e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31,
2010
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
Commission
File number
000-51734
Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P.
(Exact Name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
37-1516132
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)
|
2780
Waterfront Pkwy E. Drive
Suite 200
Indianapolis, Indiana 46214
(317) 328-5660
(Address,
Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of Registrants Principal Executive
Offices)
SECURITIES
REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common units representing limited partner interests
|
|
The NASDAQ Stock Market
|
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 of
Regulation S-T
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files). Yes o No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants 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. o
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. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
|
Accelerated filer þ
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
|
Smaller reporting company o
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the common units held by
non-affiliates of the registrant (treating all executive
officers and directors of the registrant and holders of 10% or
more of the common units outstanding, for this purpose, as if
they may be affiliates of the registrant) was approximately
$283.2 million on June 30, 2010, based on $17.68 per
unit, the closing price of the common units as reported on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market on such date.
On February 18, 2011, there were 35,279,778 common units
outstanding.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
NONE.
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
FORM 10-K
2010 ANNUAL REPORT
Table of Contents
1
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
(this Annual Report) includes certain
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These
statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking
terminology including may, believe,
expect, anticipate,
estimate, continue, or other similar
words. The statements regarding (i) estimated capital
expenditures as a result of the required audits or required
operational changes included in our settlement with the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
or other environmental and regulatory liabilities, (ii) our
anticipated levels of use of derivatives to mitigate our
exposure to crude oil price changes and fuel products price
changes, and (iii) future compliance with our debt
covenants, as well as other matters discussed in this Annual
Report that are not purely historical data, are forward-looking
statements. These statements discuss future expectations or
state other forward-looking information and involve
risks and uncertainties. When considering these forward-looking
statements, unitholders should keep in mind the risk factors and
other cautionary statements included in this Annual Report. The
risk factors and other factors noted throughout this Annual
Report could cause our actual results to differ materially from
those contained in any forward-looking statement. These factors
include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
the overall demand for specialty hydrocarbon products, fuels and
other refined products;
|
|
|
|
our ability to produce specialty products and fuels that meet
our customers unique and precise specifications;
|
|
|
|
the impact of fluctuations and rapid increases or decreases in
crude oil and crack spread prices, including the resulting
impact on our liquidity;
|
|
|
|
the results of our hedging and other risk management activities;
|
|
|
|
our ability to comply with financial covenants contained in our
credit agreements;
|
|
|
|
the availability of, and our ability to consummate, acquisition
or combination opportunities;
|
|
|
|
labor relations;
|
|
|
|
our access to capital to fund expansions, acquisitions and our
working capital needs and our ability to obtain debt or equity
financing on satisfactory terms;
|
|
|
|
successful integration and future performance of acquired
assets, businesses or third-party product supply and processing
relationships;
|
|
|
|
environmental liabilities or events that are not covered by an
indemnity, insurance or existing reserves;
|
|
|
|
maintenance of our credit ratings and ability to receive open
credit lines from our suppliers;
|
|
|
|
demand for various grades of crude oil and resulting changes in
pricing conditions;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in refinery capacity;
|
|
|
|
the effects of competition;
|
|
|
|
continued creditworthiness of, and performance by,
counterparties;
|
|
|
|
the impact of current and future laws, rulings and governmental
regulations, including guidance related to the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act;
|
|
|
|
shortages or cost increases of power supplies, natural gas,
materials or labor;
|
|
|
|
hurricane or other weather interference with business operations;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in the debt and equity markets;
|
|
|
|
accidents or other unscheduled shutdowns; and
|
|
|
|
general economic, market or business conditions.
|
2
Other factors described herein, or factors that are unknown or
unpredictable, could also have a material adverse effect on
future results. Our forward-looking statements are not
guarantees of future performance, and actual results and future
performance may differ materially from those suggested in any
forward-looking statement. When considering forward-looking
statements, you should keep in mind the risk factors and other
cautionary statements in this Annual Report. Please read
Item 1A Risk Factors and Item 7A
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk. We will not update these statements unless
securities laws require us to do so.
