expected to be approximately $63.0 million for CRRM and $105.0 million for WRC. As of December 31, 2013, approximately $24.6 million and $52.2 million had been spent related to these projects by CRRM and WRC, respectively.
Renewable Fuel Standards
In 2007, the EPA promulgated the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS"), which requires refiners to blend "renewable fuels" in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as renewable identification numbers ("RINs") in lieu of blending. Due to mandates in the RFS requiring increasing volumes of renewable fuels to replace petroleum products in the U.S. motor fuel market, there may be a decrease in demand for petroleum products. The EPA is required to determine and
16
publish the applicable annual renewable fuel percentage standards for each compliance year by November 30 of the prior year. The percentage standards represent the ratio of renewable fuel volume to gasoline and diesel volume. On August 6, 2013, the EPA announced the final 2013 renewable fuel percentage standard would be raised to 9.74%. Beginning in 2011, the Coffeyville refinery was required to blend renewable fuels into its gasoline and diesel fuel or purchase RINs in lieu of blending, and in 2013, the Wynnewood refinery was subject to the RFS for the first time. However, because the cost of purchasing RINs has been extremely volatile and has significantly increased over the last year, the Wynnewood refinery has petitioned the EPA as a "small refinery" for hardship relief from the RFS requirements in 2013 and 2014 based on the "disproportionate economic impact" on the Wynnewood refinery. From time to time, the petroleum business may purchase RINs on the open market or waiver credits from the EPA to comply with RFS. While the petroleum business cannot predict the future prices of RINs or waiver credits, the cost of purchasing RINs was extremely volatile in 2013, as the EPA's proposed 2013 renewable fuel volume mandates approached the "blend wall." The blend wall refers to the point at which refiners are required to blend more ethanol into the transportation fuel supply than can be supported by the demand for E10 gasoline (gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume). The EPA has published the proposed volume mandates for 2014, which acknowledge the blend wall and are generally lower than the volumes for 2013 and lower than statutory mandates. The price of RINs decreased significantly after the 2014 proposed mandate was published; however, RIN prices have remained volatile and have increased in 2014. The future cost of RINs for the petroleum business going forward is difficult to estimate. In particular, the cost of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors, which include the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, transportation fuel production levels, the mix of the petroleum business’ petroleum products, as well as the fuel blending performed at the refineries, all of which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Various regulatory and legislative measures to address greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide ("CO2"), methane and nitrous oxides) are in different phases of implementation or discussion. In the aftermath of its 2009 "endangerment finding" that greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, the EPA has begun to regulate GHG emissions under the authority granted to it under the federal Clean Air Act.
In October 2009, the EPA finalized a rule requiring certain large emitters of greenhouse gases to inventory and report their GHG emissions to the EPA. In accordance with the rule, we have begun monitoring and reporting our GHG emissions to the EPA. In May 2010, the EPA finalized the "Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule," which established new GHG emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources, such as the refineries and the nitrogen fertilizer plant, must obtain permits under the New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") and Title V programs of the federal Clean Air Act. In cases where a new source is constructed or an existing major source undergoes a major modification, the facilities are required to undergo PSD review and evaluate and install best available control technology ("BACT") for their GHG emissions. Phase-in permit requirements began for the largest stationary sources in 2011. A major modification resulting in a significant increase in GHG emissions at the nitrogen fertilizer plant or the refineries may require the installation of BACT as part of the permitting process.
In the meantime, in December 2010, the EPA reached a settlement agreement with numerous parties under which it agreed to promulgate NSPS to regulate GHG emissions from petroleum refineries by November 2012. Although the EPA has not yet proposed NSPS standards to regulate GHG emissions for petroleum refineries or the nitrogen fertilizer plant, the EPA has proposed NSPS standards to regulate GHG emissions for electric utilities. Therefore, we expect that the EPA will propose standards for the refineries and the nitrogen fertilizer plant, but the timing of the EPA's proposal is not known.
During a State of the Union address in January 2014, President Obama indicated that the United States would take action to address climate change. At the federal legislative level, Congressional passage of legislation adopting some form of federal mandatory GHG emission reduction, such as a nationwide cap-and-trade program, does not appear likely at this time, although it could be adopted at a future date. It is also possible that Congress may pass alternative climate change bills that do not mandate a nationwide cap-and-trade program and instead focus on promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency.
In addition to potential federal legislation, a number of states have adopted regional GHG initiatives to reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions. In 2007, a group of Midwestern states, including Kansas (where the Coffeyville refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer facility are located), formed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, which calls for the development of a cap-and-trade system to control GHG emissions and for the inventory of such emissions. However, the individual states that have signed on to the accord must adopt laws or regulations implementing the trading scheme before it becomes effective, and it is unclear whether Kansas intends to do so.
Alternatively, the EPA may take further steps to regulate GHG emissions. The implementation of EPA regulations will result in increased costs to (i) operate and maintain our facilities, (ii) install new emission controls on our facilities and (iii) administer and manage any GHG emissions program. Increased costs associated with compliance with any current or
17
future legislation or regulation of GHG emissions, if it occurs, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
In addition, climate change legislation and regulations may result in increased costs not only for our business but also users of our refined and fertilizer products, thereby potentially decreasing demand for our products. Decreased demand for our products may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
RCRA
Our operations are subject to the RCRA requirements for the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. When feasible, RCRA-regulated materials are recycled instead of being disposed of on-site or off-site. RCRA establishes standards for the management of solid and hazardous wastes. Besides governing current waste disposal practices, RCRA also addresses the environmental effects of certain past waste disposal practices, the recycling of wastes and the regulation of underground storage tanks containing regulated substances.
In January 2014, the EPA issued an inspection report to the Wynnewood refinery related to a RCRA compliance evaluation inspection conducted in March 2013. The inspection report identified areas of concern for which the EPA may take enforcement action. The costs of any related enforcement action cannot be predicted at this time. However, based on our experiences related to RCRA enforcement, we do not anticipate that the costs of any civil penalties, required additional controls or operational changes would be material.
Waste Management. There are two closed hazardous waste units at the Coffeyville refinery and eight other hazardous waste units in the process of being closed pending state agency approval. There is one closed hazardous waste unit and one active hazardous waste storage tank at the Wynnewood refinery. In addition, one closed interim status hazardous waste land farm located at the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal is under long-term post closure care.
Impacts of Past Manufacturing. The 2004 Consent Decree that CRRM signed with the EPA and KDHE required us to assume two RCRA corrective action orders issued to Farmland, the prior owner of the Coffeyville refinery. We are subject to a 1994 EPA administrative order related to investigation of possible past releases of hazardous materials to the environment at the Coffeyville refinery. In accordance with the order, we have documented existing soil and groundwater conditions, which require investigation or remediation projects. The now-closed Phillipsburg terminal is subject to a 1996 EPA administrative order related to investigation of releases of hazardous materials to the environment at the Phillipsburg terminal, which operated as a refinery until 1991. Remediation at both sites, if necessary, will be based on the results of the investigations. The Wynnewood refinery operates under a RCRA permit. A RCRA facility investigation has been completed in accordance with the terms of the permit. Based on the facility investigation and other available information, the ODEQ has required further investigations of groundwater conditions. Remediation, if necessary, will be based upon the results of further investigation.
The anticipated investigation and remediation costs through 2017 were estimated, as of December 31, 2013, to be as follows:
Facility | Site Investigation Costs | Capital Costs | Total Operation & Maintenance Costs Through 2017 | Total Estimated Costs Through 2017 | |||||||||||
(in millions) | |||||||||||||||
Coffeyville Refinery | $ | 0.5 | $ | — | $ | 0.6 | $ | 1.1 | |||||||
Phillipsburg Terminal | 0.7 | — | 1.0 | 1.7 | |||||||||||
Wynnewood Refinery | — | — | 0.3 | 0.3 | |||||||||||
Total Estimated Costs | $ | 1.2 | $ | — | $ | 1.9 | $ | 3.1 | |||||||
These estimates are based on current information and could increase or decrease as additional information becomes available through our ongoing remediation and investigation activities. At this point, we have estimated that, over ten years starting in 2014, we will spend approximately $4.2 million to remedy impacts from past manufacturing activity at the Coffeyville refinery and to address existing soil and groundwater contamination at the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal and at the Wynnewood refinery. It is possible that additional costs will be required after this ten year period. We spent approximately $1.5 million in 2013 associated with related remediation.
Financial Assurance. We are required under the 2004 Consent Decree to establish financial assurance to secure the projected clean-up costs posed by the Coffeyville and the now-closed Phillipsburg facilities in the event we fail to fulfill our clean-up obligations. In accordance with the 2004 Consent Decree as modified by a 2010 agreement between CRRM, CRT, the
18
EPA and the KDHE, this financial assurance is currently provided by a bond in the amount of $4.8 million for clean-up obligations at the Phillipsburg terminal and a letter of credit in the amount of $0.2 million for estimated costs to close regulated hazardous waste management units at the Coffeyville refinery. Additional self-funded financial assurance of approximately $4.8 million and $2.4 million is required by the 2004 Consent Decree for clean-up and post-closure obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and Phillipsburg terminal, respectively. The $4.8 million bond amount is reduced each year based on actual expenditures for corrective actions and the letter of credit and the self-funded mechanisms are re-evaluated and adjusted on an annual basis. Current RCRA financial assurance requirements for the Wynnewood refinery total $0.3 million for hazardous waste storage tank closure and post-closure monitoring of a closed storm water retention pond.
Environmental Remediation
Under the CERCLA, RCRA, and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances. Similarly, the OPA of 1990 generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and clean-up costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into the waters of the United States, which has been broadly interpreted to include most water bodies including intermittent streams.
In connection with the discharge of crude oil on July 1, 2007, CRRM reached an agreement with the DOJ to resolve its claims under the CWA and the OPA. The agreement is memorialized in the 2013 Consent Decree. See "— The Federal Clean Air Act" above.
As is the case with all companies engaged in similar industries, we face potential exposure from future claims and lawsuits involving environmental matters, including soil and water contamination, personal injury or property damage allegedly caused by crude oil or hazardous substances that we manufactured, handled, used, stored, transported, spilled, disposed of or released. We cannot assure you that we will not become involved in future proceedings related to our release of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances or crude oil or that, if we were held responsible for damages in any existing or future proceedings, such costs would be covered by insurance or would not be material.
Environmental Insurance
We are covered by premises pollution liability insurance policies with an aggregate limit of $50.0 million per pollution condition, subject to a self-insured retention of $5.0 million. The policies include business interruption coverage, subject to a 10-day waiting period deductible. This insurance expires on March 1, 2014 and is expected to be renewed without any material changes in terms. The policies insure specific covered locations, including the Coffeyville refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer facility; however, the Wynnewood refinery is insured by another policy as discussed further below. The policies insure (i) claims, remediation costs, and associated legal defense expenses for pollution conditions at or migrating from a covered location and (ii) the transportation risks associated with moving waste from a covered location to any location for unloading or depositing waste. The policies cover any claim made during the policy period as long as the pollution conditions giving rise to the claim commenced on or after March 3, 2004. The premises pollution liability policies contain exclusions, conditions, and limitations that could apply to a particular pollution condition claim, and there can be no assurance that any pollution condition claim will be adequately insured for all potential damages.
The Wynnewood refinery is insured by a premises pollution liability policy with an occurrence and aggregate limit of $10.0 million, subject to a self-insured retention of $0.5 million. This policy insures (i) pollution legal liability, (ii) remediation legal liability and (iii) contingent transportation coverage. This coverage applies to pollution conditions on, at, under or migrating from the Wynnewood refinery location, as defined in the policy. There is no retroactive date to limit the application of coverage based on when the damages commenced. Coverage is triggered based on discovery and reporting during the policy period, which expires on June 1, 2014.
In addition to the premises pollution liability insurance policies, we maintain casualty insurance policies having an aggregate and occurrence limit of $150.0 million, subject to a self-insured retention of $2.0 million. This insurance provides coverage for claims involving pollutants where the discharge is sudden and accidental and first commenced at a specific day and time during the policy period. Coverage under the casualty insurance policies for pollution does not apply to damages at or within our insured premises. The casualty insurance policies, including umbrella and excess policies, expire on March 1, 2014 and are expected to be renewed or replaced by insurance policies containing equivalent sudden and accidental pollution coverage with no reduction in limits. The pollution coverage provided in the casualty insurance policies contains exclusions,
19
definitions, conditions and limitations that could apply to a particular pollution claim, and there can be no assurance such claim will be adequately insured for all potential damages.
Safety, Health and Security Matters
We are subject to a number of federal and state laws and regulations related to safety, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA") and comparable state statutes, the purpose of which are to protect the health and safety of workers. We also are subject to OSHA Process Safety Management regulations, which are designed to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable or explosive chemicals.
We operate a comprehensive safety, health and security program, with participation by employees at all levels of the organization. We have developed comprehensive safety programs aimed at preventing OSHA recordable incidents. Despite our efforts to achieve excellence in our safety and health performance, there can be no assurances that there will not be accidents resulting in injuries or even fatalities. We routinely audit our programs and consider improvements in our management systems.
The Wynnewood refinery has been the subject of a number of OSHA inspections since 2006. As a result of these inspections, the Wynnewood refinery has entered into four OSHA settlement agreements in 2008, pursuant to which it has agreed to undertake certain studies, conduct abatement activities, and revise and enhance certain OSHA compliance programs. The remaining costs associated with implementing these studies, abatement activities and program revisions are not expected to exceed $1.0 million.
On September 28, 2012, the Wynnewood refinery experienced an explosion in a boiler unit during startup after a short outage as part of the turnaround process. Two employees were fatally injured. Damage at the refinery was limited to the boiler. Additionally, there has been no evidence of environmental impact. The refinery was in the final stages of shutdown for turnaround maintenance at the time of the incident. The petroleum business completed an internal investigation of the incident and cooperated with OSHA in its investigation. OSHA also conducted a general inspection of the facility during the boiler incident investigation. In March 2013, OSHA completed its investigation and communicated its citations to WRC. OSHA also placed WRC in its Severe Violators Enforcement Program (“SVEP”). WRC is vigorously contesting the citations and OSHA’s placement of WRC in the SVEP. Any penalties associated with OSHA’s citations are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. On September 25, 2013, WRC agreed to pay a small civil penalty to settle rather than defend claims alleged by the EPA under the Clean Air Act's general duty clause related to the boiler incident. In addition to the above, the spouses of the two employees fatally injured have filed a civil lawsuit against WRC, CVR Refining and CVR Energy in Fort Bend County, Texas. The civil suit is in its preliminary stages and it is currently too early to assess a potential outcome.
Process Safety Management. We maintain a process safety management ("PSM") program. This program is designed to address all aspects of the OSHA guidelines for developing and maintaining a comprehensive PSM program. We will continue to audit our programs and consider improvements in our management systems as well as our operations.
Emergency Planning and Response. We have an emergency response plan that describes the organization, responsibilities and plans for responding to emergencies in our facilities. This plan is communicated to local regulatory and community groups. We have on-site warning siren systems and personal radios. We will continue to audit our programs and consider improvements in our management systems and equipment.
Employees
As of December 31, 2013, 891 employees were employed by the petroleum business, 140 were employed by the nitrogen fertilizer business and 161 employees were employed by the Company at our offices in Sugar Land, Texas, Kansas City, Kansas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As of December 31, 2013, these employees are covered by health insurance, disability and retirement plans established by the Company.
As of December 31, 2013, the Coffeyville refinery employed approximately 599 of the petroleum business employees, about 50% of whom were covered by a collective bargaining agreement. These employees are affiliated with five unions of the Metal Trades Department of the AFL-CIO ("Metal Trade Unions") and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC ("United Steelworkers"). The petroleum business is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Metal Trade Unions covering union members who work directly at the Coffeyville refinery. The agreement was effective December 2012, extended in December 2013 and expires in March 2018. In addition, a collective bargaining agreement, which covers the balance of the petroleum business' unionized employees who work in the terminalling and related operations, was entered into with the United Steelworkers in March 2012 and extended in December 2013. The United Steelworkers collective bargaining agreement expires in March 2016 and automatically renews on an annual basis thereafter unless a written notice is received sixty days in advance of the relevant expiration date.
20
As of December 31, 2013, the Wynnewood refinery employed approximately 292 people, about 60% of whom were represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers. The collective bargaining agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers with respect to the Wynnewood refinery was extended in December 2013 and expires in June 2016. We believe that our relationship with our employees is good.
Available Information
Our website address is www.cvrenergy.com. 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 through our website under "Investor Relations," as soon as reasonably practicable after the electronic filing of these reports is made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). In addition, our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Codes of Ethics and Charters of the Audit Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors are available on our website. These guidelines, policies and charters are also available in print without charge to any stockholder requesting them. Our SEC filings, including exhibits filed therewith, are also available at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. You may obtain and copy any document we furnish or file with the SEC at the SEC's public reference room at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the SEC's public reference facilities by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. You may request copies of these documents, upon payment of a duplicating fee, by writing to the SEC at its principal office at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549.
Trademarks, Trade Names and Service Marks
This Report may include our and our affiliates' trademarks, including the CVR Energy logo, Coffeyville Resources, the Coffeyville Resources logo, the CVR Refining, LP logo and the CVR Partners, LP logo, each of which is registered or for which we are applying for federal registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This Report may also contain trademarks, service marks, copyrights and trade names of other companies.
21
Item 1A. Risk Factors
You should carefully consider each of the following risks together with the other information contained in this Report and all of the information set forth in our filings with the SEC. If any of the following risks and uncertainties develops into actual events, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Risks Related to the Petroleum Business
The price volatility of crude oil and other feedstocks, refined products and utility services may have a material adverse effect on the petroleum business' earnings, profitability and cash flows.
The petroleum business' financial results are primarily affected by the relationship, or margin, between refined product prices and the prices for crude oil and other feedstocks. When the margin between refined product prices and crude oil and other feedstock prices tightens, the petroleum business' earnings, profitability and cash flows are negatively affected. Refining margins historically have been volatile and are likely to continue to be volatile, as a result of a variety of factors including fluctuations in prices of crude oil, other feedstocks and refined products. Continued future volatility in refining industry margins may cause a decline in the petroleum business' results of operations, since the margin between refined product prices and crude oil and other feedstock prices may decrease below the amount needed for the petroleum business to generate net cash flow sufficient for its needs. Although an increase or decrease in the price for crude oil generally results in a similar increase or decrease in prices for refined products, there is normally a time lag in the realization of the similar increase or decrease in prices for refined products. The effect of changes in crude oil prices on the petroleum business' results of operations therefore depends in part on how quickly and how fully refined product prices adjust to reflect these changes. A substantial or prolonged increase in crude oil prices without a corresponding increase in refined product prices, or a substantial or prolonged decrease in refined product prices without a corresponding decrease in crude oil prices, could have a significant negative impact on the petroleum business' earnings, results of operations and cash flows.
Profitability is also impacted by the ability to purchase crude oil at a discount to benchmark crude oils, such as WTI, as the petroleum business does not produce any crude oil and must purchase all of the crude oil it refines. Crude oil differentials can fluctuate significantly based upon overall economic and crude oil market conditions. Declines in crude oil differentials can adversely impact refining margins, earnings and cash flows. For example, infrastructure and logistical improvements and other factors could result in a reduction of the WTI-Brent differential that has provided the petroleum business with increased profitability. In addition, the petroleum business' purchases of crude oil, although based on WTI prices, have historically been at a discount to WTI because of the proximity of the refineries to the sources, existing logistics infrastructure and quality differences. Any change in the sources of crude oil, infrastructure or logistical improvements or quality differences could result in a reduction of the petroleum business' historical discount to WTI and may result in a reduction of the petroleum business' cost advantage.
Refining margins are also impacted by domestic and global refining capacity. Downturns in the economy reduce the demand for refined fuels and, in turn, generate excess capacity. In addition, the expansion and construction of refineries domestically and globally can increase refined fuel production capacity. Excess capacity can adversely impact refining margins, earnings and cash flows.
Crack spreads, refining margins and crude oil prices may decline, possibly materially, at any time from year to year. For example, during 2011 and 2012, favorable crack spreads and access to a variety of price-advantaged crude oils resulted in higher Adjusted EBITDA and cash flow generation that was greater than usual. However, in 2013, crack spreads weakened and the crude oil pricing differential tightened, resulting in lower Adjusted EBITDA and cash flow generation as compared to prior years. We are significantly affected by developments in the markets in which the petroleum business operates. For example, Enbridge Inc.'s purchase of 50% of the Seaway crude oil pipeline and the reversal of the pipeline to make it flow from Cushing to the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Seaway capacity expansion project provides mid-continent producers with the ability to transport crude oil to Gulf Coast refiners in an economic manner. A significant deterioration in market conditions would have a material adverse effect on the petroleum business' earnings, results of operations and cash flows.
Volatile prices for natural gas and electricity also affect the petroleum business' manufacturing and operating costs. Natural gas and electricity prices have been, and will continue to be, affected by supply and demand for fuel and utility services in both local and regional markets.
22
If the petroleum business is required to obtain its crude oil supply without the benefit of a crude oil supply agreement, its exposure to the risks associated with volatile crude oil prices may increase and its liquidity may be reduced.
Since December 31, 2009, the petroleum business has obtained substantially all of its crude oil supply for the Coffeyville refinery, other than the crude oil it gathers, through the Vitol Agreement. The Vitol Agreement was amended and restated on August 31, 2012 to include the provision of crude oil intermediation services to the Wynnewood refinery. The agreement, whose initial term expires on December 31, 2014, minimizes the amount of in-transit inventory and mitigates crude oil pricing risks by ensuring pricing takes place close to the time when the crude oil is refined and the yielded products are sold. If the petroleum business were required to obtain its crude oil supply without the benefit of a supply intermediation agreement, its exposure to crude oil pricing risks may increase, despite any hedging activity in which it may engage, and its liquidity would be negatively impacted due to increased inventory and the negative impact of market volatility. There is no assurance that the petroleum business will be able to renew or extend the Vitol Agreement beyond December 31, 2014.
Disruption of the petroleum business' ability to obtain an adequate supply of crude oil could reduce its liquidity and increase its costs.
In addition to the crude oil the petroleum business gathers locally in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Nebraska, it also purchased additional crude oil to be refined into liquid fuels in 2013. In 2013, the Coffeyville refinery purchased an additional 65,000 to 70,000 bpd of crude oil while the Wynnewood refinery purchased approximately 60,000 to 65,000 bpd of crude oil. The Wynnewood refinery has historically acquired most of its crude oil from Texas and Oklahoma with smaller amounts purchased from other regions. The Coffeyville refinery obtained a portion of its non-gathered crude oil, approximately 26% in 2013, from foreign sources, and the Wynnewood refinery obtained approximately 8% of its non-gathered crude oil from foreign sources as well. The majority of these foreign sourced crude oil barrels were derived from Canada. The actual amount of foreign crude oil the petroleum business purchases is dependent on market conditions and will vary from year to year. The petroleum business is subject to the political, geographic, and economic risks attendant to doing business with foreign suppliers. Disruption of production in any of these regions for any reason could have a material impact on other regions and the petroleum business. In the event that one or more of its traditional suppliers becomes unavailable, the petroleum business may be unable to obtain an adequate supply of crude oil, or it may only be able to obtain crude oil at unfavorable prices. As a result, the petroleum business may experience a reduction in its liquidity and its results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
If our access to the pipelines on which the petroleum business relies for the supply of its crude oil and the distribution of its products is interrupted, its inventory and costs may increase and it may be unable to efficiently distribute its products.
If one of the pipelines on which either of the Coffeyville or Wynnewood refineries relies for supply of crude oil becomes inoperative, the petroleum business would be required to obtain crude oil through alternative pipelines or from additional tanker trucks, which could increase its costs and result in lower production levels and profitability. Similarly, if a major refined fuels pipeline becomes inoperative, the petroleum business would be required to keep refined fuels in inventory or supply refined fuels to its customers through an alternative pipeline or by additional tanker trucks, which could increase the petroleum business' costs and result in a decline in profitability.
The geographic concentration of the petroleum business' refineries and related assets creates an exposure to the risks of the local economy in which we operate and other local adverse conditions. The location of its refineries also creates the risk of increased transportation costs should the supply/demand balance change in its region such that regional supply exceeds regional demand for refined products.
As the petroleum business' refineries are both located in the southern portion of Group 3 of the PADD II region, the petroleum business primarily markets its refined products in a relatively limited geographic area. As a result, it is more susceptible to regional economic conditions than the operations of more geographically diversified competitors, and any unforeseen events or circumstances that affect its operating area could also materially adversely affect its revenues and cash flows. These factors include, among other things, changes in the economy, weather conditions, demographics and population, increased supply of refined products from competitors and reductions in the supply of crude oil.
Should the supply/demand balance shift in its region as a result of changes in the local economy, an increase in refining capacity or other reasons, resulting in supply in the region exceeding demand, the petroleum business may have to deliver refined products to customers outside of the region and thus incur considerably higher transportation costs, resulting in lower refining margins, if any.
23
If sufficient RINs are unavailable for purchase, if the petroleum business has to pay a significantly higher price for RINs or if the petroleum business is otherwise unable to meet the EPA's Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandates, the petroleum business' financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the EPA has promulgated the RFS, which requires refiners to blend "renewable fuels," such as ethanol, into their petroleum fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as RINs, in lieu of blending. Under the RFS, the volume of renewable fuels refineries like Coffeyville and Wynnewood are obligated to blend into their finished petroleum products is adjusted annually. The petroleum business currently purchases RINs for some fuel categories on the open market, as well as waiver credits for cellulosic biofuels from the EPA, in order to comply with the RFS. Existing laws or regulations could change, and the minimum volumes of renewable fuels that must be blended with refined petroleum products may increase. In the future, the petroleum business may be required to purchase additional RINs on the open market and waiver credits from the EPA in order to comply with the RFS. During 2013, the price of RINs was extremely volatile as the EPA’s proposed renewable fuel volume mandates approached the “blend wall.” The blend wall refers to the point at which refiners are required to blend more ethanol into the transportation fuel supply than can be supported by the demand for E10 gasoline (gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume). The EPA has published the proposed volume mandates for 2014, which acknowledge the blend wall and are generally lower than the volumes for 2013 and lower than statutory mandates. The price of RINs decreased significantly after the 2014 proposed mandate was published; however, RIN prices have remained volatile and have increased in 2014. The petroleum business cannot predict the future prices of RINs or waiver credits, as the cost of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors, which include the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, transportation fuel production levels, the mix of the petroleum business' petroleum products, as well as the fuel blending performed at the refineries, all of which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. However, the costs to obtain the necessary number of RINs and waiver credits could be material. Additionally, because the petroleum business does not produce renewable fuels, increasing the volume of renewable fuels that must be blended into its products displaces an increasing volume of the refineries' product pool, potentially resulting in lower earnings and materially adversely affecting the petroleum business' cash flows.
If sufficient RINs are unavailable for purchase, if the petroleum business has to pay a significantly higher price for RINs or if the petroleum business is otherwise unable to meet the EPA's RFS mandates, its business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
The petroleum business faces significant competition, both within and outside of its industry. Competitors who produce their own supply of crude oil or other feedstocks, have extensive retail outlets, make alternative fuels or have greater financial resources than it does may have a competitive advantage.
The refining industry is highly competitive with respect to both crude oil and other feedstock supply and refined product markets. The petroleum business may be unable to compete effectively with competitors within and outside of the industry, which could result in reduced profitability. The petroleum business competes with numerous other companies for available supplies of crude oil and other feedstocks and for outlets for its refined products. The petroleum business is not engaged in the petroleum exploration and production business and therefore it does not produce any of its crude oil feedstocks. It does not have a retail business and therefore is dependent upon others for outlets for its refined products. It does not have any long-term arrangements (those exceeding more than a twelve-month period) for much of its output. Many of its competitors obtain significant portions of their crude oil and other feedstocks from company-owned production and have extensive retail outlets. Competitors that have their own production or extensive retail outlets with brand-name recognition are at times able to offset losses from refining operations with profits from producing or retailing operations, and may be better positioned to withstand periods of depressed refining margins or feedstock shortages.
A number of the petroleum business' competitors also have materially greater financial and other resources than it does. These competitors may have a greater ability to bear the economic risks inherent in all aspects of the refining industry. An expansion or upgrade of its competitors' facilities, price volatility, international political and economic developments and other factors are likely to continue to play an important role in refining industry economics and may add additional competitive pressure.
In addition, the petroleum business competes with other industries that provide alternative means to satisfy the energy and fuel requirements of its industrial, commercial and individual customers. There are presently significant governmental incentives and consumer pressures to increase the use of alternative fuels in the United States. The more successful these alternatives become as a result of governmental incentives or regulations, technological advances, consumer demand, improved pricing or otherwise, the greater the negative impact on pricing and demand for the petroleum business' products and profitability.
24
Changes in the petroleum business' credit profile may affect its relationship with its suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on its liquidity and its ability to operate the refineries at full capacity.
Changes in the petroleum business' credit profile may affect the way crude oil suppliers view its ability to make payments and may induce them to shorten the payment terms for purchases or require it to post security prior to payment. Given the large dollar amounts and volume of the petroleum business' crude oil and other feedstock purchases, a burdensome change in payment terms may have a material adverse effect on the petroleum business' liquidity and its ability to make payments to its suppliers. This, in turn, could cause it to be unable to operate the refineries at full capacity. A failure to operate the refineries at full capacity could adversely affect the petroleum business' profitability and cash flows.
The petroleum business' commodity derivative contracts may limit its potential gains, exacerbate potential losses and involve other risks.
The petroleum business enters into commodity derivatives contracts to mitigate crack spread risk with respect to a portion of its expected refined products production. However, its hedging arrangements may fail to fully achieve this objective for a variety of reasons, including its failure to have adequate hedging contracts, if any, in effect at any particular time and the failure of its hedging arrangements to produce the anticipated results. The petroleum business may not be able to procure adequate hedging arrangements due to a variety of factors. Moreover, such transactions may limit its ability to benefit from favorable changes in margins. In addition, the petroleum business' hedging activities may expose it to the risk of financial loss in certain circumstances, including instances in which:
• | the volumes of its actual use of crude oil or production of the applicable refined products is less than the volumes subject to the hedging arrangement; |
• | accidents, interruptions in transportation, inclement weather or other events cause unscheduled shutdowns or otherwise adversely affect its refinery or suppliers or customers; |
• | the counterparties to its futures contracts fail to perform under the contracts; or |
• | a sudden, unexpected event materially impacts the commodity or crack spread subject to the hedging arrangement. |
As a result, the effectiveness of the petroleum business' risk mitigation strategy could have a material adverse impact on the petroleum business' financial results and cash flows.
The adoption of derivatives legislation by the U.S. Congress could have an adverse effect on the petroleum business' ability to hedge risks associated with its business.
The U.S. Congress has adopted the Dodd-Frank Act, comprehensive financial reform legislation that establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as the petroleum business, that participate in that market, and requires the Commodities Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") to institute broad new position limits for futures and options traded on regulated exchanges. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC, the SEC and other regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the new legislation. The Dodd-Frank Act and implementing rules and regulations may also require compliance with margin requirements and with clearing and trade-execution requirements in connection with derivative activities, though the application of those provisions to the petroleum business at this time is uncertain. The rulemaking process is still ongoing, and the petroleum business cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the rulemakings. New regulations in this area may result in increased costs and cash collateral requirements for derivative instruments the petroleum business may use to hedge and otherwise manage its financial risks related to volatility in oil and gas commodity prices.
If the petroleum business reduces its use of derivatives as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and any new rules and regulations, its results of operations may become more volatile and its cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect its ability to satisfy its debt obligations or plan for and fund capital expenditures. Increased volatility may make the petroleum business less attractive to certain types of investors. Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act was intended, in part, to reduce the volatility of oil and natural gas prices. If the Dodd-Frank Act and any new regulations result in lower commodity prices, the petroleum business’ revenues could be adversely affected. Any of these consequences could adversely affect the petroleum business’ financial condition and results of operations and therefore could have an adverse effect on its ability to satisfy its debt obligations.
The petroleum business’ commodity derivative activities could result in period-to-period volatility.
The petroleum business does not apply hedge accounting to its commodity derivative contracts and, as a result, unrealized gains and losses are charged to its earnings based on the increase or decrease in the market value of the unsettled position.
25
Such gains and losses are reflected in its income statement in periods that differ from when the underlying hedged items (i.e., gross margins) are reflected in its income statement. Such derivative gains or losses in earnings may produce significant period-to-period earnings volatility that is not necessarily reflective of the petroleum business’ operational performance.
Existing design, operational, and maintenance issues associated with acquisitions may not be identified immediately and may require unanticipated capital expenditures that could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Our due diligence associated with acquisitions may result in our assuming liabilities associated with unknown conditions or deficiencies, as well as known but undisclosed conditions and deficiencies, where we may have limited, if any, recourse for cost recovery. Such conditions and deficiencies may not become evident until sometime after cost recovery provisions, if any, have expired.
The petroleum business must make substantial capital expenditures on its refineries and other facilities to maintain their reliability and efficiency. If the petroleum business is unable to complete capital projects at their expected costs and/or in a timely manner, or if the market conditions assumed in project economics deteriorate, the petroleum business' financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be adversely affected.
Delays or cost increases related to the engineering, procurement and construction of new facilities, or improvements and repairs to the petroleum business' existing facilities and equipment, could have a material adverse effect on the petroleum business' financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Such delays or cost increases may arise as a result of unpredictable factors in the marketplace, many of which are beyond its control, including:
• | denial or delay in obtaining regulatory approvals and/or permits; |
• | unplanned increases in the cost of equipment, materials or labor; |
• | disruptions in transportation of equipment and materials; |
• | severe adverse weather conditions, natural disasters or other events (such as equipment malfunctions, explosions, fires or spills) affecting the petroleum business' facilities, or those of its vendors and suppliers; |
• | shortages of sufficiently skilled labor, or labor disagreements resulting in unplanned work stoppages; |
• | market-related increases in a project's debt or equity financing costs; and/or |
• | nonperformance or force majeure by, or disputes with, the petroleum business' vendors, suppliers, contractors or sub-contractors. |
The Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries have been in operation for many years. Equipment, even if properly maintained, may require significant capital expenditures and expenses to keep it operating at optimum efficiency. For example, the petroleum business incurred approximately $88.8 million associated with the 2011/2012 turnaround completed at the Coffeyville refinery and incurred approximately $102.5 million associated with the turnaround for the Wynnewood refinery, which the petroleum business completed in December 2012. These costs do not result in increases in unit capacities, but rather are focused on trying to maintain safe, reliable operations. The first phase of the Coffeyville refinery’s next turnaround is scheduled to begin in late 2015, with the second phase scheduled to begin in early 2016. The next turnaround for the Wynnewood refinery is scheduled to begin in late 2016.
Any one or more of these occurrences noted above could have a significant impact on the petroleum business. If the petroleum business was unable to make up for the delays or to recover the related costs, or if market conditions change, it could materially and adversely affect the petroleum business' financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
The petroleum business' plans to expand the gathering assets making up part of its supporting logistics businesses, which assist it in reducing costs and increasing processing margins, may expose it to significant additional risks, compliance costs and liabilities.
The petroleum business plans to continue to make investments to enhance the operating flexibility of its refineries and to improve its crude oil sourcing advantage through additional investments in gathering and logistics operations. If it is able to successfully increase the effectiveness of the supporting logistics businesses, including the crude oil gathering operations, the petroleum business believes it will be able to enhance crude oil sourcing flexibility and reduce related crude oil purchasing and delivery costs. However, the acquisition of infrastructure assets to expand gathering operations may expose the petroleum business to risks in the future that are different than or incremental to the risks it faces with respect to its refineries and existing gathering and logistics operations. The storage and transportation of liquid hydrocarbons, including crude oil and refined products, are subject to stringent federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the
26
environment, operational safety and related matters. Compliance with these laws and regulations could adversely affect the petroleum business' operating results, financial condition and cash flows. Moreover, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory and remedial liabilities, the issuance of injunctions that may restrict or prohibit the petroleum business' operations, or claims of damages to property or persons resulting from its operations.
Any businesses or assets that the petroleum business may acquire in connection with an expansion of its crude oil gathering operations could expose it to the risk of releasing hazardous materials into the environment. These releases would expose the petroleum business to potentially substantial expenses, including clean-up and remediation costs, fines and penalties, and third-party claims for personal injury or property damage related to past or future releases. Accordingly, if the petroleum business does acquire any such businesses or assets, it could also incur additional expenses not covered by insurance which could be material.
More stringent trucking regulations may increase the petroleum business' costs and negatively impact its results of operations.
In connection with the trucking operations conducted by its crude gathering division, the petroleum business operates as a motor carrier and therefore is subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation and various state agencies. These regulatory authorities exercise broad powers, governing activities such as the authorization to engage in motor carrier operations and regulatory safety, and hazardous materials labeling, placarding and marking. There are additional regulations specifically relating to the trucking industry, including testing and specification of equipment and product handling requirements. The trucking industry is subject to possible regulatory and legislative changes that may affect the economics of the industry by requiring changes in operating practices or by changing the demand for common or contract carrier services or the cost of providing truckload services. Some of these possible changes include increasingly stringent environmental regulations, changes in the hours of service regulations that govern the amount of time a driver may drive in any specific period, onboard black box recorder devices or limits on vehicle weight and size.
To a large degree, intrastate motor carrier operations are subject to state safety regulations that mirror federal regulations. Such matters as weight and dimension of equipment are also subject to federal and state regulations. Furthermore, from time to time, various legislative proposals are introduced, such as proposals to increase federal, state or local taxes, including taxes on motor fuels, which may increase the petroleum business' costs or adversely impact the recruitment of drivers. The petroleum business cannot predict whether, or in what form, any increase in such taxes will be enacted or the extent to which they will apply to the petroleum business and its operations.
Risks Related to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business
The nitrogen fertilizer business is, and nitrogen fertilizer prices are, cyclical and highly volatile, and the nitrogen fertilizer business has experienced substantial downturns in the past. Cycles in demand and pricing could potentially expose the nitrogen fertilizer business to significant fluctuations in its operating and financial results and have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is exposed to fluctuations in nitrogen fertilizer demand in the agricultural industry. These fluctuations historically have had and could in the future have significant effects on prices across all nitrogen fertilizer products and, in turn, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Nitrogen fertilizer products are commodities, the price of which can be highly volatile. The prices of nitrogen fertilizer products depend on a number of factors, including general economic conditions, cyclical trends in end-user markets, supply and demand imbalances, and weather conditions, which have a greater relevance because of the seasonal nature of fertilizer application. If seasonal demand exceeds the projections on which the nitrogen fertilizer business bases production, customers may acquire nitrogen fertilizer products from competitors, and the profitability of the nitrogen fertilizer business will be negatively impacted. If seasonal demand is less than expected, the nitrogen fertilizer business will be left with excess inventory that will have to be stored or liquidated.
Demand for nitrogen fertilizer products is dependent on demand for crop nutrients by the global agricultural industry. Nitrogen-based fertilizers are currently in high demand, driven by a growing world population, changes in dietary habits and an expanded use of corn for the production of ethanol. Supply is affected by available capacity and operating rates, raw material costs, government policies and global trade. A decrease in nitrogen fertilizer prices would have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
27
The costs associated with operating the nitrogen fertilizer plant are largely fixed. If nitrogen fertilizer prices fall below a certain level, the nitrogen fertilizer business may not generate sufficient revenue to operate profitably or cover its costs.
Unlike our competitors, whose primary costs are related to the purchase of natural gas and whose costs are therefore largely variable, the nitrogen fertilizer business has largely fixed costs that are not dependent on the price of natural gas because it uses pet coke as the primary feedstock in the nitrogen fertilizer plant. As a result of the fixed cost nature of its operations, downtime, interruptions or low productivity due to reduced demand, adverse weather conditions, equipment failure, a decrease in nitrogen fertilizer prices or other causes can result in significant operating losses which could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Continued low natural gas prices could impact the nitrogen fertilizer business' relative competitive position when compared to other nitrogen fertilizer producers.