All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements
attributable to us or to persons acting on our behalf are
expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing. We
undertake no obligation to publicly release the results of any
revisions to any such forward-looking statements that may be
made to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this
report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
References in this Annual Report to Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P., the Company,
we, our, us or like terms,
when used in a historical context prior to January 31,
2006, refer to the assets and liabilities of Calumet Lubricants
Co., Limited Partnership and its subsidiaries of which
substantially all such assets and liabilities were contributed
to Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and its
subsidiaries upon the completion of our initial public offering.
When used in the present tense or prospectively, those terms
refer to Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and its
subsidiaries. References to Predecessor in this
Annual Report refer to Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership. The results of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2006 for the Company include the results of
operations of the Predecessor for the period of January 1,
2006 through January 31, 2006. References in this Annual
Report to our general partner refer to Calumet GP,
LLC, the general partner of Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P.
3
PART I
Items 1
and 2. Business and Properties
Overview
We are a Delaware limited partnership formed on
September 27, 2005 and are a leading independent producer
of high-quality, specialty hydrocarbon products in North
America. We own plants located in Princeton, Louisiana
(Princeton); Cotton Valley, Louisiana (Cotton
Valley); Shreveport, Louisiana (Shreveport);
Karns City, Pennsylvania (Karns City) and Dickinson,
Texas (Dickinson) and a terminal located in Burnham,
Illinois (Burnham). Our business is organized into
two segments: specialty products and fuel products. In our
specialty products segment, we process crude oil and other
feedstocks into a wide variety of customized lubricating oils,
white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums and waxes. We also
have contractual arrangements with LyondellBasell and other
third parties which provide us additional volumes of finished
products for our specialty products segment. Our specialty
products are sold to domestic and international customers who
purchase them primarily as raw material components for basic
industrial, consumer and automotive goods. In our fuel products
segment, we process crude oil into a variety of fuel and
fuel-related products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
In connection with our production of specialty products and fuel
products, we also produce asphalt and a limited number of other
by-products. For the year ended December 31, 2010,
approximately 64.3% of our sales and 94.3% of our gross profit
were generated from our specialty products segment and
approximately 35.7% of our sales and 5.7% of our gross profit
were generated from our fuel products segment.
Our
Assets
Our operating assets and contractual agreements consist of our:
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton Refinery. Our Princeton refinery,
located in northwest Louisiana and acquired in 1990, produces
specialty lubricating oils, including process oils, base oils,
transformer oils and refrigeration oils that are used in a
variety of industrial and automotive applications. The Princeton
refinery has aggregate crude oil throughput capacity of
approximately 10,000 barrels per day (bpd).
|
|
|
|
Cotton Valley Refinery. Our Cotton Valley
refinery, located in northwest Louisiana and acquired in 1995,
produces specialty solvents that are used principally in the
manufacture of paints, cleaners, automotive products and
drilling fluids. The Cotton Valley refinery has aggregate crude
oil throughput capacity of approximately 13,500 bpd.
|
|
|
|
Shreveport Refinery. Our Shreveport refinery,
located in northwest Louisiana and acquired in 2001, produces
specialty lubricating oils and waxes, as well as fuel products
such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The Shreveport refinery
has aggregate crude oil throughput capacity of approximately
60,000 bpd.
|
|
|
|
Karns City Facility. Our Karns City facility,
located in western Pennsylvania and acquired in 2008, produces
white mineral oils, petrolatums, solvents, gelled hydrocarbons,
cable fillers and natural petroleum sulfonates. The Karns City
facility has aggregate feedstock throughput capacity of
approximately 5,500 bpd.
|
|
|
|
Dickinson Facility. Our Dickinson facility,
located in southeastern Texas and acquired in 2008, produces
white mineral oils, compressor lubricants and natural petroleum
sulfonates. The Dickinson facility currently has aggregate
feedstock throughput capacity of approximately 1,300 bpd.
|
|
|
|
LyondellBasell Agreements. Effective
November 4, 2009, we entered into agreements (the
LyondellBasell Agreements) with Houston Refining LP,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of LyondellBasell (Houston
Refining), to form a long-term specialty products
affiliation. The initial term of the LyondellBasell Agreements
expires on October 31, 2014 after which it is automatically
extended for additional one-year terms until either party
terminates with 24 months notice. Under the terms of the
LyondellBasell Agreements, (i) we are required to purchase
at least a minimum volume of 3,100 bpd of naphthenic
lubricating oils produced at Houston Refinings Houston,
Texas refinery, and we have a right of first refusal to purchase
any additional naphthenic lubricating oils produced at the
refinery, and (ii) Houston Refining is required to process
a minimum of approximately 800 bpd of white mineral oil for
us at its Houston, Texas refinery, which supplements the white
mineral oil production at our
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
Karns City and Dickinson facilities. LyondellBasell has also
granted us rights to use certain registered trademarks and
tradenames, including Tufflo, Duoprime, Duotreat, Crystex, Ideal
and Aquamarine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution and Logistics Assets. We own and
operate a terminal in Burnham, Illinois with a storage capacity
of approximately 150,000 barrels that facilitates the
distribution of products in the Upper Midwest and East Coast
regions of the United States and in Canada. In addition, we
lease approximately 1,850 railcars used to receive crude oil or
distribute our products throughout the United States and Canada.
We also have approximately 6.0 million barrels of aggregate
storage capacity at our facilities and leased storage locations.
|
Business
Strategies
Our management team is dedicated to improving our operations by
executing the following strategies:
|
|
|
|
|
Concentrate on stable cash flows. We intend to
continue to focus on businesses and assets that generate stable
cash flows. Approximately 64.3% of our sales and 94.3% of our
gross profit for 2010 were generated by the sale of specialty
products, a segment of our business which is characterized by
stable customer relationships due to our customers
requirements for highly specialized products. In addition, we
manage our exposure to crude oil price fluctuations in this
segment by passing on incremental feedstock costs to our
specialty products customers and by maintaining a shorter-term
crude oil hedging program. Also, in our fuel products segment,
which accounted for 35.7% of our sales and 5.7% of our gross
profit in 2010, we seek to mitigate our exposure to fuel
products margin volatility by maintaining a longer-term fuel
products hedging program. In 2010, we realized
$11.0 million of gains from this program. In summary, we
believe the diversity of our products, our broad customer base
and our hedging activities help contribute to the stability of
our cash flows.
|
|
|
|
Develop and expand our customer
relationships. Due to the specialized nature of,
and the long lead-time associated with, the development and
production of many of our specialty products, our customers are
incentivized to continue their relationships with us. We believe
that our larger competitors do not work with customers as we do
from product design to delivery for smaller volume specialty
products like ours. We intend to continue to assist our existing
customers in their efforts to expand their product offerings as
well as marketing specialty product formulations to new
customers. By striving to maintain our long-term relationships
with our broad base of existing customers and by adding new
customers, we seek to limit our dependence on any one portion of
our customer base.
|
|
|
|
Enhance profitability of our existing
assets. We continue to evaluate opportunities to
improve our existing asset base to increase our throughput,
profitability and cash flows. Following each of our asset
acquisitions, we have undertaken projects designed to maximize
the profitability of our acquired assets. We intend to further
increase the profitability of our existing asset base through
various measures which may include changing the product mix of
our processing units, debottlenecking and expanding units as
necessary to increase throughput, restarting idle assets and
reducing costs by improving operations. For example, in late
2004 at the Shreveport refinery we recommissioned certain of its
previously idled fuels production units, refurbished existing
fuels production units, converted existing units to improve
gasoline blending profitability and expanded capacity to
approximately 42,000 bpd to increase lubricating oil and
fuels production. Also, in December 2006 we commenced
construction of an expansion project at our Shreveport refinery
that was completed and operational in May 2008 to increase its
aggregate crude oil throughput capacity from 42,000 bpd to
approximately 60,000 bpd. In 2009 and 2010, we focused on
optimizing current operations through energy savings
initiatives, product quality enhancements, and product yield
improvements. We intend to continue this approach with our
existing assets in 2011.