Most nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers rely on natural gas as their primary feedstock, and the cost of natural gas, which reached ten-year lows in 2012, is a large component of the total production cost for natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. Notwithstanding this decrease in the price of natural gas, nitrogen fertilizer prices have increased in recent years because of the increased demand for nitrogen-based fertilizers due to historically low stocks of global grains and a surge in the prices of corn and wheat, the primary crops in the nitrogen fertilizer business' region. This increase in demand for nitrogen-based fertilizers has created an environment in which nitrogen fertilizer prices have disconnected from their traditional correlation with natural gas prices. Low natural gas prices benefit the nitrogen fertilizer business' competitors and disproportionately impact our operations by making the nitrogen fertilizer business less competitive with natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. Continued low natural gas prices could impair the nitrogen fertilizer business' ability to compete with other nitrogen fertilizer producers who utilize natural gas as their primary feedstock if nitrogen fertilizer pricing drops as a result of low natural gas prices, and therefore have a material adverse impact on the cash flows of the nitrogen fertilizer business. In addition, if low natural gas prices in the United States were to prompt those U.S. producers who have permanently or temporarily closed production facilities to resume fertilizer production, this would likely contribute to a global supply/demand imbalance that could negatively affect nitrogen fertilizer prices and therefore have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Any decline in U.S. agricultural production or limitations on the use of nitrogen fertilizer for agricultural purposes could have a material adverse effect on the sales of nitrogen fertilizer, and on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Conditions in the U.S. agricultural industry significantly impact the operating results of the nitrogen fertilizer business. The U.S. agricultural industry can be affected by a number of factors, including weather patterns and field conditions, current and projected grain inventories and prices, domestic and international population changes, demand for U.S. agricultural products and U.S. and foreign policies regarding trade in agricultural products.
In particular, the recently passed Agricultural Act of 2014, or the 2014 Farm Bill, ends direct subsidies to agricultural producers for owning farmland, and funds a new crop insurance program in its place. As part of the conservation title of the 2014 Farm Bill, agricultural producers must meet a minimum standard of environmental protection in order to receive federal crop insurance on sensitive lands. The conservation title also includes language with the intent to discourage producers from converting native grasslands to farmland by limiting crop insurance subsidies for the first few years for newly converted lands. These changes may have a negative impact on fertilizer sales and on the nitrogen fertilizer business’ results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
State and federal governmental policies, including farm and biofuel subsidies and commodity support programs, as well as the prices of fertilizer products, may also directly or indirectly influence the number of acres planted, the mix of crops planted and the use of fertilizers for particular agricultural applications. Developments in crop technology, such as nitrogen fixation (the conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into compounds that plants can assimilate), could also reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and adversely affect the demand for nitrogen fertilizer. In addition, from time to time various state legislatures have considered limitations on the use and application of chemical fertilizers due to concerns about the impact of these products on the environment. Unfavorable state and federal governmental policies could negatively affect nitrogen fertilizer prices and therefore have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
28
A major factor underlying the current high level of demand for nitrogen-based fertilizer products is the production of ethanol. A decrease in ethanol production, an increase in ethanol imports or a shift away from corn as a principal raw material used to produce ethanol could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
A major factor underlying the current high level of demand for nitrogen-based fertilizer products produced by the nitrogen fertilizer business is the production of ethanol in the United States and the use of corn in ethanol production. Ethanol production in the United States is highly dependent upon a myriad of federal statutes and regulations, and is made significantly more competitive by various federal and state incentives and mandated usage of renewable fuels pursuant to the RFS. The RFS required 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuel usage in 2013, increasing to 36.0 billion gallons by 2022. To date, the RFS has been satisfied primarily with fuel ethanol blended into gasoline. However, a number of factors, including the continuing "food versus fuel" debate and studies showing that expanded ethanol usage may increase the level of greenhouse gases in the environment as well as be unsuitable for small engine use, have resulted in calls to reduce subsidies for ethanol, allow increased ethanol imports and to repeal or waive (in whole or in part) the current RFS, any of which could have an adverse effect on corn-based ethanol production, planted corn acreage and fertilizer demand. For example, in December 2013, a bipartisan bill was introduced in Congress to eliminate the ethanol mandate from the RFS. Therefore, ethanol incentive programs may not be renewed, or if renewed, they may be renewed on terms significantly less favorable to ethanol producers than current incentive programs.
In other action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld an EPA waiver allowing the sale of E15 (gasoline blends containing up to 15% ethanol) on later model year cars, but this issue may continue to be challenged through legislative action. In addition, the EPA has proposed a reduced corn-based ethanol volume for 2014 due to the concerns regarding the ethanol blend wall, the point at which refiners are required to blend more ethanol into the transportation fuel supply than can be supported by the demand for E10 gasoline (gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume). These actions could have a material adverse effect on ethanol production in the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Further, while most ethanol is currently produced from corn and other raw grains, such as milo or sorghum, the current RFS mandate requires a portion of the overall RFS mandate to come from advanced biofuels, including cellulose-based biomass, such as agricultural waste, forest residue, municipal solid waste and energy crops (plants grown for use to make biofuels or directly exploited for their energy content) and biomass-based diesel. In addition, there is a continuing trend to encourage the use of products other than corn and raw grains for ethanol production. For example, the 2014 Farm Bill provides authorization for funding of advanced biofuels. If this trend is successful, the demand for corn may decrease significantly, which could reduce demand for nitrogen fertilizer products and have an adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. This potential impact on the demand for nitrogen fertilizer products, however, could be slightly offset by the potential market for nitrogen fertilizer product usage in connection with the production of cellulosic biofuels.
Nitrogen fertilizer products are global commodities, and the nitrogen fertilizer business faces intense competition from other nitrogen fertilizer producers.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is subject to intense price competition from both U.S. and foreign sources, including competitors operating in the Persian Gulf, the Asia-Pacific region, the Caribbean, Russia and the Ukraine. Fertilizers are global commodities, with little or no product differentiation, and customers make their purchasing decisions principally on the basis of delivered price and availability of the product. Furthermore, in recent years the price of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States has been substantially driven by pricing in the global fertilizer market. The nitrogen fertilizer business competes with a number of U.S. producers and producers in other countries, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities. Some competitors have greater total resources and are less dependent on earnings from fertilizer sales, which makes them less vulnerable to industry downturns and better positioned to pursue new expansion and development opportunities. Additionally, the nitrogen fertilizer business' competitors utilizing different corporate structures may be better able to withstand lower cash flows than the nitrogen fertilizer business can as a limited partnership. The nitrogen fertilizer business' competitive position could suffer to the extent it is not able to expand its resources either through investments in new or existing operations or through acquisitions, joint ventures or partnerships. An inability to compete successfully could result in a loss of customers, which could adversely affect the sales, profitability and the cash flows of the nitrogen fertilizer business and therefore have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
29
The nitrogen fertilizer business is seasonal, which may result in it carrying significant amounts of inventory and seasonal variations in working capital. Our inability to predict future seasonal nitrogen fertilizer demand accurately may result in excess inventory or product shortages.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is seasonal. Farmers tend to apply nitrogen fertilizer during two short application periods, one in the spring and the other in the fall. The strongest demand for nitrogen fertilizer products typically occurs during the planting season. In contrast, the nitrogen fertilizer business and other nitrogen fertilizer producers generally produce products throughout the year. As a result, the nitrogen fertilizer business and its customers generally build inventories during the low demand periods of the year in order to ensure timely product availability during the peak sales seasons. The seasonality of nitrogen fertilizer demand results in sales volumes and net sales being highest during the North American spring season and working capital requirements typically being highest just prior to the start of the spring season.
If seasonal demand exceeds projections, the nitrogen fertilizer business will not have enough product and its customers may acquire products from its competitors, which would negatively impact profitability. If seasonal demand is less than expected, the nitrogen fertilizer business will be left with excess inventory and higher working capital and liquidity requirements.
The degree of seasonality of the nitrogen fertilizer business can change significantly from year to year due to conditions in the agricultural industry and other factors. As a consequence of such seasonality, it is expected that the distributions we receive from the nitrogen fertilizer business will be volatile and will vary quarterly and annually.
Adverse weather conditions during peak fertilizer application periods may have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, because the agricultural customers of the nitrogen fertilizer business are geographically concentrated.
The nitrogen fertilizer business' sales to agricultural customers are concentrated in the Great Plains and Midwest states and are seasonal in nature. The nitrogen fertilizer business' quarterly results may vary significantly from one year to the next due largely to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and purchase patterns. For example, the nitrogen fertilizer business generates greater net sales and operating income in the first half of the year, which is referred to herein as the planting season, compared to the second half of the year. Accordingly, an adverse weather pattern affecting agriculture in these regions or during the planting season could have a negative effect on fertilizer demand, which could, in turn, result in a material decline in the nitrogen fertilizer business' net sales and margins and otherwise have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The nitrogen fertilizer business' quarterly results may vary significantly from one year to the next due largely to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and purchase patterns. As a result, it is expected that the nitrogen fertilizer business' distributions to holders of its common units (including us) will be volatile and will vary quarterly and annually.
The nitrogen fertilizer business' operations are dependent on third-party suppliers, including Linde, which owns an air separation plant that provides oxygen, nitrogen and compressed dry air to its gasifiers, and the City of Coffeyville, which supplies the nitrogen fertilizer business with electricity. A deterioration in the financial condition of a third- party supplier, a mechanical problem with the air separation plant, or the inability of a third-party supplier to perform in accordance with its contractual obligations could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The operations of the nitrogen fertilizer business depend in large part on the performance of third-party suppliers, including Linde for the supply of oxygen, nitrogen and compressed dry air, and the City of Coffeyville for the supply of electricity. With respect to Linde, operations could be adversely affected if there were a deterioration in Linde's financial condition such that the operation of the air separation plant located adjacent to the nitrogen fertilizer plant was disrupted. Additionally, this air separation plant in the past has experienced numerous short-term interruptions, causing interruptions in gasifier operations. With respect to electricity, in 2010, the nitrogen fertilizer business entered into an amended and restated electric services agreement with the City of Coffeyville, Kansas, which gives the nitrogen fertilizer business an option to extend the term of such agreement through June 30, 2024. Should Linde, the City of Coffeyville or any of its other third-party suppliers fail to perform in accordance with existing contractual arrangements, operations could be forced to halt. Alternative sources of supply could be difficult to obtain. Any shutdown of operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant, even for a limited period, could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows may be adversely affected by the supply and price levels of pet coke.
The profitability of the nitrogen fertilizer business is directly affected by the price and availability of pet coke obtained from the Coffeyville refinery pursuant to a long-term agreement and pet coke purchased from third parties, both of which vary
30
based on market prices. Pet coke is a key raw material used by the nitrogen fertilizer business in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer products. If pet coke costs increase, the nitrogen fertilizer business may not be able to increase its prices to recover these increased costs, because market prices for nitrogen fertilizer products are not correlated with pet coke prices.
The nitrogen fertilizer business may not be able to maintain an adequate supply of pet coke. In addition, it could experience production delays or cost increases if alternative sources of supply prove to be more expensive or difficult to obtain. The nitrogen fertilizer business currently purchases 100% of the pet coke the Coffeyville refinery produces. Accordingly, if the nitrogen fertilizer business increases production, it will be more dependent on pet coke purchases from third-party suppliers at open market prices. The nitrogen fertilizer business entered into a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation which became effective on March 1, 2012. The current term ends in December 2014 and may be renewed. There is no assurance that the nitrogen fertilizer business would be able to purchase pet coke on comparable terms from third parties or at all.
The nitrogen fertilizer business relies on third-party providers of transportation services and equipment, which subjects it to risks and uncertainties beyond its control that may have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The nitrogen fertilizer business relies on railroad and trucking companies to ship finished products to its customers. The nitrogen fertilizer business also leases railcars from railcar owners in order to ship its finished products. These transportation operations, equipment and services are subject to various hazards, including extreme weather conditions, work stoppages, delays, spills, derailments and other accidents and other operating hazards.
These transportation operations, equipment and services are also subject to environmental, safety and other regulatory oversight. Due to concerns related to terrorism or accidents, local, state and federal governments could implement new regulations affecting the transportation of the nitrogen fertilizer business' finished products. In addition, new regulations could be implemented affecting the equipment used to ship its finished products.
Any delay in the nitrogen fertilizer business' ability to ship its finished products as a result of these transportation companies' failure to operate properly, the implementation of new and more stringent regulatory requirements affecting transportation operations or equipment, or significant increases in the cost of these services or equipment could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations are highly dependent upon and fluctuate based upon business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry. These factors are outside of our control and may significantly affect our profitability.
The nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations are highly dependent upon business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry, which we cannot control. The agricultural products business can be affected by a number of factors. The most important of these factors in the United States are:
• | weather patterns and field conditions (particularly during periods of traditionally high nitrogen fertilizer consumption); |
• | quantities of nitrogen fertilizers imported to and exported from North America; |
• | current and projected grain inventories and prices, which are heavily influenced by U.S. exports and world-wide grain markets; and |
• | U.S. governmental policies, including farm and biofuel policies, which may directly or indirectly influence the number of acres planted, the level of grain inventories, the mix of crops planted or crop prices. |
International market conditions may also significantly influence its operating results. The international market for nitrogen fertilizers is influenced by such factors as the relative value of the U.S. dollar and its impact upon the cost of importing nitrogen fertilizers, foreign agricultural policies, the existence of, or changes in, import or foreign currency exchange barriers in certain foreign markets, changes in the hard currency demands of certain countries and other regulatory policies of foreign governments, as well as the laws and policies of the United States affecting foreign trade and investment.
31
Ammonia can be very volatile and extremely hazardous. Any liability for accidents involving ammonia or other products the nitrogen fertilizer business produces or transports that cause severe damage to property or injury to the environment and human health could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In addition, the costs of transporting ammonia could increase significantly in the future.
The nitrogen fertilizer business manufactures, processes, stores, handles, distributes and transports ammonia, which can be very volatile and extremely hazardous. Major accidents or releases involving ammonia could cause severe damage or injury to property, the environment and human health, as well as a possible disruption of supplies and markets. Such an event could result in civil lawsuits, fines, penalties and regulatory enforcement proceedings, all of which could lead to significant liabilities. Any damage to persons, equipment or property or other disruption of the ability of the nitrogen fertilizer business to produce or distribute its products could result in a significant decrease in operating revenues and significant additional cost to replace or repair and insure its assets, which could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The nitrogen fertilizer facility periodically experiences minor releases of ammonia related to leaks from its equipment. It experienced more significant ammonia releases in August and September 2010 due to a heat exchanger leak and a UAN vessel rupture. Similar events may occur in the future and could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
In addition, the nitrogen fertilizer business may incur significant losses or costs relating to the operation of railcars used for the purpose of carrying various products, including ammonia. Due to the dangerous and potentially toxic nature of the cargo, in particular ammonia, on board railcars, a railcar accident may result in fires, explosions and pollution. These circumstances may result in sudden, severe damage or injury to property, the environment and human health. In the event of pollution, the nitrogen fertilizer business may be held responsible even if it is not at fault and it complied with the laws and regulations in effect at the time of the accident. Litigation arising from accidents involving ammonia and other products the nitrogen fertilizer business produces or transports may result in the nitrogen fertilizer business or us being named as a defendant in lawsuits asserting claims for large amounts of damages, which could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Given the risks inherent in transporting ammonia, the costs of transporting ammonia could increase significantly in the future. Ammonia is most typically transported by pipeline and railcar. A number of initiatives are underway in the railroad and chemical industries that may result in changes to railcar design in order to minimize railway accidents involving hazardous materials. In addition, in the future, laws may more severely restrict or eliminate the ability of the nitrogen fertilizer business to transport ammonia via railcar. If any railcar design changes are implemented, or if accidents involving hazardous freight increase the insurance and other costs of railcars, freight costs of the nitrogen fertilizer business could significantly increase.
Environmental laws and regulations on fertilizer end-use and application and numeric nutrient water quality criteria could have a material adverse impact on fertilizer demand in the future.
Future environmental laws and regulations on the end-use and application of fertilizers could cause changes in demand for the nitrogen fertilizer business' products. In addition, future environmental laws and regulations, or new interpretations of existing laws or regulations, could limit the ability of the nitrogen fertilizer business to market and sell its products to end users. From time to time, various state legislatures have proposed bans or other limitations on fertilizer products. In addition, a number of states have adopted or proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria that could result in decreased demand for fertilizer products in those states. For example, in March 2013, the EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) entered into an agreement pursuant to which FDEP will move forward with rulemaking and legislation to set numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's waterways after the EPA, in November 2012, approved the state's numeric nutrient criteria to cover all lakes, rivers, streams and springs, as well as estuaries from Clearwater Harbor to Biscayne Bay. If such laws, rules, regulations or interpretations to significantly curb the end-use or application of fertilizers were promulgated in our marketing areas, it could result in decreased demand for our products and have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
If licensed technology were no longer available, the nitrogen fertilizer business may be adversely affected.
The nitrogen fertilizer business has licensed, and may in the future license, a combination of patent, trade secret and other intellectual property rights of third parties for use in its business. In particular, the gasification process it uses to convert pet coke to high purity hydrogen for subsequent conversion to ammonia is licensed from General Electric. The license, which is fully paid, grants the nitrogen fertilizer business perpetual rights to use the pet coke gasification process on specified terms and conditions and is integral to the operations of the nitrogen fertilizer facility. If this license or any other license agreements on which the nitrogen fertilizer business' operations rely, were to be terminated, licenses to alternative technology may not be available, or may only be available on terms that are not commercially reasonable or acceptable. In addition, any substitution of new technology for currently-licensed technology may require substantial changes to manufacturing processes or equipment
32
and may have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The nitrogen fertilizer business may face third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, which if successful could result in significant costs.
Although there are currently no pending claims relating to the infringement of any third party intellectual property rights, in the future the nitrogen fertilizer business may face claims of infringement that could interfere with its ability to use technology that is material to its business operations. Any litigation of this type, whether successful or unsuccessful, could result in substantial costs and diversions of resources, either of which could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In the event a claim of infringement against the nitrogen fertilizer business is successful, it may be required to pay royalties or license fees for past or continued use of the infringing technology, or it may be prohibited from using the infringing technology altogether. If it is prohibited from using any technology as a result of such a claim, it may not be able to obtain licenses to alternative technology adequate to substitute for the technology it can no longer use, or licenses for such alternative technology may only be available on terms that are not commercially reasonable or acceptable. In addition, any substitution of new technology for currently licensed technology may require the nitrogen fertilizer business to make substantial changes to its manufacturing processes or equipment or to its products, and could have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
There can be no assurance that the transportation costs of the nitrogen fertilizer business' competitors will not decline.
The nitrogen fertilizer plant is located within the U.S. farm belt, where the majority of the end users of its nitrogen fertilizer products grow their crops. Many of its competitors produce fertilizer outside of this region and incur greater costs in transporting their products over longer distances via rail, ships and pipelines. There can be no assurance that competitors' transportation costs will not decline or that additional pipelines will not be built, lowering the price at which competitors can sell their products, which would have a material adverse effect on the nitrogen fertilizer business' results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Risks Related to Our Entire Business
Instability and volatility in the capital, credit and commodity markets in the global economy could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted by difficult conditions and volatility in the capital, credit and commodities markets and in the global economy. For example:
• | Although we believe the petroleum business has sufficient liquidity under its ABL credit facility and the intercompany credit facility to operate both the Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries, and that the nitrogen fertilizer business has sufficient liquidity under its revolving credit facility to run the nitrogen fertilizer business, under extreme market conditions there can be no assurance that such funds would be available or sufficient, and in such a case, we may not be able to successfully obtain additional financing on favorable terms, or at all. |
• | Market volatility could exert downward pressure on the price of the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units, which may make it more difficult for either or both of them to raise additional capital and thereby limit their ability to grow, which could in turn cause our stock price to drop. |
• | Market conditions could result in significant customers experiencing financial difficulties. We are exposed to the credit risk of our customers, and their failure to meet their financial obligations when due because of bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons could result in decreased sales and earnings for us. |
The refineries and nitrogen fertilizer facility face significant risks due to physical damage hazards, environmental liability risk exposure, and unplanned or emergency partial or total plant shutdowns resulting in business interruptions. We could incur potentially significant costs to the extent there are unforeseen events which cause property damage and potentially a significant reduction in revenues from a material decline in production which are not fully insured. The commercial insurance industry engaged in underwriting energy industry risk is specialized and there is finite capacity; therefore, the industry may limit or curtail coverage, may modify the coverage provided or may substantially increase premiums in the future.