|
|
|
|
Pursue strategic and complementary
acquisitions. Since 1990, our management team has
demonstrated the ability to identify opportunities to acquire
assets and product lines where we can enhance operations and
improve profitability. In the future, we intend to continue to
consider strategic acquisitions of assets or agreements with
third parties that offer the opportunity for operational
efficiencies, the potential for increased utilization and
expansion of facilities, or the expansion of product offerings
in our specialty products segment. In addition, we may pursue
selected acquisitions in new geographic or product areas to the
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
extent we perceive similar opportunities. For example, effective
November 4, 2009, we entered into sales and processing
agreements with Houston Refining related to naphthenic
lubricating and white mineral oils.
|
Competitive
Strengths
We believe that we are well positioned to execute our business
strategies successfully based on the following competitive
strengths:
|
|
|
|
|
We offer our customers a diverse range of specialty
products. We offer a wide range of over 1,000
specialty products. We believe that our ability to provide our
customers with a more diverse selection of products than our
competitors generally gives us an advantage in competing for new
business. We believe that we are the only specialty products
manufacturer that produces all four of naphthenic lubricating
oils, paraffinic lubricating oils, waxes and solvents. A
contributing factor in our ability to produce numerous specialty
products is our ability to ship products between our facilities
for product upgrading in order to meet customer specifications.
|
|
|
|
We have strong relationships with a broad customer
base. We have long-term relationships with many
of our customers, and we believe that we will continue to
benefit from these relationships. Our customer base includes
over 2,600 active accounts and we are continually seeking new
customers. No single specialty products customer accounted for
more than 10% of our consolidated sales in each of the three
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
Our facilities have advanced technology. Our
facilities are equipped with advanced, flexible technology that
allows us to produce high-grade specialty products and to
produce fuel products that comply with low sulfur fuel
regulations. For example, our Shreveport and Cotton Valley
refineries have the capability to make ultra low sulfur diesel
and all of the Shreveport refinerys gasoline production
meets federally mandated low sulfur standards and newly
implemented Mobile Source Air Toxic Rule II standards
(MSAT II standards) set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requiring the reduction of benzene levels in gasoline and
effective January 1, 2011. Also, unlike larger refineries,
which lack some of the equipment necessary to achieve the narrow
distillation ranges associated with the production of specialty
products, our operations are capable of producing a wide range
of products tailored to our customers needs.
|
|
|
|
We have an experienced management team. Our
management has a proven track record of enhancing value through
the acquisition, exploitation and integration of refining assets
and the development and marketing of specialty products. Our
senior management team, the majority of whom have been working
together since 1990, has an average of approximately
25 years of industry experience. Our teams extensive
experience and contacts within the refining industry provide a
strong foundation and focus for managing and enhancing our
operations, accessing strategic acquisition opportunities and
constructing and enhancing the profitability of new assets.
|
Partnership
Structure and Management
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited
partnership formed on September 27, 2005. The general
partner of the Company is Calumet GP, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company. As of February 18, 2011, the Company had
35,279,778 common units and 719,995 general partner units
outstanding. The general partner owns 2% of the Company. Our
general partner has sole responsibility for conducting our
business and managing our operations. For more information about
our general partners board of directors, executive
officers and other management, please read Item 10
Directors, Executive Officers of Our General Partner and
Corporate Governance.
Our
Operating Assets and Contractual Arrangements
General
We own and operate facilities in northwest Louisiana, which
consist of the Princeton refinery, the Cotton Valley refinery
and the Shreveport refinery, facilities in Karns City,
Pennsylvania and Dickinson, Texas, and a terminal in Burnham,
Illinois. We also have contractual arrangements with
LyondellBasell and other third parties which provide us
additional volumes of finished products for our specialty
products segment.
6
The following table sets forth information about our combined
operations. Production volume differs from sales volume due to
changes in inventory. The following table does not include
volumes under the LyondellBasell Agreements in 2008 and for the
majority of 2009, as such agreements were not deemed effective
until November 4, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
|
Total sales volume (1)
|
|
|
55,668
|
|
|
|
57,086
|
|
|
|
56,232
|
|
Total feedstock runs (2)
|
|
|
55,957
|
|
|
|
60,081
|
|
|
|
56,243
|
|
Facility production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
13,697
|
|
|
|
11,681
|
|
|
|
12,462
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
9,347
|
|
|
|
7,749
|
|
|
|
8,130
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,220
|
|
|
|
1,049
|
|
|
|
1,736
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,050
|
|
|
|
853
|
|
|
|
1,208
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,907
|
|
|
|
7,574
|
|
|
|
6,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
32,221
|
|
|
|
28,906
|
|
|
|
30,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
8,754
|
|
|
|
9,892
|
|
|
|
8,476
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
12,796
|
|
|
|
10,407
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
5,004
|
|
|
|
6,709
|
|
|
|
5,918
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
535
|
|
|
|
489
|
|
|
|
370
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
25,093
|
|
|
|
29,886
|
|
|
|
25,171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total facility production (3)
|
|
|
57,314
|
|
|
|
58,792
|
|
|
|
55,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production at our
facilities and certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply
and/or processing agreements, and sales of inventories. |
|
(2) |
|
Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our facilities and at certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing
agreements. The decrease in feedstock runs in 2010 compared to
2009 is due primarily to our decision to reduce crude oil run
rates at our Shreveport refinery during the entire first quarter
of 2010 because of the poor economics of running additional
barrels, the failure of an environmental operating unit during
the first quarter of 2010 and scheduled turnarounds completed in
the second and fourth quarters related to various operating
units at our Shreveport refinery. These decreases were partially
offset by higher year-long throughput rates at our Cotton Valley
refinery and the addition of volumes under the LyondellBasell
Agreements. |
|
|
|
The increase in feedstock runs in 2009 compared to 2008 is due
primarily to the Shreveport refinery expansion project placed in
service in May 2008, resulting in a full year of increased
production in 2009 compared to 2008, and the addition of volumes
under the LyondellBasell Agreements in 2009. Partially
offsetting these increases were lower overall feedstock runs at
our other facilities in 2009 compared to 2008 due to general
economic conditions. |
|
(3) |
|
Total facility production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other feedstocks at our facilities and at certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing
agreements, including the LyondellBasell Agreements. The
difference between total facility production and total feedstock
runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstocks and production of finished products and volume loss. |
|
|
|
The increase in the production of specialty products in 2010
compared to 2009 is primarily the result of the addition of
volumes under the LyondellBasell Agreements and higher
throughput rates at our Cotton Valley refinery. |
7
|
|
|
|
|
The reduction in production of fuel products in 2010 compared to
2009 is due primarily to reduced feedstock runs at our
Shreveport refinery as discussed in footnote 2 of this table. |
|
|
|
The change in production mix to higher fuel products production
in 2009 compared to 2008 is due primarily to reduced demand for
certain specialty products due to overall economic conditions. |
Set forth below is information regarding sales of our principal
products by segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Sales of specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
759,701
|
|
|
$
|
500,938
|
|
|
$
|
841,225
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
396,894
|
|
|
|
260,185
|
|
|
|
419,831
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
124,964
|
|
|
|
97,658
|
|
|
|
142,525
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
5,507
|
|
|
|
8,951
|
|
|
|
30,389
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
121,806
|
|
|
|
103,488
|
|
|
|
144,065
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,408,872
|
|
|
|
971,220
|
|
|
|
1,578,035
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
304,544
|
|
|
|
317,435
|
|
|
|
332,669
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
330,756
|
|
|
|
372,359
|
|
|
|
379,739
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
135,796
|
|
|
|
167,638
|
|
|
|
186,675
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
10,784
|
|
|
|
17,948
|
|
|
|
11,876
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
781,880
|
|
|
|
875,380
|
|
|
|
910,959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton
Refinery
The Princeton refinery, located on a
208-acre
site in Princeton, Louisiana, has aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity of 10,000 bpd and is currently processing
naphthenic crude oil into lubricating oils, asphalt and
feedstock for the Shreveport refinery for further processing
into ultra low sulfur diesel. The asphalt may be processed or
blended for coating and roofing applications at the Princeton
refinery or transported to the Shreveport refinery for
processing into bright stock.