If any of our production plants, logistics assets, key pipeline operations serving our plants, or key suppliers sustains a catastrophic loss and operations are shutdown or significantly impaired, it could have a material adverse impact on our operations, financial condition and cash flows. In addition, the risk exposures we have at the Coffeyville, Kansas plant complex
33
are greater due to production facilities for refinery and fertilizer production, distribution and storage being in relatively close proximity and potentially exposed to damage from one incident, such as resulting damages from the perils of explosion, windstorm, fire, or flood. Operations at either or both of the refineries and the nitrogen fertilizer plant could be curtailed, limited or completely shutdown for an extended period of time as the result of one or more unforeseen events and circumstances, which may not be within our control, including:
• | major unplanned maintenance requirements |
• | catastrophic events caused by mechanical breakdown, electrical injury, pressure vessel rupture, explosion, contamination, fire, or natural disasters, including, floods, windstorms and other similar events; |
• | labor supply shortages, or labor difficulties that result in a work stoppage or slowdown; |
• | cessation or suspension of a plant or specific operations dictated by environmental authorities; and |
• | an event or incident involving a large clean-up, decontamination, or the imposition of laws and ordinances regulating the cost and schedule of demolition or reconstruction, which can cause significant delays in restoring property to a pre-loss condition. |
We have sustained losses over the past ten-year period at our plants, which are illustrative of the types of risks and hazards that exist. These losses or events resulted in costs assumed by us that were not fully insured due to policy retentions or applicable exclusions. These events were as follows:
•June 2007: Coffeyville refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant; flood
•September 2010: Nitrogen fertilizer plant; secondary urea reactor rupture
•December 2010: Coffeyville refinery; FCCU fire
•December 2010: Wynnewood refinery; hydrocracker unit fire
•September 2012: Wynnewood refinery; boiler explosion
•July/August 2013: Coffeyville refinery; FCCU outage
Currently, we have an insurance program for property and business interruption coverage having a combined policy limit of $1.0 billion. Under this insurance program, we have a $5.0 million property damage retention for all properties ($2.5 million in respect of the nitrogen fertilizer plant). For business interruption losses, the insurance program has a retention of a 45-day waiting period for any one occurrence (60 days in respect of the Wynnewood refinery). Using forecasted business interruption values determined in the manner the insurance program would insure such losses, the potential losses retained within the waiting period are approximately $61.0 million for the Coffeyville refinery, $23.0 million for the nitrogen fertilizer plant and $31.0 million for the Wynnewood refinery. Actual losses retained could exceed these amounts if actual financial results are in excess of the forecasted values. In addition, the insurance policies contain a schedule of sub-limits which apply to certain specific perils or areas of coverage. Sub-limits which may be of importance depending on the nature and extent of a particular insured occurrence are: flood, earthquake, contingent business interruption insuring key suppliers, pipelines and customers, debris removal, decontamination, demolition and increased cost of construction due to law and ordinance, and others. Such conditions, limits and sub-limits could materially impact insurance recoveries and potentially cause us to assume losses which could impair earnings.
There is finite capacity in the commercial insurance industry engaged in underwriting energy industry risk, and there are risks associated with the commercial insurance industry reducing capacity, changing the scope of insurance coverage offered, and substantially increasing premiums due to adverse loss experience or other financial circumstances. Factors that impact insurance cost and availability include, but are not limited to: industry wide losses, natural disasters, specific losses incurred by us and the investment returns earned by the insurance industry. If the supply of commercial insurance is curtailed due to highly adverse financial results, we may not be able to continue our present limits of insurance coverage or obtain sufficient insurance capacity to adequately insure our risks for property damage or business interruption.
Environmental laws and regulations could require us to make substantial capital expenditures to remain in compliance or to remediate current or future contamination that could give rise to material liabilities.
Our operations are subject to a variety of federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing the emission or discharge of pollutants into the environment, product specifications and the generation, treatment, storage, transportation, disposal and remediation of solid and hazardous wastes.
34
Violations of these laws and regulations or permit conditions can result in substantial penalties, injunctive orders compelling installation of additional controls, civil and criminal sanctions, permit revocations and/or facility shutdowns.
In addition, new environmental laws and regulations, new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, increased governmental enforcement of laws and regulations or other developments could require us to make additional unforeseen expenditures. Many of these laws and regulations are becoming increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance with these requirements can be expected to increase over time. The requirements to be met, as well as the technology and length of time available to meet those requirements, continue to develop and change. These expenditures or costs for environmental compliance could have a material adverse effect on our business' results of operations, financial condition and profitability.
Our facilities operate under a number of federal and state permits, licenses and approvals with terms and conditions containing a significant number of prescriptive limits and performance standards in order to operate. All of these permits, licenses, approvals, limits and standards require a significant amount of monitoring, record keeping and reporting in order to demonstrate compliance with the underlying permit, license, approval, limit or standard. Non-compliance or incomplete documentation of our compliance status may result in the imposition of fines, penalties and injunctive relief. Additionally, due to the nature of our manufacturing and refining processes, there may be times when we are unable to meet the standards and terms and conditions of our permits, licenses and approvals due to operational upsets or malfunctions, which may lead to the imposition of fines and penalties or operating restrictions that may have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our facilities and accordingly our financial performance. For a discussion of environmental laws and regulations and their impact on our business and operations, please see "Business — Environmental Matters."
We could incur significant cost in cleaning up contamination at our refineries, terminals, fertilizer plant and off-site locations.
Our businesses are subject to the occurrence of accidental spills, discharges or other releases of petroleum or hazardous substances into the environment. Past or future spills related to any of our current or former operations, including the refineries, pipelines, product terminals, fertilizer plant or transportation of products or hazardous substances from those facilities, may give rise to liability (including strict liability, or liability without fault, and potential clean-up responsibility) to governmental entities or private parties under federal, state or local environmental laws, as well as under common law. For example, we could be held strictly liable under CERCLA, and similar state statutes for past or future spills without regard to fault or whether our actions were in compliance with the law at the time of the spills. Pursuant to CERCLA and similar state statutes, we could be held liable for contamination associated with facilities we currently own or operate (whether or not such contamination occurred prior to our acquisition thereof), facilities we formerly owned or operated (if any) and facilities to which we transported or arranged for the transportation of wastes or byproducts containing hazardous substances for treatment, storage, or disposal.
The potential penalties and clean-up costs for past or future releases or spills, liability to third parties for damage to their property or exposure to hazardous substances, or the need to address newly discovered information or conditions that may require response actions could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In addition, we may incur liability for alleged personal injury or property damage due to exposure to chemicals or other hazardous substances located at or released from our facilities. We may also face liability for personal injury, property damage, natural resource damage or for clean-up costs for the alleged migration of contamination or other hazardous substances from our facilities to adjacent and other nearby properties.
Four of our facilities, including the Coffeyville refinery, the now-closed Phillipsburg terminal (which operated as a refinery until 1991), the Wynnewood refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer plant, have environmental contamination. We have assumed Farmland's responsibilities under certain administrative orders under the RCRA related to contamination at or that originated from the Coffeyville refinery and the Phillipsburg terminal. The Coffeyville refinery has agreed to assume liability for contamination that migrated from the refinery onto the nitrogen fertilizer plant property while Farmland owned and operated the properties. The Wynnewood refinery is required to conduct investigations to address potential off-site migration of contaminants from the west side of the property. Other known areas of contamination at the Wynnewood refinery have been partially addressed but corrective action has not been completed, and some portions of the Wynnewood refinery have not yet been investigated to determine whether corrective action is necessary. If significant unknown liabilities are identified at or migrating from any of our facilities, that liability could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows and may not be covered by insurance.
We may incur future liability relating to the off-site disposal of hazardous wastes. Companies that dispose of, or arrange for the treatment, transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at off-site locations may be held jointly and severally liable for the costs of investigation and remediation of contamination at those off-site locations, regardless of fault. We could become involved in litigation or other proceedings involving off-site waste disposal and the damages or costs in any such proceedings could be material.
35
We may be unable to obtain or renew permits necessary for our operations, which could inhibit our ability to do business.
Our businesses hold numerous environmental and other governmental permits and approvals authorizing operations at our facilities. Future expansion of our operations is predicated upon securing the necessary environmental or other permits or approvals. A decision by a government agency to deny or delay issuing a new or renewed material permit or approval, or to revoke or substantially modify an existing permit or approval, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue operations and on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. For example, WRC's OPDES permit has expired and is in the renewal process. At this time, the Wynnewood refinery is operating under expired permit terms and conditions (called a permit shield) until the state regulatory agency renews the permit. The renewal permit may contain different terms and conditions that would require unplanned or unanticipated costs.
Climate change laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Various regulatory and legislative measures to address GHG emissions (including CO2, methane and nitrous oxides) are in different phases of implementation or discussion. In the aftermath of its 2009 "endangerment finding" that GHG emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, the EPA has begun to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act.
In October 2009, the EPA finalized a rule requiring certain large emitters of GHGs to inventory and report their GHG emissions to the EPA. In accordance with the rule, we have begun monitoring and reporting our GHG emissions to the EPA. In May 2010, the EPA finalized the "Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule," which established new GHG emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources, such as the refineries and the nitrogen fertilizer plant, must obtain permits under PSD and Title V programs of the federal Clean Air Act. In cases where a new source is constructed or an existing major source undergoes a major modification, facilities are required to undergo PSD review and evaluate and install BACT for their GHG emissions. Phase-in permit requirements began for the largest stationary sources in 2011. A major modification resulting in a significant increase in GHG emissions at the nitrogen fertilizer plant or the refineries may require the installation of BACT as part of the permitting process.
In the meantime, in December 2010, the EPA reached a settlement agreement with numerous parties under which it agreed to promulgate NSPS to regulate GHG emissions from petroleum refineries by November 2012. Although the EPA has not yet proposed NSPS standards to regulate GHG emissions for petroleum refineries or the nitrogen fertilizer plant, the EPA has proposed NSPS standards to regulate GHG emissions for electric utilities. Therefore, we expect that the EPA will propose standards for the refineries and fertilizer plant, but the timing of the EPA’s proposal is not known.
During a State of the Union address in January 2014, President Obama indicated that the United States would take action to address climate change. At the federal legislative level, Congressional passage of legislation adopting some form of federal mandatory GHG emission reduction, such as a nationwide cap-and-trade program, does not appear likely at this time, although it could be adopted at a future date. It is also possible that Congress may pass alternative climate change bills that do not mandate a nationwide cap-and-trade program and instead focus on promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency.
In addition to potential federal legislation, a number of states have adopted regional greenhouse gas initiatives to reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions. In 2007, a group of Midwestern states, including Kansas (where the Coffeyville refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer facility are located), formed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, which calls for the development of a cap-and-trade system to control GHG emissions and for the inventory of such emissions. However, the individual states that have signed on to the accord must adopt laws or regulations implementing the trading scheme before it becomes effective, and it is unclear whether Kansas still intends to do so.
Alternatively, the EPA may take further steps to regulate GHG emissions. The implementation of EPA regulations will result in increased costs to (i) operate and maintain our facilities, (ii) install new emission controls on our facilities and (iii) administer and manage any GHG emissions program. Increased costs associated with compliance with any current or future legislation or regulation of GHG emissions, if it occurs, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
In addition, climate change legislation and regulations may result in increased costs not only for our business but also users of our refined and fertilizer products, thereby potentially decreasing demand for our products. Decreased demand for our products may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We are subject to strict laws and regulations regarding employee and process safety, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and profitability.
We are subject to the requirements of OSHA and comparable state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers, and the proper design, operation and maintenance of our equipment. In addition, OSHA and certain
36
environmental regulations require that we maintain information about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that we provide this information to employees and state and local governmental authorities. Failure to comply with these requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements and monitoring and control of occupational exposure to regulated substances, may result in significant fines or compliance costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Security breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.
In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our customers and suppliers, and personally identifiable information of our employees, in our facilities and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, disrupt our operations, damage our reputation, and cause a loss of confidence, which could adversely affect our business.
Deliberate, malicious acts, including terrorism, could damage our facilities, disrupt our operations or injure employees, contractors, customers or the public and result in liability to us.
Intentional acts of destruction could hinder our sales or production and disrupt our supply chain. Our facilities could be damaged or destroyed, reducing our operational production capacity and requiring us to repair or replace our facilities at substantial cost. Employees, contractors and the public could suffer substantial physical injury for which we could be liable. Governmental authorities may impose security or other requirements that could make our operations more difficult or costly. The consequences of any such actions could adversely affect our operating results, financial condition and cash flows.
Both the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses depend on significant customers and the loss of several significant customers may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses both have a significant concentration of customers. The five largest customers of the petroleum business represented 36% of its petroleum sales for the year ended December 31, 2013. The five largest customers of the nitrogen fertilizer business represented approximately 43% of its sales for the year ended December 31, 2013. Several significant petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer customers each account for more than 10% of petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer sales. Given the nature of our businesses, and consistent with industry practice, we do not have long-term minimum purchase contracts with any of our customers. The loss of several of these significant customers, or a significant reduction in purchase volume by several of them, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The acquisition and expansion strategy of the petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business involves significant risks.
Both the petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business will consider pursuing acquisitions and expansion projects in order to continue to grow and increase profitability. However, we may not be able to consummate such acquisitions or expansions, due to intense competition for suitable acquisition targets, the potential unavailability of financial resources necessary to consummate acquisitions and expansions, difficulties in identifying suitable acquisition targets and expansion projects or in completing any transactions identified on sufficiently favorable terms and the failure to obtain requisite regulatory or other governmental approvals. In addition, any future acquisitions and expansions may entail significant transaction costs and risks associated with entry into new markets and lines of business.
In February 2013, the nitrogen fertilizer business completed a significant two-year plant expansion designed to increase its UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons, or approximately 50%, per year. The UAN expansion provides the nitrogen fertilizer business with the ability to upgrade substantially all of our ammonia production to UAN. If the premium that UAN currently earns over ammonia decreases, this expansion project may not yield the economic benefits and accretive effects that the nitrogen fertilizer business currently anticipates.
In addition to the risks involved in identifying and completing acquisitions described above, even when acquisitions are completed, integration of acquired entities can involve significant difficulties, such as:
• | unforeseen difficulties in the integration of the acquired operations and disruption of the ongoing operations of our business; |
37
• | failure to achieve cost savings or other financial or operating objectives contributing to the accretive nature of an acquisition; |
• | strain on the operational and managerial controls and procedures of the petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business, and the need to modify systems or to add management resources; |
• | difficulties in the integration and retention of customers or personnel and the integration and effective deployment of operations or technologies; |
• | assumption of unknown material liabilities or regulatory non-compliance issues; |
• | amortization of acquired assets, which would reduce future reported earnings; |
• | possible adverse short-term effects on our cash flows or operating results; and |
• | diversion of management's attention from the ongoing operations of our business. |
In addition, in connection with any potential acquisition or expansion project, each of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership (as applicable) will need to consider whether a business it intends to acquire or expansion project it intends to pursue could affect its tax treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. If the petroleum business or the nitrogen fertilizer business is otherwise unable to conclude that the activities of the business being acquired or the expansion project would not affect its treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, it may elect to seek a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). Seeking such a ruling could be costly or, in the case of competitive acquisitions, place the business in a competitive disadvantage compared to other potential acquirers who do not seek such a ruling. If the petroleum business or the nitrogen fertilizer business is unable to conclude that an activity would not affect its treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, and is unable or unwilling to obtain an IRS ruling, the petroleum business or the nitrogen fertilizer business may choose to acquire such business or develop such expansion project in a corporate subsidiary, which would subject the income related to such activity to entity-level taxation, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to its unitholders and would likely cause a substantial reduction in the value of its common units.
Failure to manage these acquisition and expansion growth risks could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. There can be no assurance that we will be able to consummate any acquisitions or expansions, successfully integrate acquired entities, or generate positive cash flow at any acquired company or expansion project.
We are a holding company and depend upon our subsidiaries for our cash flow.
Our two principal subsidiaries are publicly traded partnerships, and a portion of their common units trade on the NYSE. We are a holding company, and these subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own substantially all of our assets. Consequently, our cash flow and our ability to meet our obligations or to pay dividends or make other distributions in the future will depend upon the cash flow of our subsidiaries and the payment of funds by our subsidiaries to us in the form of distributions on their common units. The ability of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership to make any payments to us will depend on, among other things, their earnings, the terms of their indebtedness, tax considerations and legal restrictions.
In particular, the indenture governing the Refining Partnership's 6.5% senior notes prohibits it from making distributions to unitholders (including us) if any default or event of default (as defined in the indenture) exists. In addition, the indenture governing the Refining Partnership's 6.5% senior notes contains covenants limiting the Refining Partnership's ability to pay distributions to unitholders. The covenants will apply differently depending on the Refining Partnership's fixed charge coverage ratio (as defined in the indenture). If the fixed charge coverage ratio is not less than 2.5 to 1.0, the Refining Partnership will generally be permitted to make restricted payments, including distributions to its unitholders, without substantive restriction. If the fixed charge coverage ratio is less than 2.5 to 1.0, the Refining Partnership will generally be permitted to make restricted payments, including distributions to its unitholders, up to an aggregate $100.0 million basket plus certain other amounts referred to as "incremental funds" under the indenture. In addition, the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility requires it to maintain a minimum excess availability under the facility as a condition to the payment of distributions to its unitholders. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's credit facility requires that, before the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership can make distributions to us, it must be in compliance with leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio tests. Any new indebtedness could have similar or greater restrictions.
38
Internally generated cash flows and other sources of liquidity may not be adequate for the capital needs of our businesses.
Our businesses are capital intensive, and working capital needs may vary significantly over relatively short periods of time. For instance, crude oil price volatility can significantly impact working capital on a week-to-week and month-to-month basis. If we cannot generate adequate cash flow or otherwise secure sufficient liquidity to meet our working capital needs or support our short-term and long-term capital requirements, we may be unable to meet our debt obligations, pursue our business strategies or comply with certain environmental standards, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
A substantial portion of our workforce is unionized and we are subject to the risk of labor disputes and adverse employee relations, which may disrupt our business and increase our costs.
As of December 31, 2013, approximately 50% of the employees at the Coffeyville refinery and 60% of the employees at the Wynnewood refinery were represented by labor unions under collective bargaining agreements. At Coffeyville, the collective bargaining agreement with five Metal Trades Unions (which covers union represented employees who work directly at the Coffeyville refinery) expires in March 2018, and the collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers (which covers the balance of the petroleum business' unionized employees, who work in the terminal and related operations) expires in March 2016, and automatically renews on an annual basis thereafter unless a written notice is received sixty days in advance of the relevant expiration date. The collective bargaining agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers with respect to the Wynnewood refinery expires in June 2016. We may not be able to renegotiate our collective bargaining agreements when they expire on satisfactory terms or at all. A failure to do so may increase our costs. In addition, our existing labor agreements may not prevent a strike or work stoppage at any of our facilities in the future, and any work stoppage could negatively affect our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Our business may suffer if any of our key senior executives or other key employees unexpectedly discontinues employment with us. Furthermore, a shortage of skilled labor or disruptions in our labor force may make it difficult for us to maintain labor productivity.
Our future success depends to a large extent on the services of our key senior executives and key senior employees. Our business depends on our continuing ability to recruit, train and retain highly qualified employees in all areas of our operations, including accounting, business operations, finance and other key back-office and mid-office personnel. Furthermore, our operations require skilled and experienced employees with proficiency in multiple tasks. In particular, the nitrogen fertilizer facility relies on gasification technology that requires special expertise to operate efficiently and effectively. The competition for these employees is intense, and the loss of these executives or employees could harm our business. If any of these executives or other key personnel resign unexpectedly or become unable to continue in their present roles and are not adequately replaced, our business operations could be materially adversely affected. We do not maintain any "key man" life insurance for any executives.
New regulations concerning the transportation, storage and handling of hazardous chemicals, risks of terrorism and the security of chemical manufacturing facilities could result in higher operating costs.
The costs of complying with future regulations relating to the transportation of hazardous chemicals and security associated with the refining and nitrogen fertilizer facilities may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Targets such as refining and chemical manufacturing facilities may be at greater risk of future terrorist attacks than other targets in the United States. As a result, the petroleum and chemical industries have responded to the issues that arose due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 by starting new initiatives relating to the security of petroleum and chemical industry facilities and the transportation of hazardous chemicals in the United States. Future terrorist attacks could lead to even stronger, more costly initiatives that could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The 2013 fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas has generated consideration of more restrictive measures in storage, handling and transportation of crop production materials, including fertilizers.
Compliance with and changes in the tax laws could adversely affect our performance.
We are subject to extensive tax liabilities, including United States and state income taxes and transactional taxes such as excise, sales/use, payroll, franchise and withholding taxes. New tax laws and regulations are continuously being enacted or proposed that could result in increased expenditures for tax liabilities in the future.
The Refining Partnership's and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's level of indebtedness may increase, which would reduce their financial flexibility and the distributions they make on their common units.
As of the date of this Report, the Refining Partnership had outstanding $500.0 million aggregate principal amount of 6.5% senior notes due 2022 (the "2022 Notes"), availability under the Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility of $372.9 million
39
and letters of credit outstanding of approximately $27.1 million and availability under the intercompany credit facility of $118.5 million and borrowings outstanding of $31.5 million, and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership had $125.0 million of outstanding term loan borrowings, with availability of up to $25.0 million under its revolving credit facility. In the future, the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may incur additional significant indebtedness in order to make future acquisitions, expand their businesses or develop their properties. Their level of indebtedness could affect their operations in several ways, including the following:
• | a significant portion of their cash flows could be used to service their indebtedness, reducing available cash and their ability to make distributions on their common units (including distributions to us); |
• | a high level of debt would increase their vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions; |
• | the covenants contained in their debt agreements will limit their ability to borrow additional funds, dispose of assets, pay distributions and make certain investments; |
• | a high level of debt may place them at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors that are less leveraged and who therefore may be able to take advantage of opportunities that their indebtedness would prevent them from pursuing; |
• | their debt covenants may also affect flexibility in planning for, and reacting to, changes in the economy and in their industries; |
• | a high level of debt may make it more likely that a reduction in the petroleum business' borrowing base following a periodic redetermination could require the Refining Partnership to repay a portion of its then-outstanding bank borrowings under its ABL credit facility; and |
• | a high level of debt may impair their ability to obtain additional financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, acquisitions, general corporate or other purposes. |
In addition, borrowings under their respective credit facilities and other credit facilities they may enter into in the future will bear interest at variable rates. If market interest rates increase, such variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could adversely affect their ability to make distributions to common unitholders (including us).
In addition to debt service obligations, their operations require substantial investments on a continuing basis. Their ability to make scheduled debt payments, to refinance debt obligations and to fund capital and non-capital expenditures necessary to maintain the condition of operating assets, properties and systems software, as well as to provide capacity for the growth of their businesses, depends on their respective financial and operating performance. General economic conditions and financial, business and other factors affect their operations and their future performance. Many of these factors are beyond their control. They may not be able to generate sufficient cash flows to pay the interest on their debt, and future working capital, borrowings or equity financing may not be available to pay or refinance such debt.
In addition, the bank borrowing base under the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility will be subject to periodic redeterminations. It could be forced to repay a portion of its bank borrowings due to redeterminations of its borrowing base. If it is forced to do so, it may not have sufficient funds to make such repayments. If the Refining Partnership does not have sufficient funds and is otherwise unable to negotiate renewals of its borrowings or arrange new financing, it may have to sell significant assets. Any such sale could have a material adverse effect on the Refining Partnership's business and financial condition and, as a result, its ability to make distributions to common unitholders (including us).
The Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of their indebtedness and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy their debt obligations that may not be successful.
The Refining Partnership's and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's ability to satisfy their debt obligations will depend upon, among other things:
• | their future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond our control; and |
• | the Refining Partnership's ability to borrow under its Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility and the intercompany credit facility between the Refining Partnership and us, and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's ability to borrow under its revolving credit facility, the availability of which depends on, among other things, compliance with their respective covenants. |
40
We cannot offer any assurance that our businesses will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, or that the Refining Partnership will be able to draw under its Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility or the intercompany credit facility, or that the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership will be able to draw under its revolving credit facility, or from other sources of financing, in an amount sufficient to fund their respective liquidity needs.
If cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to service their indebtedness, the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance their indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit them to meet their scheduled debt service obligations. Their ability to restructure or refinance debt will depend on the condition of the capital markets and their financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of their debt could be at higher interest rates and may require them to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict their business operations, and the terms of existing or future debt agreements may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In addition, in the absence of adequate cash flows or capital resources, they could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations, or sell equity, in order to meet their debt service and other obligations. They may not be able to consummate those dispositions for fair market value or at all. The Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility and the indenture governing its 6.5% senior notes and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's credit facility may restrict, or market or business conditions may limit, their ability to avail themselves of some or all of these options. Furthermore, any proceeds that we realize from any such dispositions may not be adequate to meet their debt service obligations when due. None of the Company's stockholders or any of their respective affiliates has any continuing obligation to provide us with debt or equity financing.
The borrowings under the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility and intercompany credit facility and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's revolving credit facility bear interest at variable rates and other debt we or they incur could likewise be variable-rate debt. If market interest rates increase, variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could adversely affect their respective distributions to us. The Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may enter into agreements limiting their exposure to higher interest rates, but any such agreements may not offer complete protection from this risk.
Covenants in our subsidiaries' debt instruments could limit their ability to incur additional indebtedness and engage in certain transactions, which could adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to pursue our business strategies.
The indenture governing the Refining Partnership's 6.5% senior notes and the Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's credit facility contain a number of restrictive covenants that will impose significant operating and financial restrictions on them and their subsidiaries and may limit their ability to engage in acts that may be in their long-term best interest, including restrictions on their ability, among other things, to:
• | incur, assume or guarantee additional debt or issue redeemable or preferred units |
• | make distributions or prepay, redeem, or repurchase certain debt; |
• | enter into agreements that restrict distributions from restricted subsidiaries; |
• | incur liens; |
• | sell or otherwise dispose of assets, including capital stock of subsidiaries; |
• | enter into transactions with affiliates; and |
• | merge, consolidate or sell substantially all of their assets. |
In particular, the indenture governing the Refining Partnership's 6.5% senior notes prohibits it from making distributions to unitholders (including us) if any default or event of default (as defined in the indenture) exists. In addition, the indenture governing the Refining Partnership's 6.5% senior notes contains covenants limiting the Refining Partnership's ability to pay distributions to unitholders. The covenants will apply differently depending on the Refining Partnership's fixed charge coverage ratio (as defined in the indenture). If the fixed charge coverage ratio is not less than 2.5 to 1.0, the Refining Partnership will generally be permitted to make restricted payments, including distributions to its unitholders, without substantive restriction. If the fixed charge coverage ratio is less than 2.5 to 1.0, the Refining Partnership will generally be permitted to make restricted payments, including distributions to its unitholders, up to an aggregate $100.0 million basket plus certain other amounts referred to as "incremental funds" under the indenture. In addition, the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility requires it to maintain a minimum excess availability under the facility as a condition to the payment of distributions to its unitholders. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's credit facility requires that, before the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership can make distributions to us, it must be in compliance with leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio tests. Any new indebtedness could have similar or greater restrictions.
41
A breach of the covenants under the foregoing debt instruments could result in an event of default. Upon a default, unless waived, the holders of the Refining Partnership's 6.5% senior notes and lenders under the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's credit facility would have all remedies available to a secured lender, and could elect to terminate their commitments, cease making further loans, institute foreclosure proceedings against the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership (as applicable) or its respective subsidiaries' assets, and force it and its subsidiaries into bankruptcy or liquidation, subject to intercreditor agreements. In addition, any defaults could trigger cross defaults under other or future credit agreements or indentures. The Refining Partnership's or Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's operating results may not be sufficient to service their indebtedness or to fund our other expenditures and they may not be able to obtain financing to meet these requirements. As a result of these restrictions, they may be limited in how they conduct their respective businesses, unable to raise additional debt or equity financing to operate during general economic or business downturns or unable to compete effectively or to take advantage of new business opportunities.
Despite their indebtedness, the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may still be able to incur significantly more debt, including secured indebtedness. This could intensify the risks described above.
The Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may be able to incur substantially more debt in the future, including secured indebtedness. Although the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility and its 6.5% senior notes and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's credit facility contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions and, under certain circumstances, indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. Also, these restrictions may not prevent them from incurring obligations that do not constitute indebtedness. To the extent such new debt or new obligations are added to their existing indebtedness, the risks described above could substantially increase.
Mr. Carl C. Icahn exerts significant influence over the Company and his interests may conflict with the interest of the Company's other stockholders.
Mr. Carl C. Icahn indirectly controls approximately 82% of the voting power of the Company's capital stock and, by virtue of such stock ownership, is able to control or exert substantial influence over the Company, including:
• | the election and appointment of directors; |
• | business strategy and policies; |
• | mergers or other business combinations; |
• | acquisition or disposition of assets; |
• | future issuances of common stock, common units or other securities; |
• | incurrence of debt or obtaining other sources of financing; and |
• | the payment of dividends on the Company's common stock and distributions on the common units of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. |
The existence of a controlling stockholder may have the effect of making it difficult for, or may discourage or delay, a third party from seeking to acquire a majority of the Company's outstanding common stock, which may adversely affect the market price of the Company's common stock.
Mr. Icahn's interests may not always be consistent with the Company's interests or with the interests of the Company's other stockholders. Mr. Icahn and entities controlled by him may also pursue acquisitions or business opportunities in industries in which we compete, and there is no requirement that any additional business opportunities be presented to us. We also have and may in the future enter into transactions to purchase goods or services with affiliates of Mr. Icahn. To the extent that conflicts of interest may arise between the Company and Mr. Icahn and his affiliates, those conflicts may be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company or its other stockholders.
In addition, if Mr. Icahn were to sell, or otherwise transfer, some or all of his interests in us to an unrelated party or group, a change of control could be deemed to have occurred under the terms of the indentures governing the Refining Partnership's 6.5% senior notes, which would require it to offer to repurchase all outstanding notes at 101% of their principal amount plus accrued interest to the date of repurchase, and an event of default could be deemed to have occurred under the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility, which would allow lenders to accelerate indebtedness owed to them. However, it is possible that the Refining Partnership will not have sufficient funds at the time of the change of control to make the required repurchase of notes or repay amounts outstanding under the Refining Partnership's Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility, if any.
42
The Company's common stock price may decline due to sales of shares by Mr. Carl C. Icahn.
Sales of substantial amounts of the Company's common stock, or the perception that these sales may occur, may adversely affect the price of the Company's common stock and impede its ability to raise capital through the issuance of equity securities in the future. Mr. Icahn could elect in the future to request that the Company file a registration statement to enable him to sell shares of the Company's common stock. If Mr. Icahn were to sell a large number of shares into the public markets, Mr. Icahn could cause the price of the Company's common stock to decline.
We are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the NYSE rules and, as a result, qualify for, and are relying on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements.
A company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, a group or another company is a "controlled company" within the meaning of the NYSE rules and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of the NYSE, including:
• | the requirement that a majority of our board of directors consist of independent directors; |
• | the requirement that we have a nominating/corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors; and |
• | the requirement that we have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors. |
We are relying on all of these exemptions as a controlled company. Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE. In addition, both the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership are relying on exemptions from the same NYSE corporate governance requirements described above.
We may be subject to the pension liabilities of our affiliates.
Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns approximately 82% of the Company’s capital stock. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group.
As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn's affiliates, we are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. Two such entities, ACF Industries LLC ("ACF") and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of December 31, 2013. If the ACF and Federal-Mogul plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be collectively underfunded by approximately $591.8 million as of December 31, 2013. These results are based on the most recent information provided to us by Mr. Icahn's affiliates based on information from the plans' actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of their respective pension plans. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group that includes us may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded, and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of such plans. The current underfunded status of the ACF and Federal-Mogul pension plans requires such entities to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
We have various mechanisms in place to discourage takeover attempts, which may reduce or eliminate our stockholders' ability to sell their shares for a premium in a change of control transaction.
Various provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and of Delaware corporate law may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control or takeover attempt of our Company by a third party that our management and board of directors determines is not in the best interest of our Company and its stockholders. Public stockholders who might desire to participate
43
in such a transaction may not have the opportunity to do so. These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of public stockholders to benefit from a change of control or change in our management and board of directors. These provisions include:
• | preferred stock that could be issued by our board of directors to make it more difficult for a third party to acquire, or to discourage a third party from acquiring, a majority of our outstanding voting stock; |
• | limitations on the ability of stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders; |
• | limitations on the ability of stockholders to act by written consent in lieu of a stockholders' meeting; and |
• | advance notice requirements for nominations of candidates for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by our stockholders at stockholder meetings. |
We are authorized to issue up to a total of 350 million shares of common stock and 50 million shares of preferred stock, potentially diluting equity ownership of current holders and the share price of our common stock.
We believe that it is necessary to maintain a sufficient number of available authorized shares of our common stock and preferred stock in order to provide us with the flexibility to issue common stock or preferred stock for business purposes that may arise as deemed advisable by our board of directors. These purposes could include, among other things, (i) future stock dividends or stock splits, which may increase the liquidity of our shares; (ii) the sale of stock to obtain additional capital or to acquire other companies or businesses, which could enhance our growth strategy or allow us to reduce debt if needed; (iii) for use in additional stock incentive programs and (iv) for other bona fide purposes. Our board of directors may authorize the Company to issue the available authorized shares of common stock or preferred stock without notice to, or further action by, our stockholders, unless stockholder approval is required by law or the rules of the NYSE. The issuance of additional shares of common stock or preferred stock may significantly dilute the equity ownership of the current holders of our common stock.
Our ability to pay dividends on our common stock is subject to market conditions and numerous other factors.
In January 2013, our board of directors adopted a quarterly dividend policy. Subject to declaration by the board of directors, our quarterly dividend is expected to be $0.75 per share, or $3.00 per share on an annualized basis, which we began paying in the second quarter of 2013. However, our ability to continue paying dividends is subject to our ability to continue to generate sufficient cash flow, and the amount of dividends we are able to pay each year may vary, possibly substantially, based on market conditions, crack spreads, our capital expenditure and other business needs, covenants contained in any debt agreements we may enter into in the future, covenants contained in the debt agreements of CVR Partners, LP and CVR Refining, LP, and the amount of distributions we receive from CVR Partners, LP and CVR Refining, LP. We may not be able to continue paying dividends at the rate we currently pay dividends, or at all. If the amount of our dividends decreases, the trading price of our common stock could be materially adversely affected as a result.
Risks Related to the Limited Partnership Structures Through Which
We Currently Hold Our Interests in the Refinery Business and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business
Both the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership currently have in place policies to distribute all of the "available cash" each generates on a quarterly basis, which could limit their ability to grow and make acquisitions.
The current policies of both the board of directors of the Refining Partnership's general partner and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner is to distribute an amount equal to the available cash generated by each partnership each quarter to their respective unitholders. As a result of their respective cash distribution policies, the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership will rely primarily upon external financing sources, including commercial bank borrowings and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund acquisitions and expansion capital expenditures. As such, to the extent they are unable to finance growth externally, their respective cash distribution policies will significantly impair their ability to grow. The board of directors of the general partner of either the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may modify or revoke its cash distribution policy at any time at its discretion, including in such a manner that would result in an elimination of cash distributions regardless of the amount of available cash they generate. Each board of directors will determine the cash distribution policy it deems advisable for them on an independent basis.
In addition, because of their respective distribution policies, their growth, if any, may not be as robust as that of businesses that reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations. To the extent either issues additional units in connection with any acquisitions or expansion capital expenditures or as in-kind distributions, current unitholders will experience dilution and the payment of distributions on those additional units will decrease the amount each distributes in respect of each of its outstanding units. There are no limitations in their respective partnership agreements on either the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's ability to issue additional units, including units ranking senior to the outstanding common
44
units. The incurrence of additional commercial borrowings or other debt to finance their growth strategy would result in increased interest expense, which, in turn, would reduce the available cash they have to distribute to unitholders (including us).
Each of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may not have sufficient available cash to pay any quarterly distribution on their respective common units. Furthermore, neither is required to make distributions to holders of its common units on a quarterly basis or otherwise, and both may elect to distribute less than all of their respective available cash.
Either or both of the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may not have sufficient available cash each quarter to enable the payment of distributions to common unitholders. The Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership are separate public companies, and available cash generated by one of them will not be used to make distributions to common unitholders of the other. Furthermore, their respective partnership agreements do not require either to pay distributions on a quarterly basis or otherwise. The board of directors of the general partner of either the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may at any time, for any reason, change its cash distribution policy or decide not to make any distribution. The amount of cash they will be able to distribute in respect of their common units principally depends on the amount of cash they generate from operations, which is directly dependent upon the margins each business generates. Please see "— Risks Related to the Petroleum Business — The price volatility of crude oil and other feedstocks, refined products and utility services may have a material adverse effect on our profitability and our ability to pay distributions to unitholders" and "— Risks Related to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business — The nitrogen fertilizer business is, and nitrogen fertilizer prices are, cyclical and highly volatile, and the nitrogen fertilizer business has experienced substantial downturns in the past. Cycles in demand and pricing could potentially expose the nitrogen fertilizer business to significant fluctuations in its operating and financial results and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows."
If either the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership were to be treated as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes or if either partnership were otherwise subject to entity-level taxation, such entity's cash available for distribution to its common unitholders, including to us, would be reduced, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of such entity's common units, including the common units held by us.
Current law requires the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership to derive at least 90% of their respective annual gross income from certain specified activities in order to continue to be treated as a partnership, rather than as a corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. One or both of them may not find it possible to meet this qualifying income requirement, or may inadvertently fail to meet this qualifying income requirement. If either the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership were to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, they would pay U.S. federal income tax on all of their taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%, they would likely pay additional state and local income taxes at varying rates, and distributions to their common unitholders, including to us, would generally be taxed as corporate distributions.
If the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership were to be treated as corporations, rather than as partnerships, for U.S. federal income tax purposes or if they were otherwise subject to entity-level taxation, their cash available for distribution to their common unitholders, including to us, and the value of their common units, including the common units held by us, could be substantially reduced.
Increases in interest rates could adversely impact the price of the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units and the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's ability to issue additional equity to make acquisitions, incur debt or for other purposes.
We expect that the price of the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units will be impacted by the level of the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's quarterly cash distributions and implied distribution yield. The distribution yield is often used by investors to compare and rank related yield-oriented securities for investment decision-making purposes. Therefore, changes in interest rates may affect the yield requirements of investors who invest in the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units, and a rising interest rate environment could have a material adverse impact on the price of the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units (and therefore the value of our investment in the Refining Partnership and/or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership) as well as the Refining Partnership's or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's ability to issue additional equity to make acquisitions or to incur debt.
We may have liability to repay distributions that are wrongfully distributed to us.
Under certain circumstances, we may, as a holder of common units in the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to us. Under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, a partnership may not make distributions to its unitholders if the distribution would cause its liabilities to exceed the fair value of its assets. Delaware law provides that for a period of three years from the date of an impermissible
45
distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the company for the distribution amount.
Public investors own approximately 47% of the nitrogen fertilizer business through the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership and approximately 29% of the petroleum business through the Refining Partnership. Although we own the majority of the common units and the general partner of both the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, the general partners owe a duty of good faith to public unitholders, which could cause them to manage their respective businesses differently than if there were no public unitholders.
Public investors own approximately 47% of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units and approximately 29% of the Refining Partnership's common units. We are not entitled to receive all of the cash generated by the nitrogen fertilizer business or the petroleum business or freely transfer money from the nitrogen fertilizer business to finance operations at the petroleum business or vice versa. Furthermore, although we continue to own the majority of the common units and the general partner of both the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, the general partners are subject to certain fiduciary duties, which may require the general partners to manage their respective businesses in a way that may differ from our best interests.
The general partners of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership have limited their liability, replaced default fiduciary duties and restricted the remedies available to common unitholders, including us, for actions that, without these limitations and reductions might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
The respective partnership agreements of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership limit the liability and replace the fiduciary duties of their respective general partner, while also restricting the remedies available to each partnership's common unitholders, including us, for actions that, without these limitations and reductions, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. Delaware partnership law permits such contractual reductions of fiduciary duty. The partnership agreements contain provisions that replace the standards to which each general partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example:
• | The partnership agreements permit each partnership's general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to its capacity as general partner. This entitles its general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and means that it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, any limited partner. |
• | The partnership agreements provide that each partnership's general partner will not have any liability to unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as general partner so long as (i) in the case of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, it acted in good faith, meaning it believed that the decision was in the best interest of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership and (ii) in the case of the Refining Partnership, it did not make such decisions in bad faith, meaning it believed that the decisions were adverse to the Refining Partnership's interests. |
• | The partnership agreements provide that each partnership's general partner and the officers and directors of its general partner will not be liable for monetary damages to common unitholders, including us, for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that (i) in the case of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, the general partner or its officers or directors acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct, or in, the case of a criminal matter, acted with knowledge that the conduct was criminal and (ii) in the case of the Refining Partnership, such losses or liabilities were the result of the conduct of our general partner or such officer or director engaged in by it in bad faith or with respect to any criminal conduct, with the knowledge that its conduct was unlawful. |
In addition, the Refining Partnership's partnership agreement provides that its general partner will not be in breach of its obligations thereunder or its duties to the Refining Partnership or its limited partners if a transaction with an affiliate or the resolution of a conflict of interest is either (i) approved by the conflicts committee of its board of directors of the general partner, although the general partner is not obligated to seek such approval; or (ii) approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding units, excluding any units owned by the general partner and its affiliates. In addition, the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's partnership agreement (i) generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of its general partner and not involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be "fair and reasonable" to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership, as determined by its general partner in good faith, and that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is "fair and reasonable," the general partner may consider the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly advantageous or beneficial to affiliated parties, including us and (ii) provides that in resolving conflicts of interest, it will be presumed that in making its decision, the general partner or its conflicts committee acted in good faith, and in any proceeding
46
brought by or on behalf of any holder of common units, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.