The Princeton refinery currently consists of seven major
processing units, approximately 650,000 barrels of storage
capacity in 200 storage tanks and related loading and unloading
facilities and utilities. Since our acquisition of the Princeton
refinery in 1990, we have debottlenecked the crude unit to
increase production capacity to 10,000 bpd, increased the
hydrotreaters capacity to 7,000 bpd and upgraded the
refinerys fractionation unit, which has enabled us to
produce higher value specialty products. The following table
sets forth historical information about production at our
Princeton refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton Refinery
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (1)
|
|
|
6,096
|
|
|
|
6,076
|
|
|
|
6,516
|
|
Total refinery production (1)
|
|
|
6,138
|
|
|
|
5,999
|
|
|
|
6,551
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products yielded from processing crude oil and other
feedstocks. The difference between total refinery production and
total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag
between the input of feedstocks and production of finished
products and volume loss. |
8
The Princeton refinery has a hydrotreater and significant
fractionation capability enabling the refining of high quality
naphthenic lubricating oils at numerous distillation ranges. The
Princeton refinerys processing capabilities consist of
atmospheric and vacuum distillation, hydrotreating, asphalt
oxidation processing and clay/acid treating. In addition, we
have the necessary tankage and technology to process our asphalt
into higher value applications such as coatings and road paving.
The Princeton refinery receives crude oil via tank truck,
railcar and pipeline. Its crude oil supply primarily originates
from east Texas and north Louisiana and is purchased through
Legacy Resources Co., L.P. (Legacy Resources), a
related party. See Item 13 Certain Relationships and
Related Transactions and Director Independence Crude
Oil Purchases for additional information regarding our
crude oil purchases from Legacy Resources. The Princeton
refinery ships its finished products throughout the country by
both truck and railcar service.
Cotton
Valley Refinery
The Cotton Valley refinery, located on a
77-acre site
in Cotton Valley, Louisiana, has aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity of 13,500 bpd, hydrotreating capacity of
5,100 bpd and is currently processing crude oil into
solvents, fuel feedstocks and residual fuel oil. The residual
fuel oil is an important feedstock for specialty products at our
Shreveport refinery. We believe the Cotton Valley refinery
produces the most complete, single-facility line of paraffinic
solvents in the United States.
The Cotton Valley refinery currently consists of three major
processing units that include a crude unit, a hydrotreater and a
fractionation train, approximately 625,000 barrels of
storage capacity in 74 storage tanks and related loading and
unloading facilities and utilities. The Cotton Valley refinery
also has a utility fractionator for batch processing of narrow
distillation range specialty solvents. Since our acquisition of
the Cotton Valley refinery in 1995, we have expanded the
refinerys capabilities by installing a hydrotreater that
removes aromatics, increased the crude unit processing
capability to 13,500 bpd and reconfigured the
refinerys fractionation train to improve product quality,
enhance flexibility and lower utility costs. The following table
sets forth historical information about production at our Cotton
Valley refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cotton Valley Refinery
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
Total feedstock runs (1) (2)
|
|
|
5,510
|
|
|
|
5,466
|
|
|
|
6,175
|
|
Total refinery production (2) (3)
|
|
|
7,229
|
|
|
|
6,455
|
|
|
|
6,757
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total feedstock runs do not include certain interplant solvent
feedstocks supplied by our Shreveport refinery. |
|
(2) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products yielded from processing crude oil and other
feedstocks. The difference between total refinery production and
total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag
between the input of feedstocks and production of finished
products and volume loss. |
|
(3) |
|
Total refinery production includes certain interplant feedstocks
supplied to our Shreveport refinery. |
The Cotton Valley refinery configuration is flexible, which
allows us to respond to market changes and customer demands by
modifying its product mix. The reconfigured fractionation train
also allows the refinery to satisfy demand fluctuations
efficiently without large product inventory requirements.
The Cotton Valley refinery receives crude oil via truck and
through a pipeline system operated by a subsidiary of Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. (Plains). The Cotton Valley
refinerys feedstock is primarily low sulfur, paraffinic
crude oil originating from north Louisiana and is purchased from
various marketers and gatherers. In addition, the Cotton Valley
refinery receives interplant feedstocks for solvent production
from the Shreveport refinery. The Cotton Valley refinery ships
finished products by both truck and railcar service.