With respect to the common units that we own, we have agreed to be bound by the provisions set forth in each partnership agreement, including the provisions described above.
The Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership are managed by the executive officers of their general partners, some of whom are employed by and serve as part of the senior management team of the Company and its affiliates. Conflicts of interest could arise as a result of this arrangement.
The Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership is each managed by the executive officers of their general partners, some of whom are employed by and serve as part of the senior management team of the Company. Furthermore, although both the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership have entered into services agreements with the Company under which they compensate the Company for the services of its management, the Company's management is not required to devote any specific amount of time to the petroleum business or the nitrogen fertilizer business and may devote a substantial majority of their time to the business of the Company. Moreover the Company may terminate the services agreement with the Refining Partnership and/or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership at any time, in each case subject to a 180-day notice period. In addition, key executive officers of the Company, including its president and chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and general counsel, will face conflicts of interest if decisions arise in which the Refining Partnership or the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership and the Company have conflicting points of view or interests.
47
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2. Properties
The following table contains certain information regarding our principal properties:
Location | Acres | Own/Lease | Use | ||||
Coffeyville, KS | 440 | Own | Refining Partnership: oil refinery and office buildings | ||||
Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership: fertilizer plant | |||||||
Wynnewood, OK | 400 | Own | Oil refinery, office buildings, refined oil storage | ||||
Montgomery County, KS (Coffeyville Station) | 20 | Own | Crude oil storage | ||||
Montgomery County, KS (Broome Station) | 20 | Own | Crude oil storage | ||||
Cowley County, KS (Hooser Station) | 80 | Own | Crude oil storage | ||||
Cushing, OK | 138 | Own | Crude oil storage | ||||
We also lease property for our executive office which is located at 2277 Plaza Drive in Sugar Land, Texas. Additionally, other corporate office space is leased in Kansas City, Kansas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
As of December 31, 2013, we had crude oil storage tanks with a capacity of approximately 1.2 million barrels located outside the Coffeyville refinery, 0.5 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity at Wynnewood, Oklahoma, 1.0 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity in Cushing, Oklahoma and lease an additional 3.3 million barrels of crude oil storage capacity located at Cushing. In addition to crude oil storage, we own approximately 4.5 million barrels of combined refinery related storage capacity.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are, and will continue to be, subject to litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, including matters such as those described under "Business — Environmental Matters." We also incorporate by reference into this Part I, Item 3 of this Report, the information regarding the lawsuits and proceedings described and referenced in Note 15 ("Commitments and Contingencies") to our Consolidated Financial Statements as set forth in Part II, Item 8 of this Report. In accordance with GAAP, we record a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of lawsuits, investigations or claims asserted against us, we do not believe that any currently pending legal proceeding or proceedings to which we are a party will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
None.
48
PART II
Item 5. Market For Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information
Our common stock, which is listed on the NYSE under the symbol "CVI" commenced trading on October 23, 2007. The table below sets forth, for the quarter indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock:
2013 | High | Low | |||||
First Quarter | $ | 62.50 | $ | 46.29 | |||
Second Quarter | 72.32 | 44.95 | |||||
Third Quarter | 49.94 | 38.06 | |||||
Fourth Quarter | 43.44 | 33.03 | |||||
2012 | High | Low | |||||
First Quarter | $ | 30.11 | $ | 19.19 | |||
Second Quarter | 31.71 | 23.54 | |||||
Third Quarter | 38.35 | 26.53 | |||||
Fourth Quarter | 49.63 | 34.52 | |||||
Holders of Record
As of February 18, 2014, there were 134 holders of record of our common stock. Because many of our shares of common stock are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of beneficial owners represented by these record holders.
CVR Energy, Inc. Dividend Policy
On January 24, 2013, the board of directors of the Company adopted a quarterly cash dividend policy. Subject to declaration by its Board of Directors, CVR Energy's quarterly dividend is expected to be $0.75 per share, or $3.00 per share on an annualized basis, which the Company began paying in the second quarter of 2013. Additionally, the Company declared and paid two special cash dividends during the year ended December 31, 2013. No dividends were paid during the year ended December 31, 2012.
The following is a summary of the quarterly and special dividends paid to stockholders during the year ended December 31, 2013:
February 19, 2013 | May 17, 2013 | June 10, 2013 | August 19, 2013 | November 18, 2013 | Total Dividends Paid in 2013 | ||||||||||||||||||
(in millions, except per share amounts) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividend type | Special | Quarterly | Special | Quarterly | Quarterly | ||||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to IEP | $ | 391.6 | $ | 53.4 | $ | 462.8 | $ | 53.4 | $ | 53.4 | $ | 1,014.6 | |||||||||||
Amounts paid to public stockholders | 86.0 | 11.7 | 101.6 | 11.7 | 11.7 | 222.7 | |||||||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 477.6 | $ | 65.1 | $ | 564.4 | $ | 65.1 | $ | 65.1 | $ | 1,237.3 | |||||||||||
Per common share | $ | 5.50 | $ | 0.75 | $ | 6.50 | $ | 0.75 | $ | 0.75 | $ | 14.25 | |||||||||||
Shares outstanding | 86.8 | 86.8 | 86.8 | 86.8 | 86.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
On February 19, 2014, the board of directors of the Company declared a cash dividend for the fourth quarter of 2013 to the Company’s stockholders of $0.75 per share, or $65.1 million in aggregate. The dividend will be paid on March 10, 2014 to stockholders of record at the close of business on March 3, 2014.
49
CVR Partners, LP Cash Distribution Policy
The current policy of the board of directors of the general partner of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership is to distribute all available cash the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership generates each quarter. Available cash for each quarter is determined by the board of directors of the general partner following the end of such quarter. Beginning with the first quarter of 2013, the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner adopted an amended policy to calculate available cash starting with Adjusted Nitrogen Fertilizer EBITDA reduced for cash needed for net interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service and other contractual obligations, maintenance capital expenditures and, to the extent applicable, major scheduled turnaround expense incurred and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Available cash for distributions may be increased by previously established cash reserves, if any, at the discretion of the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s general partner. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership does not intend to maintain excess distribution coverage for the purpose of maintaining stability or growth in its quarterly distribution or otherwise to reserve cash for distributions, nor does the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership intend to incur debt to pay quarterly distributions. As of the date of this Report, we own approximately 53% of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's common units, and are entitled to a pro rata percentage of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's distributions in respect of its common units.
The following is a summary of cash distributions paid by the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership to unitholders during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 for the respective quarters to which the distributions relate:
December 31, 2012 | March 31, 2013 | June 30, 2013 | September 30, 2013 | Total Cash Distributions Paid in 2013 | |||||||||||||||
(in millions, except per common unit amounts) | |||||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to CRLLC | $ | 9.8 | $ | 31.1 | $ | 22.7 | $ | 14.0 | $ | 77.5 | |||||||||
Amounts paid to public unitholders | 4.2 | 13.5 | 19.9 | 12.3 | 50.0 | ||||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 14.0 | $ | 44.6 | $ | 42.6 | $ | 26.3 | $ | 127.5 | |||||||||
Per common unit | $ | 0.192 | $ | 0.610 | $ | 0.583 | $ | 0.360 | $ | 1.745 | |||||||||
Common units outstanding | 73.1 | 73.1 | 73.1 | 73.1 | |||||||||||||||
December 31, 2011 | March 31, 2012 | June 30, 2012 | September 30, 2012 | Total Cash Distributions Paid in 2012 | |||||||||||||||
(in millions, except per common unit amounts) | |||||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to CRLLC | $ | 29.9 | $ | 26.6 | $ | 30.5 | $ | 25.3 | $ | 112.4 | |||||||||
Amounts paid to public unitholders | 13.0 | 11.6 | 13.3 | 10.9 | 48.8 | ||||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 42.9 | $ | 38.2 | $ | 43.8 | $ | 36.2 | $ | 161.2 | |||||||||
Per common unit | $ | 0.588 | $ | 0.523 | $ | 0.600 | $ | 0.496 | $ | 2.207 | |||||||||
Common units outstanding | 73.0 | 73.0 | 73.0 | 73.0 | |||||||||||||||
On February 19, 2014, the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner declared a cash distribution for the fourth quarter of 2013 to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's unitholders of $0.43 per unit, or $31.4 million in aggregate. The cash distribution will be paid on March 10, 2014 to unitholders of record at the close of business on March 3, 2014. Total cash distributions paid and to be paid based upon available cash for 2013 were $1.98 per common unit.
CVR Refining, LP Cash Distribution Policy
The current policy of the board of directors of the Refining Partnership's general partner is to distribute all of the available cash the Refining Partnership generates each quarter. Available cash for each quarter will be determined by the board of directors of the Refining Partnership's general partner following the end of such quarter and will generally equal Adjusted Petroleum EBITDA reduced for cash needed for debt service, reserves for environmental and maintenance capital expenditures, reserves for future major scheduled turnaround expenses and, to the extent applicable, reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Available cash for distributions may be increased by previously established cash reserves, if any, and other excess cash, at the discretion of the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner. The Refining Partnership does not intend to maintain excess distribution coverage for the purpose of maintaining stability or growth in its quarterly distribution or otherwise to reserve cash for distributions, nor do they intend to incur debt to pay quarterly distributions. Further, it is the Refining
50
Partnership's intent, subject to market conditions, to finance growth capital externally, and not to reserve cash for unspecified potential future needs. As of the date of this Report, we own approximately 71% of the Refining Partnership's common units, and are entitled to a pro rata percentage of the Refining Partnership's distributions in respect of its common units.
The following is a summary of cash distributions paid by the Refining Partnership to unitholders during the year ended December 31, 2013 for the respective quarters to which the distributions relate:
March 31, 2013(1) | June 30, 2013 | September 30, 2013 | Total Cash Distributions Paid in 2013 | |||||||||||||
(in millions, except per common unit amounts) | ||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to CVR Refining Holdings, LLC | $ | 189.6 | $ | 141.5 | $ | 31.4 | $ | 362.5 | ||||||||
Amounts paid to public unitholders | 43.6 | 57.8 | 12.9 | 114.2 | ||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 233.2 | $ | 199.3 | $ | 44.3 | $ | 476.7 | ||||||||
Per common unit | $ | 1.58 | $ | 1.35 | $ | 0.30 | $ | 3.23 | ||||||||
Common units outstanding | 147.6 | 147.6 | 147.6 | |||||||||||||
(1) | The distribution for the period ended March 31, 2013 was adjusted to exclude the period from January 1, 2013 through January 22, 2013 (the period preceding the closing of the Refining Partnership IPO). |
On February 19, 2014, the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner declared a cash distribution for the fourth quarter of 2013 to the Refining Partnership’s unitholders of $0.45 per common unit, or $66.4 million in aggregate. The cash distribution will be paid on March 10, 2014 to unitholders of record at the close of business on March 3, 2014. Total cash distributions paid and to be paid based upon available cash for 2013 were $3.68 per common unit.
Stock Performance Graph
The following graph sets forth the cumulative return on our common stock between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, as compared to the cumulative return of the Russell 2000 Index and an industry peer group consisting of Alon USA Energy, Inc., Delek US Holdings, Inc., HollyFrontier Corporation, Tesoro Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation and Western Refining, Inc. The graph assumes an investment of $100 on January 1, 2009 in our common stock, the Russell 2000 Index and the industry peer group, and assumes the reinvestment of dividends where applicable. The closing market price for our common stock on December 31, 2013 was $43.43. The stock price performance shown on the graph is not intended to forecast and does not necessarily indicate future price performance.
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2009 AND DECEMBER 31, 2013
among CVR Energy, Inc., Russell 2000 Index and a peer group
51
This performance graph shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or the Exchange Act.
Jan '09 | Mar '09 | Jun '09 | Sep '09 | Dec '09 | Mar '10 | Jun '10 | Sep '10 | Dec '10 | Mar '11 | Jun '11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
CVR Energy, Inc. | 100.00 | 138.50 | 183.25 | 311.00 | 171.50 | 218.75 | 188.00 | 206.25 | 379.50 | 579.00 | 615.50 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Russell 2000 Index | 100.00 | 84.64 | 101.77 | 120.99 | 125.22 | 135.88 | 122.03 | 135.38 | 156.90 | 168.90 | 165.67 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Peer Group | 100.00 | 134.01 | 107.25 | 117.98 | 99.56 | 108.81 | 101.13 | 103.59 | 139.60 | 224.32 | 229.32 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Sep '11 | Dec '11 | Mar '12 | Jun '12 | Sep '12 | Dec '12 | Mar '13 | Jun '13 | Sep '13 | Dec '13 | ||||||||||||||||||||
CVR Energy, Inc. | 528.50 | 468.25 | 668.75 | 664.50 | 918.75 | 1,219.75 | 1,113.50 | 1,142.25 | 943.50 | 1,085.75 | |||||||||||||||||||
Russell 2000 Index | 128.97 | 148.35 | 166.24 | 159.87 | 167.67 | 170.06 | 190.52 | 195.71 | 214.99 | 232.98 | |||||||||||||||||||
Peer Group | 166.11 | 176.59 | 228.50 | 244.42 | 329.02 | 356.26 | 443.72 | 357.68 | 318.93 | 452.33 | |||||||||||||||||||
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer
We did not repurchase any of our common stock during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2013.
52
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
You should read the selected historical consolidated financial data presented below in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Report.
The selected consolidated financial information presented below under the caption "Statements of Operations Data" for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and the selected consolidated financial information presented below under the caption "Balance Sheet Data" as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Report. Grant Thornton LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, audited our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013, and KPMG LLP, our predecessor independent registered public accounting firm, audited our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. The consolidated financial information presented below under the caption "Statements of Operations Data" for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the consolidated financial information presented below under the caption "Balance Sheet Data" at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this Report.
Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | 2011(1) | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||
(in millions, except per share data) | |||||||||||||||||||
Statements of Operations Data: | |||||||||||||||||||
Net sales | $ | 8,985.8 | $ | 8,567.3 | $ | 5,029.1 | $ | 4,079.8 | $ | 3,136.3 | |||||||||
Cost of product sold(2) | 7,563.2 | 6,696.9 | 3,943.5 | 3,568.1 | 2,547.7 | ||||||||||||||
Direct operating expenses(2) | 455.8 | 522.1 | 334.1 | 239.8 | 226.6 | ||||||||||||||
Insurance recovery-business interruption | — | — | (3.4 | ) | — | — | |||||||||||||
Selling, general and administrative expenses(2) | 113.5 | 183.4 | 98.0 | 92.0 | 68.9 | ||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization | 142.8 | 130.0 | 90.3 | 86.8 | 84.9 | ||||||||||||||
Operating income | $ | 710.5 | $ | 1,034.9 | $ | 566.6 | $ | 93.1 | $ | 208.2 | |||||||||
Interest expense and other financing costs | (50.5 | ) | (75.4 | ) | (55.8 | ) | (50.3 | ) | (44.2 | ) | |||||||||
Interest income | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 1.7 | ||||||||||||||
Gain (loss) on derivatives, net | 57.1 | (285.6 | ) | 78.1 | (1.5 | ) | (65.3 | ) | |||||||||||
Loss on extinguishment of debt | (26.1 | ) | (37.5 | ) | (2.1 | ) | (16.6 | ) | (2.1 | ) | |||||||||
Other income, net | 13.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.3 | ||||||||||||||
Income before income tax expense | $ | 705.7 | $ | 638.2 | $ | 588.1 | $ | 28.1 | $ | 98.6 | |||||||||
Income tax expense | 183.7 | 225.6 | 209.5 | 13.8 | 29.2 | ||||||||||||||
Net income | 522.0 | 412.6 | 378.6 | 14.3 | 69.4 | ||||||||||||||
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest | 151.3 | 34.0 | 32.8 | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Net income attributable to CVR Energy stockholders | $ | 370.7 | $ | 378.6 | $ | 345.8 | $ | 14.3 | $ | 69.4 | |||||||||
Basic earnings per share | $ | 4.27 | $ | 4.36 | $ | 4.00 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.80 | |||||||||
Diluted earnings per share | $ | 4.27 | $ | 4.33 | $ | 3.94 | $ | 0.16 | $ | 0.80 | |||||||||
Weighted-average common shares outstanding: | |||||||||||||||||||
Basic | 86.8 | 86.8 | 86.5 | 86.3 | 86.2 | ||||||||||||||
Diluted | 86.8 | 87.4 | 87.8 | 86.8 | 86.3 | ||||||||||||||
53
Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | 2011(1) | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||
(in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||
Balance Sheet Data: | |||||||||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 842.1 | $ | 896.0 | $ | 388.3 | $ | 200.0 | $ | 36.9 | |||||||||
Working capital | 1,230.2 | 1,135.4 | 769.2 | 333.6 | 235.4 | ||||||||||||||
Total assets | 3,665.8 | 3,610.9 | 3,119.3 | 1,740.2 | 1,614.5 | ||||||||||||||
Total debt, including current portion | 676.2 | 898.2 | 863.8 | 477.0 | 491.3 | ||||||||||||||
Total CVR stockholders' equity | 1,188.6 | 1,525.1 | 1,151.6 | 689.6 | 653.8 | ||||||||||||||
Cash Flow Data: | |||||||||||||||||||
Net cash flow provided by (used in): | |||||||||||||||||||
Operating activities | 440.1 | 762.6 | 278.6 | 225.4 | 85.3 | ||||||||||||||
Investing activities | (250.3 | ) | (210.7 | ) | (674.4 | ) | (31.3 | ) | (48.3 | ) | |||||||||
Financing activities | (243.7 | ) | (44.2 | ) | 584.1 | (31.0 | ) | (9.0 | ) | ||||||||||
Net cash flow | (53.9 | ) | 507.7 | 188.3 | 163.1 | 28.0 | |||||||||||||
Other Financial Data: | |||||||||||||||||||
Capital expenditures for property, plant and equipment | 256.5 | 212.2 | 91.2 | 32.4 | 48.8 | ||||||||||||||
_______________________________________
(1) | We acquired WEC on December 15, 2011 and its results of operations are included from the date of acquisition. |
(2) | Amounts are shown exclusive of depreciation and amortization. |
Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Report.
Forward-Looking Statements
This Report, including, without limitation, the sections captioned "Business" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," contains "forward-looking statements" as defined by the SEC. Such statements are those concerning contemplated transactions and strategic plans, expectations and objectives for future operations. These include, without limitation:
• | statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that we expect, believe or anticipate will or may occur in the future; |
• | statements relating to future financial performance, future capital sources and other matters; and |
• | any other statements preceded by, followed by or that include the words "anticipates," "believes," "expects," "plans," "intends," "estimates," "projects," "could," "should," "may," or similar expressions. |
Although we believe that our plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by the forward-looking statements we make in this Report, including this Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such plans, intentions or expectations will be achieved. These statements are based on assumptions made by us based on our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors that we believe are appropriate in the circumstances. Such statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. You are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and that actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including but not limited to those set forth under the section captioned "Risk Factors" and contained elsewhere in this Report.
All forward-looking statements contained in this Report only speak as of the date of this Report. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur after the date of this Report, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except to the extent required by law.
54
Overview and Executive Summary
We are a diversified holding company primarily engaged in the petroleum refining and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing industries through our holdings in the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. The Refining Partnership is an independent petroleum refiner and marketer of high value transportation fuels. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership produces nitrogen fertilizers in the form of UAN and ammonia. We own the general partner and a majority of the common units representing limited partner interests in each of the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership.
We operate under two business segments: petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer. For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, we generated consolidated net sales of $9.0 billion, $8.6 billion and $5.0 billion, respectively, and operating income of $710.5 million, $1,034.9 million and $566.6 million, respectively. The petroleum business generated net sales of $8.7 billion, $8.3 billion and $4.8 billion, and the nitrogen fertilizer business generated net sales of $323.7 million, $302.3 million and $302.9 million in each case for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The petroleum business generated operating income of $603.0 million, $1,012.5 million and $465.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The nitrogen fertilizer business generated operating income of $124.9 million, $115.8 million and $136.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Petroleum business. The petroleum business consists of our interest in the Refining Partnership. We own the general partner and approximately 71% of the common units of the Refining Partnership. The petroleum business consists of a 115,000 bpcd rated capacity complex full coking medium-sour crude oil refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas and, as of December 15, 2011, a 70,000 bpcd rated capacity medium complexity crude oil unit refinery in Wynnewood, Oklahoma capable of processing 20,000 bpcd of light sour crude oil (within its rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd). In addition, its supporting businesses include (1) a crude oil gathering system with a gathering capacity of approximately 55,000 bpd serving Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas, (2) a rack marketing business supplying refined petroleum product through tanker trucks directly to customers located in close geographic proximity to Coffeyville, Kansas and Wynnewood, Oklahoma and at throughput terminals on Magellan and NuStar's refined petroleum products distribution systems, (3) a 145,000 bpd pipeline system (supported by approximately 350 miles of Company owned and leased pipeline) that transports crude oil to the Coffeyville refinery and associated crude oil storage tanks with a capacity of 1.2 million barrels, (4) crude oil storage tanks with a capacity of 0.5 million barrels in Wynnewood, Oklahoma, (5) 1.0 million barrels of company owned crude oil storage capacity in Cushing, Oklahoma, (6) an additional 3.3 million barrels of leased crude oil storage capacity located in Cushing and (7) approximately 4.5 million barrels of combined refinery related storage capacity.
The Coffeyville refinery is situated approximately 100 miles northeast of Cushing, Oklahoma, one of the largest crude oil trading and storage hubs in the United States and the Wynnewood refinery is approximately 130 miles southwest of Cushing. Cushing is supplied by numerous pipelines from U.S. domestic locations and Canada. The early June 2012 reversal of the Seaway pipeline that now flows from Cushing, Oklahoma to the U.S. Gulf Coast has eliminated the ability to source foreign waterborne crude oil, as well as deep water U.S. Gulf of Mexico produced sweet and sour crude oil grades. In addition to rack sales (sales which are made at terminals into third-party tanker trucks), Coffeyville makes bulk sales (sales through third-party pipelines) into the mid-continent markets and other destinations utilizing the product pipeline networks owned by Magellan, Enterprise, and NuStar.
Crude oil is supplied to the Coffeyville refinery through the gathering system and by a pipeline owned by Plains that runs from Cushing to its Broome Station tank farm. The petroleum business maintains capacity on the Spearhead and Keystone pipelines from Canada to Cushing. It also maintains leased and owned storage in Cushing to facilitate optimal crude oil purchasing and blending. The Coffeyville refinery blend consists of a combination of crude oil grades, including domestic grades and various Canadian medium and heavy sours and sweet synthetics. Crude oil is supplied to the Wynnewood refinery through two third-party pipelines operated by Sunoco Pipeline and Excel Pipeline and historically has mainly been sourced from Texas and Oklahoma. The Wynnewood refinery is capable of processing a variety of crudes, including WTS, WTI, sweet and sour Canadian and other U.S. domestically produced crude oils. The petroleum business expects to spend approximately $60.0 million on a hydrocracker project that will increase the conversion capability and the ULSD yield of the Wynnewood refinery. As of December 31, 2013, approximately $23.4 million has been spent on the Wynnewood hydrocracker project. The access to a variety of crude oils coupled with the complexity of the refineries allows the petroleum business to purchase crude oil at a discount to WTI. The consumed crude oil cost discount to WTI for 2013 was $2.57 per barrel compared to $2.26 per barrel in 2012 and $3.98 per barrel in 2011.
Nitrogen fertilizer business. The nitrogen fertilizer business consists of our interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. We own the general partner and approximately 53% of the common units of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. The nitrogen fertilizer business consists of a nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing facility that is the only operation in North America that utilizes a petroleum coke, or pet coke, gasification process to produce nitrogen fertilizer. The facility includes a
55
1,225 ton-per-day ammonia unit, a 3,000 ton-per-day UAN unit and a gasifier complex having a capacity of 84 million standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen. The gasifier is a dual-train facility, with each gasifier able to function independently of the other, thereby providing redundancy and improving reliability. In 2013, the nitrogen fertilizer business produced 930,643 tons of UAN and 401,971 tons of ammonia. Approximately 95% of the produced ammonia tons and substantially all of the purchased ammonia were upgraded into UAN.
The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership will continue to expand the nitrogen fertilizer business’ existing asset base to execute its growth strategy. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s growth strategy includes expanding production of UAN and acquiring additional infrastructure and production assets. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership completed a significant two-year plant expansion in February 2013, which increased its UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons, or approximately 50%, per year. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership now upgrades substantially all of the ammonia it produces into higher margin UAN fertilizer.
The primary raw material feedstock utilized in the nitrogen fertilizer production process is pet coke, which is produced during the crude oil refining process. In contrast, all of the competitors of the nitrogen fertilizer business use natural gas as their primary raw material feedstock. Historically, pet coke has been less expensive than natural gas on a per ton of fertilizer produced basis and pet coke prices have been more stable when compared to natural gas prices. We believe the nitrogen fertilizer business has historically been one of the lowest cost producers and marketers of UAN and ammonia fertilizers in North America. The nitrogen fertilizer business currently purchases most of its pet coke from the Refining Partnership pursuant to a long-term agreement having an initial term that ends in 2027, subject to renewal. On average, during the past five years, over 70% of the pet coke utilized by the nitrogen fertilizer plant was produced and supplied by the Refining Partnership's crude oil refinery in Coffeyville.
Transaction Agreement
On April 18, 2012, CVR Energy entered into a Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction Agreement") with IEP Energy LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively "IEP"). Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, IEP offered (the "Offer") to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of CVR Energy's common stock for a price of $30.00 per share in cash, without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes, plus one non-transferable contingent cash payment ("CCP") right for each share, which represented the contractual right to receive an additional cash payment per share if a definitive agreement for the sale of CVR Energy was executed on or before August 18, 2013 and such transaction closed. As no sale of the Company was executed by the date outlined in the Transaction Agreement, the CCPs expired on August 19, 2013.
In May 2012, IEP acquired a majority of the common stock of CVR Energy through the Offer. As of December 31, 2013, IEP owned approximately 82% of CVR Energy's outstanding common stock.
Refining Partnership Initial Public Offering
On January 23, 2013, the Refining Partnership completed the Refining Partnership IPO. The Refining Partnership sold 24,000,000 common units at a price of $25.00 per common unit, resulting in gross proceeds of $600.0 million. Of the common units issued, 4,000,000 units were purchased by an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises. Additionally, on January 30, 2013, the underwriters closed their option to purchase an additional 3,600,000 common units at a price of $25.00 per common unit resulting in gross proceeds of $90.0 million. The common units, which are listed on the NYSE, began trading on January 17, 2013 under the symbol "CVRR." In connection with the Refining Partnership IPO, the Refining Partnership paid approximately $32.5 million in underwriting fees and incurred approximately $3.9 million of other offering costs.
Prior to the Refining Partnership IPO, CVR owned 100% of the Refining Partnership and net income earned during this period was fully attributable to the Company. Following the Refining Partnership IPO and through May 19, 2013, CVR Energy indirectly owned approximately 81% of the Refining Partnership’s outstanding common units and 100% of the Refining Partnership’s general partner, which holds a non-economic general partner interest.
56
Refining Partnership Underwritten Offering
On May 20, 2013, the Refining Partnership completed the Underwritten Offering by selling 12,000,000 common units to the public at a price of $30.75 per unit. American Entertainment Properties Corporation (“AEPC”), an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises LP, also purchased an additional 2,000,000 common units at the public offering price in a privately negotiated transaction with a subsidiary of CVR Energy, which was completed on May 29, 2013. In connection with the Underwritten Offering, on June 10, 2013, the Refining Partnership sold an additional 1,209,236 common units to the public at a price of $30.75 per unit in connection with the exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase additional common units. The transactions described in this paragraph are collectively referred to as the "Transactions."
Following the closing of the Transactions and as of December 31, 2013, public security holders held approximately 29% of all outstanding Refining Partnership common units (including units held by affiliates of Icahn Enterprises, representing approximately 4% of all outstanding Refining Partnership common units), and CVR Refining Holdings held approximately 71% of all outstanding Refining Partnership common units in addition to owning 100% of CVR Refining GP, LLC, the general partner.
The Refining Partnership utilized proceeds of approximately $394.0 million from the Underwritten Offering (including the underwriters’ option) to redeem 13,209,236 common units from CVR Refining Holdings. The net proceeds to a subsidiary of CVR Energy from the sale of 2,000,000 common units to AEPC were approximately $61.5 million. The Refining Partnership did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of common units by CVR Energy to AEPC.
Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership Secondary Offering
On May 28, 2013, Coffeyville Resources, LLC (“CRLLC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy, completed the Secondary Offering in which it sold 12,000,000 Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership common units to the public at a price of $25.15 per unit. The net proceeds to CRLLC from the Secondary Offering were approximately $292.6 million, after deducting approximately $9.2 million in underwriting discounts and commissions. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of common units by CRLLC.
Following the closing of the Secondary Offering and as of December 31, 2013, public security holders held approximately 47% of all outstanding Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership common units, and CRLLC held approximately 53% of all outstanding Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership common units in addition to owning 100% of CVR GP, LLC, the general partner.
Major Influences on Results of Operations
Petroleum Business
The earnings and cash flows of the petroleum business are primarily affected by the relationship between refined product prices and the prices for crude oil and other feedstocks that are processed and blended into refined products. The cost to acquire crude oil and other feedstocks and the price for which refined products are ultimately sold depend on factors beyond its control, including the supply of and demand for crude oil, as well as gasoline and other refined products which, in turn, depend on, among other factors, changes in domestic and foreign economies, weather conditions, domestic and foreign political affairs, production levels, the availability of imports, the marketing of competitive fuels and the extent of government regulation. Because the petroleum business applies first-in, first-out ("FIFO") accounting to value its inventory, crude oil price movements may impact net income in the short term because of changes in the value of its unhedged on-hand inventory. The effect of changes in crude oil prices on our results of operations is influenced by the rate at which the prices of refined products adjust to reflect these changes.
The prices of crude oil and other feedstocks and refined product prices are also affected by other factors, such as product pipeline capacity, local market conditions and the operating levels of competing refineries. Crude oil costs and the prices of refined products have historically been subject to wide fluctuations. Widespread expansion or upgrades of competitors' facilities, price volatility, international political and economic developments and other factors are likely to continue to play an important role in refining industry economics. These factors can impact, among other things, the level of inventories in the market, resulting in price volatility and a reduction in product margins. Moreover, the refining industry typically experiences seasonal fluctuations in demand for refined products, such as increases in the demand for gasoline during the summer driving season and for home heating oil during the winter, primarily in the Northeast. In addition to current market conditions, there are long-term factors that may impact the demand for refined products. These factors include mandated renewable fuels standards, proposed climate change laws and regulations, and increased mileage standards for vehicles. The petroleum business is also
57
subject to the EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”), which requires it to blend “renewable fuels” in with its transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as renewable identification numbers (“RINs”), in lieu of blending.
The EPA is required to determine and publish the applicable annual renewable fuel percentage standards for each compliance year by November 30 for the forthcoming year. The percentage standards represent the ratio of renewable fuel volume to gasoline and diesel volume. On August 6, 2013, the EPA announced the final 2013 renewable fuel percentage standard would be raised to 9.74%. In 2013, the Wynnewood refinery was subject to the RFS for the first time. However, because the cost of purchasing RINs has been extremely volatile and has significantly increased over the last year, the Wynnewood refinery has petitioned the EPA as a “small refinery” for hardship relief from the RFS requirements in 2013 and 2014 based on the “disproportionate economic impact” on the Wynnewood refinery. During 2013, the cost of RINs became extremely volatile as the EPA's proposed renewable fuel volume mandates approached the "blend wall." The blend wall refers to the point at which refiners are required to blend more ethanol into the transportation fuel supply than can be supported by the demand for E10 gasoline (gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume). The EPA has published the proposed volume mandates for 2014, which acknowledge the blend wall and are generally lower than the volumes for 2013 and lower than statutory mandates. The price of RINs decreased significantly after the 2014 proposed mandate was published; however, RIN prices have remained volatile and have increased in 2014. The cost of RINs for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was approximately $180.5 million, $21.0 million and $19.0 million, respectively. The future cost of RINs for the petroleum business is difficult to estimate. In particular, the cost of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors, which include the availability of RINs for purchase, the price at which RINs can be purchased, transportation fuel production levels, the mix of the petroleum business’ petroleum products, as well as the fuel blending performed at its refineries, all of which can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. Based upon recent market prices of RINs and current estimates related to the other variable factors, the petroleum business estimates that the total cost of RINs will be approximately $75.0 million to $150.0 million for the year ending December 31, 2014.
If sufficient RINs are unavailable for purchase at times when the petroleum business seeks to purchase RINs, or if the petroleum business has to pay a significantly higher price for RINs or if the petroleum business is subject to penalties as a result of delays in its ability to timely deliver RINs to the EPA, its business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Many petroleum refiners blend renewable fuel into their transportation fuels and do not have to pass on the costs of compliance through the purchase of RINs to their customers. Therefore, it may be significantly harder for the petroleum business to pass on the costs of compliance with RFS to its customers.
In order to assess the operating performance of the petroleum business, we compare net sales, less cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization), or the refining margin, against an industry refining margin benchmark. The industry refining margin benchmark is calculated by assuming that two barrels of benchmark light sweet crude oil is converted into one barrel of conventional gasoline and one barrel of distillate. This benchmark is referred to as the 2-1-1 crack spread. Because we calculate the benchmark margin using the market value of NYMEX gasoline and heating oil against the market value of NYMEX WTI, we refer to the benchmark as the NYMEX 2-1-1 crack spread, or simply, the 2-1-1 crack spread. The 2-1-1 crack spread is expressed in dollars per barrel and is a proxy for the per barrel margin that a sweet crude oil refinery would earn assuming it produced and sold the benchmark production of gasoline and distillate.
Although the 2-1-1 crack spread is a benchmark for the refinery margin, because the refineries have certain feedstock costs and logistical advantages as compared to a benchmark refinery and their product yield is less than total refinery throughput, the crack spread does not account for all the factors that affect refinery margin. The Coffeyville refinery is able to process a blend of crude oil that includes quantities of heavy and medium sour crude oil that has historically cost less than WTI. The Wynnewood refinery has the capability to process blends of a variety of crude oil ranging from medium sour to light sweet crude oil, although isobutene, gasoline components, and normal butane are also typically used. We measure the cost advantage of the crude oil slate by calculating the spread between the price of the delivered crude oil and the price of WTI. The spread is referred to as the consumed crude oil differential. The refinery margin can be impacted significantly by the consumed crude oil differential. The consumed crude oil differential will move directionally with changes in the WTS differential to WTI and the WCS differential to WTI as both these differentials indicate the relative price of heavier, more sour, slate to WTI. The correlation between the consumed crude oil differential and published differentials will vary depending on the volume of light medium sour crude oil and heavy sour crude oil the petroleum business purchases as a percent of its total crude oil volume and will correlate more closely with such published differentials the heavier and more sour the crude oil slate.
The petroleum business produces a high volume of high value products, such as gasoline and distillates. The petroleum business benefits from the fact that its marketing region consumes more refined products than it produces, resulting in prices that reflect the logistics cost for U.S. Gulf Coast refineries to ship into its region. The result of this logistical advantage and the fact that the actual product specifications used to determine the NYMEX 2-1-1 crack spread are different from the actual production in its refineries is that prices the petroleum business realizes are different than those used in determining the 2-1-1 crack spread. The difference between its price and the price used to calculate the 2-1-1 crack spread is referred to as gasoline
58
PADD II, Group 3 vs. NYMEX basis, or gasoline basis, and Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel PADD II, Group 3 vs. NYMEX basis, or Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel basis. If both gasoline and Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel basis are greater than zero, this means that prices in its marketing area exceed those used in the 2-1-1 crack spread.
The direct operating expense structure is also important to the petroleum business' profitability. Major direct operating expenses include energy, employee labor, maintenance, contract labor, and environmental compliance. The predominant variable cost is energy, which is comprised primarily of electrical cost and natural gas. The petroleum business is therefore sensitive to the movements of natural gas prices. Assuming the same rate of consumption of natural gas for the year ended December 31, 2013, a $1.00 change in natural gas prices would have increased or decreased the petroleum business' natural gas costs by approximately $9.0 million.
Because crude oil and other feedstocks and refined products are commodities, the petroleum business has no control over the changing market. Therefore, the lower target inventory it is able to maintain significantly reduces the impact of commodity price volatility on its petroleum product inventory position relative to other refiners. This target inventory position is generally not hedged. To the extent its inventory position deviates from the target level, the petroleum business considers risk mitigation activities usually through the purchase or sale of futures contracts on the NYMEX. Its hedging activities carry customary time, location and product grade basis risks generally associated with hedging activities. Because most of its titled inventory is valued under the FIFO costing method, price fluctuations on its target level of titled inventory have a major effect on the petroleum business' financial results.
Safe and reliable operations at the refineries are key to the petroleum business' financial performance and results of operations. Unplanned downtime at the refineries may result in lost margin opportunity, increased maintenance expense and a temporary increase in working capital investment and related inventory position. The petroleum business seeks to mitigate the financial impact of planned downtime, such as major turnaround maintenance, through a diligent planning process that takes into account the margin environment, the availability of resources to perform the needed maintenance, feedstock logistics and other factors. The refineries generally require a facility turnaround every four to five years. The length of the turnaround is contingent upon the scope of work to be completed. The Coffeyville refinery completed the first phase of a two phase turnaround during the fourth quarter of 2011. The second phase was completed during the first quarter of 2012, and the first phase of its next turnaround is scheduled to begin in late 2015, with the second phase scheduled to begin in early 2016. The Wynnewood Refinery completed a turnaround in December 2012. Its next turnaround is scheduled to begin in late 2016.
The Coffeyville refinery experienced an equipment malfunction and small fire in connection with its fluid catalytic cracking unit (the "FCCU") on December 28, 2010, which led to reduced crude oil throughput and repair costs of approximately $2.2 million net of insurance receivable for the year ended December 31, 2011. The petroleum business used the resulting downtime to perform certain turnaround activities which had otherwise been scheduled for later in 2011, along with opportunistic maintenance, which cost approximately $4.0 million in total. The refinery returned to full operations on January 26, 2011. This interruption adversely impacted the production of refined products for the petroleum business in the first quarter of 2011. The petroleum business estimates that approximately 1.9 million barrels of crude oil processing were lost in the first quarter of 2011 due to this incident.
The Coffeyville refinery also experienced a small fire at its continuous catalyst reformer (the "CCR") in May 2011, which led to reduced crude oil throughput for the second quarter of 2011. Repair costs, net of the insurance receivable, recorded for the year ended December 31, 2011 approximated $2.5 million. The interruption adversely impacted the production of refined products for the second quarter of 2011.
The Wynnewood refinery experienced an unplanned maintenance event upon turnover of the facility to the Company. Operating deficiencies associated with the FCCU required a 27-day outage to repair damage to the unit at a cost of $1.7 million. The outage required cutting the crude rate during the fourth quarter of 2011.
During the third quarter of 2013, the FCCU at the Coffeyville refinery was offline for approximately 55 days for necessary repairs. As a result of the FCCU outage, crude throughput and production at the Coffeyville refinery was significantly reduced during the third quarter of 2013. Additionally, the Refining Partnership incurred approximately $21.1 million in costs to repair the FCCU for the year ended December 31, 2013. These costs are included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Nitrogen Fertilizer Business
In the nitrogen fertilizer business, earnings and cash flows from operations are primarily affected by the relationship between nitrogen fertilizer product prices, on-stream factors and direct operating expenses. Unlike its competitors, the nitrogen fertilizer business does not use natural gas as a feedstock and uses a minimal amount of natural gas as an energy source in its operations. As a result, volatile swings in natural gas prices have a minimal impact on its results of operations. Instead, the adjacent Coffeyville refinery supplies the nitrogen fertilizer business with most of the pet coke feedstock it needs pursuant to a
59
20 year pet coke supply agreement entered into in October 2007. The price at which nitrogen fertilizer products are ultimately sold depends on numerous factors, including the global supply and demand for nitrogen fertilizer products which, in turn, depends on, among other factors, world grain demand and production levels, changes in world population, the cost and availability of fertilizer transportation infrastructure, weather conditions, the availability of imports, and the extent of government intervention in agriculture markets.
Nitrogen fertilizer prices are also affected by local factors, including local market conditions and the operating levels of competing facilities. An expansion or upgrade of competitors' facilities, international political and economic developments and other factors are likely to continue to play an important role in nitrogen fertilizer industry economics. These factors can impact, among other things, the level of inventories in the market, resulting in price volatility and a reduction in product margins. Moreover, the industry typically experiences seasonal fluctuations in demand for nitrogen fertilizer products.
In addition, the demand for fertilizers is affected by the aggregate crop planting decisions and fertilizer application rate decisions of individual farmers. Individual farmers make planting decisions based largely on the prospective profitability of a harvest, while the specific varieties and amounts of fertilizer they apply depend on factors like crop prices, their current liquidity, soil conditions, weather patterns and the types of crops planted.
Natural gas is the most significant raw material required in its competitors' production of nitrogen fertilizers. Over the past several years, natural gas prices have experienced high levels of price volatility. However, calendar years 2012 and 2013 were two of the lowest priced years for natural gas prices as compared to the last 10 years. This pricing and volatility has a direct impact on the nitrogen fertilizer business' competitors' cost of producing nitrogen fertilizer.
In order to assess its operating performance, the nitrogen fertilizer business calculates plant gate price to determine its operating margin. Plant gate price refers to the unit price of nitrogen fertilizer, in dollars per ton, offered on a delivered basis from the ship point, excluding final shipment costs.
The nitrogen fertilizer business and other competitors in the U.S. farm belt share a significant transportation cost advantage when compared to out-of-region competitors in serving the U.S. farm belt agricultural market. In 2013, approximately 53% of the corn planted in the United States was grown within a $45 per UAN ton freight train rate of the nitrogen fertilizer plant. The nitrogen fertilizer business is therefore able to cost-effectively sell substantially all of its products in the higher margin agricultural market, whereas a significant portion of its competitors' revenues are derived from the lower margin industrial market. The nitrogen fertilizer business' products leave the plant either in trucks for direct shipment to customers or in railcars for destinations located principally on the Union Pacific Railroad, and it does not currently incur significant intermediate transfer, storage, barge freight or pipeline freight charges. The nitrogen fertilizer business estimates that its plant enjoys a transportation cost advantage of approximately $15 per UAN ton for transportation of UAN over competitors located in the U.S. Gulf Coast. Selling products to customers within economic rail transportation limits of the nitrogen fertilizer plant and keeping transportation costs low are keys to maintaining profitability.
The value of nitrogen fertilizer products is also an important consideration in understanding its results. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the nitrogen fertilizer business upgraded approximately 95% of its ammonia production into UAN, a product that presently generates greater profit than ammonia. During 2012 and 2011, the nitrogen fertilizer business upgraded approximately 68% and 72%, respectively, of its ammonia production into UAN. As a result of the completion of the UAN expansion project in February 2013, the nitrogen fertilizer business now upgrades substantially all of its ammonia into UAN.
The nitrogen fertilizer business' largest raw material expense is pet coke, which it purchases from the petroleum business and third parties. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the nitrogen fertilizer business spent approximately $14.6 million, $16.2 million and $16.8 million, respectively, for pet coke, which equaled an average cost per ton of $30, $33 and $33, respectively.
The high fixed cost of the nitrogen fertilizer business' direct operating expense structure also directly affects its profitability. Using a pet coke gasification process, the nitrogen fertilizer business has a significantly higher percentage of fixed costs than a natural gas-based fertilizer plant. Major fixed operating expenses include electrical energy, employee labor, maintenance, including contract labor, and outside services. These fixed costs averaged approximately 84% of direct operating expenses over the 24 months ended December 31, 2013.
The nitrogen fertilizer business obtains most (over 70% on average during the last five years) of the pet coke it needs from the adjacent Coffeyville crude oil refinery pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement, and procures the remainder on the open market. The price the nitrogen fertilizer business pays pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement is based on the lesser of a pet coke price derived from the price received for UAN, or the UAN-based price, and a pet coke price index. The UAN-based price begins with a pet coke price of $25 per ton based on a price per ton for UAN (exclusive of transportation cost), or netback price, of $205 per ton, and adjusts up or down $0.50 per ton for every $1.00 change in the netback price. The UAN-based price has a ceiling of $40 per ton and a floor of $5 per ton.
60
Safe and reliable operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant are critical to its financial performance and results of operations. Unplanned downtime of the nitrogen fertilizer plant may result in lost margin opportunity, increased maintenance expense and a temporary increase in working capital investment and related inventory position. The financial impact of planned downtime, such as major turnaround maintenance, is mitigated through a diligent planning process that takes into account margin environment, the availability of resources to perform the needed maintenance, feedstock logistics and other factors. The nitrogen fertilizer plant generally undergoes a facility turnaround every two to three years. The turnaround typically lasts 13-15 days each turnaround year and costs approximately $3.0 million to $5.0 million per turnaround. The nitrogen fertilizer plant underwent a turnaround in the fourth quarter of 2012, at a cost of approximately $4.8 million. The Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership is planning to defer the next full facility turnaround to 2015. It is anticipated that a less involved facility shutdown will be performed mid-year 2014 to upgrade the pressure swing absorption unit, which is projected to increase hydrogen recovery sufficient to produce approximately 7,000 to 8,000 tons of additional ammonia fertilizer annually.
Agreements With the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership
In connection with our initial public offering and the transfer of the nitrogen fertilizer business to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership in October 2007, we entered into a number of agreements with the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership that govern the business relations among the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership and its affiliates on the one hand and us and our other affiliates on the other hand. In connection with the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership IPO, we directly or through our subsidiaries amended and restated certain of the intercompany agreements and entered into several new agreements with the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. In connection with the Refining Partnership IPO, some of our subsidiaries party to these agreements became subsidiaries of the Refining Partnership.
These intercompany agreements include (i) the pet coke supply agreement mentioned above, under which the petroleum business sells pet coke to the nitrogen fertilizer business; (ii) a services agreement, pursuant to which our management operates the nitrogen fertilizer business; (iii) a feedstock and shared services agreement, which governs the provision of feedstocks, including hydrogen, high-pressure steam, nitrogen, instrument air, oxygen and natural gas; (iv) a raw water and facilities sharing agreement, which allocates raw water resources between the two businesses; (v) an easement agreement; (vi) an environmental agreement; and (vii) a lease agreement pursuant to which the petroleum business leases office space and laboratory space to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. These agreements were not the result of arm's-length negotiations and the terms of these agreements are not necessarily at least as favorable to the parties to these agreements as terms which could have been obtained from unaffiliated third parties.
In connection with the Refining Partnership IPO, we entered into a number of agreements with the Refining Partnership, including (i) a $150.0 million intercompany credit facility between CRLLC and the Refining Partnership and (ii) a services agreement, pursuant to which our management operates the petroleum business.
Crude Oil Supply Agreement
On August 31, 2012, CRRM and Vitol Inc. ("Vitol") entered into the Vitol Agreement (the "Vitol Agreement"). The Vitol Agreement amends and restates the Crude Oil Supply Agreement between CRRM and Vitol dated March 30, 2011, as amended. Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies us with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps us to reduce our inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. The Vitol Agreement has an initial term commencing on August 31, 2012 and extending through December 31, 2014 (the "Initial Term"). Following the Initial Term, the Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term.
61
Factors Affecting Comparability
Our historical results of operations for the periods presented may not be comparable with prior periods or to our results of operations in the future for the reasons presented and discussed below.
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||
(in millions) | ||||||||||||
Loss on extinguishment of debt (a) | $ | 26.1 | $ | 37.5 | $ | 2.1 | ||||||
Transaction expenses (b) | — | 44.2 | — | |||||||||
Expenses associated with the acquisition of Gary-Williams (c) | — | 11.0 | 9.1 | |||||||||
Share-based compensation (d) | 18.4 | 39.1 | 27.2 | |||||||||
Gain (loss) on derivatives, net | 57.1 | (285.6 | ) | 78.1 | ||||||||
Major scheduled turnaround expenses (e) | — | 128.5 | 66.4 | |||||||||
_______________________________________
(a) Represents (1) for 2013, the write-off of previously deferred financing costs, unamortized original issue discount and the premium paid related to the extinguishment of CRLLC's second lien notes (the "Second Lien Notes"); (2) for 2012, the write-off of previously deferred financing costs, unamortized premium/discount and premiums paid upon the extinguishment of CRLLC's first lien notes (the "First Lien Notes" and, together with the Second Lien Notes, the "Old Notes"), which contributed to $33.4 million of the loss on extinguishment of debt, and the write-off of a portion of previously deferred financing costs associated with our prior ABL credit facility, which was replaced with an Amended and Restated ABL Credit Facility and contributed $4.1 million of the loss on extinguishment of debt; and (3) for 2011, the write-off of a portion of previously deferred financing costs upon the replacement of the first priority credit facility with the ABL credit facility, which contributed $1.9 million of the loss on extinguishment, and the write-off of previously deferred financing costs and unamortized original issue discount associated with the repurchase of $2.7 million of First Lien Notes, which contributed $0.2 million of the loss on extinguishment of debt.
(b) In February 2012, IEP commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of our Company. On April 18, 2012, we entered into a transaction agreement and on May 7, 2012, IEP announced that control of the Company had been acquired. CVR incurred costs for the year ended December 31, 2012 related to the proxy contest that did not occur in 2013 or 2011. We are currently challenging a majority of the expenses charged and, if we are successful, such expenses would be reversed and have a favorable impact to our results of operations.
(c) As a result of the acquisition of the Wynnewood refinery in December 2011, we incurred transaction fees and integration expenses during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. We did not incur such expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013 as the operations were fully integrated
(d) Represents impact of share-based compensation awards.
(e) Represents expense associated with major scheduled turnarounds at the nitrogen fertilizer plant, the Coffeyville refinery and the Wynnewood refinery.
Wynnewood Acquisition
On December 15, 2011, we acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of WEC for $593.4 million, consisting of an initial cash payment of $525.0 million, capital expenditure adjustments of $1.8 million and $66.6 million for working capital. The assets acquired include the 70,000 bpcd rated capacity refinery in Wynnewood, Oklahoma and approximately 2.0 million barrels of storage tanks. The financial results of WEC have been included in the results of the petroleum business since the date of the Wynnewood Acquisition.
Noncontrolling Interest
Prior to the Refining Partnership IPO on January 23, 2013, the noncontrolling interest reflected in our consolidated financial statements represented the approximately 30% interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership held by public common unitholders, which was adjusted each reporting period for the noncontrolling ownership percentage of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s net income and related distributions. As a result of the Refining Partnership IPO, CVR Energy recorded an
62
additional noncontrolling interest for the Refining Partnership common units sold to the public, which represented an approximately 19% interest of the Refining Partnership. Effective upon the consummation of the Refining Partnership’s IPO, the noncontrolling interest reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets was impacted additionally by the noncontrolling ownership percentage of the net income of the Refining Partnership and related distributions for each future reporting period. As a result of the Refining Partnership’s closing of the Underwritten Offering to sell an additional 13,209,236 common units to the public (including 1,209,236 units purchased through the underwriters’ option) and the sale of 2,000,000 common units to AEPC, the noncontrolling interest related to the Refining Partnership reflected in our consolidated financial statements subsequent to the completion of the Transactions in the second quarter of 2013 and as of December 31, 2013 is approximately 29%. Additionally, as a result of the Secondary Offering to sell 12,000,000 Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership common units, the noncontrolling interest related to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership reflected in our consolidated financial statements subsequent to the completion of the Secondary Offering on May 28, 2013 and as of December 31, 2013 is approximately 47%.
The revenue and expenses from the Refining Partnership and Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership are consolidated with CVR Energy's Consolidated Statements of Operations because each of the general partners is owned by CVR Refining Holdings and CRLLC, respectively, wholly-owned subsidiaries of CVR Energy. Therefore, CVR Energy has the ability to control the activities of the Refining Partnership and Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership. However, the percentage of ownership held by the public unitholders for the Refining Partnership and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership is reflected as net income attributable to noncontrolling interest in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and reduces consolidated net income to derive net income attributable to CVR Energy.
Publicly Traded Partnership Expenses
Our general and administrative expenses have increased or will increase in part due to the costs of the Refining Partnership operating as a publicly traded company, including costs associated with SEC reporting requirements (including annual and quarterly reports to unitholders), tax return and Schedule K-1 preparation and distribution, independent auditor fees, investor relations activities and registrar and transfer agent fees. We estimate that these incremental general and administrative expenses, which also include increased personnel costs, approximate $5.0 million per year, excluding the costs associated with the initial implementation of the Refining Partnership's Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 internal controls review and testing. These increased costs are paid by the Refining Partnership. Our historical consolidated financial statements for periods ended prior to January 23, 2013 do not reflect the impact of these expenses, which affects the comparability of the post-Refining Partnership IPO results with our financial statements from periods prior to the completion of the Refining Partnership IPO.
Fertilizer Plant Property Taxes
CRNF received a ten year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the county reclassified and reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant for property tax purposes. The reclassification and reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of approximately $10.7 million per year for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, $11.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, and $11.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. CRNF protested the classification and resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals ("COTA"), followed by an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. However, CRNF fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claimed were owed for the years ended December 31, 2008 through 2012. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion dated August 9, 2013, reversed the COTA decision in part and remanded the case to COTA, instructing COTA to classify each asset on an asset by asset basis instead of making a broad determination that the entire plant was real property as COTA did originally. CRNF believes that when that asset by asset determination is done, the majority of the plant will be classified as personal property which would result in significantly lower property taxes for CRNF for 2008 and for those years after the conclusion of the property tax settlement noted below as compared to the taxes paid by CRNF prior to the settlement. The County filed a motion for rehearing with the Kansas Court of Appeals seeking reconsideration of the Court’s August 9, 2013 decision and that motion was denied. The County also filed a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court and that petition is pending.
On February 25, 2013, Montgomery County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012, which has lowered and will lower CRNF's property taxes by about $10.7 million per year (as compared to the 2012 tax year) for tax years 2013 through 2016 based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides that Montgomery County will support CRNF's application before COTA for a ten year tax exemption for the UAN expansion. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 reclassification and reassessment discussed above.
63
Distributions to CVR Partners Unitholders
The current policy of the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner is to distribute all of the available cash the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership generates each quarter. Available cash for each quarter will be determined by the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner following the end of such quarter. Beginning with the first quarter of 2013, the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner adopted an amended policy to calculate available cash starting with Adjusted Nitrogen Fertilizer EBITDA reduced for cash needed for net interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service and other contractual obligations, maintenance capital expenditures and, to the extent applicable, major scheduled turnaround expense incurred and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Available cash for distributions may be increased by previously established cash reserves, if any, at the discretion of the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s general partner. Actual distributions are set by the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership’s general partner. The board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership may modify the cash distribution policy at any time, and the partnership agreement does not require the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership to make distributions at all.
The following is a summary of cash distributions paid to Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership unitholders during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 for the respective quarters to which the distributions relate:
December 31, 2012 | March 31, 2013 | June 30, 2013 | September 30, 2013 | Total Cash Distributions Paid in 2013 | |||||||||||||||
(in millions, except per common unit amounts) | |||||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to CRLLC | $ | 9.8 | $ | 31.1 | $ | 22.7 | $ | 14.0 | $ | 77.5 | |||||||||
Amounts paid to public unitholders | 4.2 | 13.5 | 19.9 | 12.3 | 50.0 | ||||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 14.0 | $ | 44.6 | $ | 42.6 | $ | 26.3 | $ | 127.5 | |||||||||
Per common unit | $ | 0.192 | $ | 0.610 | $ | 0.583 | $ | 0.360 | $ | 1.745 | |||||||||
Common units outstanding | 73.1 | 73.1 | 73.1 | 73.1 | |||||||||||||||
December 31, 2011 | March 31, 2012 | June 30, 2012 | September 30, 2012 | Total Cash Distributions Paid in 2012 | |||||||||||||||
(in millions, except per common units amounts) | |||||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to CRLLC | $ | 29.9 | $ | 26.6 | $ | 30.5 | $ | 25.3 | $ | 112.4 | |||||||||
Amounts paid to public unitholders | 13.0 | 11.6 | 13.3 | 10.9 | 48.8 | ||||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 42.9 | $ | 38.2 | $ | 43.8 | $ | 36.2 | $ | 161.2 | |||||||||
Per common unit | $ | 0.588 | $ | 0.523 | $ | 0.600 | $ | 0.496 | $ | 2.207 | |||||||||
Common units outstanding | 73.0 | 73.0 | 73.0 | 73.0 | |||||||||||||||
On February 19, 2014, the board of directors of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's general partner declared a cash distribution for the fourth quarter of 2013 to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership's unitholders of $0.43 per unit, or $31.4 million in aggregate. The cash distribution will be paid on March 10, 2014 to unitholders of record at the close of business on March 3, 2014. We will receive $16.7 million in respect of our common units. Total cash distributions paid and to be paid based upon available cash for 2013 were $1.98 per common unit.
Distributions to CVR Refining Unitholders
The current policy of the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner is to distribute all of the available cash the Refining Partnership generates each quarter. Available cash for each quarter will be determined by the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner following the end of such quarter and will generally equal Adjusted Petroleum EBITDA reduced for cash needed for debt service, reserves for environmental and maintenance capital expenditures, reserves for future major scheduled turnaround expenses and, to the extent applicable, reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Available cash for distributions may be increased by previously established cash reserves, if any, and other excess cash, at the discretion of the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner. Actual distributions are set by the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner. The board of directors of the Refining Partnership's general partner may modify the
64
cash distribution policy at any time, and the partnership agreement does not require the Refining Partnership to make distributions at all.
The following is a summary of cash distributions paid to Refining Partnership unitholders during the year ended December 31, 2013 for the respective quarters to which the distributions relate:
March 31, 2013(1) | June 30, 2013 | September 30, 2013 | Total Cash Distributions Paid in 2013 | |||||||||||||
(in millions, except per common unit amounts) | ||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to CVR Refining Holdings, LLC | $ | 189.6 | $ | 141.5 | $ | 31.4 | $ | 362.5 | ||||||||
Amounts paid to public unitholders | 43.6 | 57.8 | 12.9 | 114.2 | ||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 233.2 | $ | 199.3 | $ | 44.3 | $ | 476.7 | ||||||||
Per common unit | $ | 1.58 | $ | 1.35 | $ | 0.30 | $ | 3.23 | ||||||||
Common units outstanding | 147.6 | 147.6 | 147.6 | |||||||||||||
(1) | The distribution for the period ended March 31, 2013 was adjusted to exclude the period from January 1, 2013 through January 22, 2013 (the period preceding the closing of the Refining Partnership IPO). |
On February 19, 2014, the board of directors of the Refining Partnership’s general partner declared a cash distribution for the fourth quarter of 2013 to the Refining Partnership’s unitholders of $0.45 per common unit, or $66.4 million in aggregate. The cash distribution will be paid on March 10, 2014 to unitholders of record at the close of business on March 3, 2014. We will receive $47.1 million in respect of our common units. Total cash distributions paid and to be paid based upon available cash for 2013 were $3.68 per common unit.
CVR Energy Dividends
On January 24, 2013, our board of directors adopted a quarterly cash dividend policy. Subject to declaration by our board of directors, our quarterly dividend is expected to be $0.75 per share, or $3.00 per share on an annualized basis, which we began paying in the second quarter of 2013. Additionally, we declared and paid two special cash dividends during the year ended December 31, 2013.
The following is a summary of the quarterly and special dividends paid to stockholders during the year ended December 31, 2013:
February 19, 2013 | May 17, 2013 | June 10, 2013 | August 19, 2013 | November 18, 2013 | Total Dividends Paid in 2013 | ||||||||||||||||||
(in millions, expect per share amounts) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividend type | Special | Quarterly | Special | Quarterly | Quarterly | ||||||||||||||||||
Amount paid to IEP | $ | 391.6 | $ | 53.4 | $ | 462.8 | $ | 53.4 | $ | 53.4 | $ | 1,014.6 | |||||||||||
Amounts paid to public stockholders | 86.0 | 11.7 | 101.6 | 11.7 | 11.7 | 222.7 | |||||||||||||||||
Total amount paid | $ | 477.6 | $ | 65.1 | $ | 564.4 | $ | 65.1 | $ | 65.1 | $ | 1,237.3 | |||||||||||
Per common share | $ | 5.50 | $ | 0.75 | $ | ||||||||||||||||||