9
Shreveport
Refinery
The Shreveport refinery, located on a
240-acre
site in Shreveport, Louisiana, currently has aggregate crude oil
throughput capacity of 60,000 bpd subsequent to the
completion of a major expansion project in May 2008 and is
currently processing paraffinic crude oil and associated
feedstocks into fuel products, paraffinic lubricating oils,
waxes, residuals, and by-products.
The Shreveport refinery consists of 16 major processing units,
approximately 3.3 million barrels of storage capacity in
130 storage tanks and related loading and unloading facilities
and utilities. Since our acquisition of the Shreveport refinery
in 2001, we have expanded the refinerys capabilities by
adding additional processing and blending facilities, added a
second reactor to the high pressure hydrotreater, resumed
production of gasoline, diesel and other fuel products at the
refinery, and added both 18,000 bpd of crude oil throughput
capacity and the capability to run up to 25,000 bpd of sour
crude oil with the expansion project completed in May 2008. The
following table sets forth historical information about
production at our Shreveport refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shreveport Refinery
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (1) (2)
|
|
|
36,409
|
|
|
|
43,639
|
|
|
|
37,096
|
|
Total refinery production (2) (3)
|
|
|
36,395
|
|
|
|
43,467
|
|
|
|
35,566
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our Shreveport refinery. Total
feedstock runs do not include certain interplant feedstocks
supplied by our Cotton Valley refinery. The decrease in
feedstock runs in 2010 compared to 2009 is due primarily to our
decision to reduce crude oil run rates at our facilities during
the entire first quarter of 2010 because of the poor economics
of running additional barrels, the failure of an environmental
operating unit during the first quarter of 2010 and scheduled
turnarounds completed in the second and fourth quarters related
to various operating units at our Shreveport refinery. The
increase in feedstock runs in 2009 compared to 2008 is due
primarily to the Shreveport refinery expansion project placed in
service in May 2008, resulting in a full year of increased
production in 2009 compared to 2008. |
|
(2) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other feedstocks. The difference between total
refinery production and total feedstock runs is primarily a
result of the time lag between the input of feedstocks and
production of finished products and volume loss. |
|
(3) |
|
Total refinery production includes certain interplant feedstock
supplied to our Cotton Valley refinery and Karns City facility. |
The Shreveport refinery has a flexible operational configuration
and operating personnel that facilitate development of new
product opportunities. Product mix may fluctuate from one period
to the next to capture market opportunities. The refinery has an
idle residual fluid catalytic cracking unit, alkylation unit,
vacuum tower and a number of idle towers that can be utilized
for future project needs. Certain idle towers were utilized as a
part of the Shreveport refinery expansion project completed in
2008.
The Shreveport refinery currently makes jet fuel and ultra low
sulfur diesel and all of its gasoline production currently meets
MSAT II standards.
The Shreveport refinery receives crude oil via tank truck,
railcar and common carrier pipeline systems that are operated by
subsidiaries of Plains and Exxon Mobil Corporation
(ExxonMobil) and are connected to the Shreveport
refinerys facilities. The Plains pipeline system delivers
local supplies of crude oil and condensates from north Louisiana
and east Texas. The ExxonMobil pipeline system delivers domestic
crude oil supplies from south Louisiana and foreign crude oil
supplies from the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP)
or other crude oil terminals. Crude oil is also purchased
through Legacy Resources and various other counterparties,
including local producers who deliver crude oil to the
Shreveport refinery via tank truck.
10
See Item 13 Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions and Director Independence Crude Oil
Purchases for additional information regarding our crude
oil purchases from Legacy Resources. The Shreveport refinery
ships its finished products throughout the country by both truck
and railcar service.
The Shreveport refinery has direct pipeline access to the
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. pipeline (TEPPCO
pipeline), on which it can ship all grades of gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel. The refinery also has direct access to the
Red River Terminal facility, which provides the refinery with
barge access, via the Red River, to major feedstock and
petroleum products logistics networks on the Mississippi River
and Gulf Coast inland waterway system. The Shreveport refinery
also ships its finished products throughout the country through
both truck and railcar service.
Karns
City Facility
The Karns City facility, located on a
225-acre
site in Karns City, Pennsylvania, currently has aggregate base
oil throughput capacity of 5,500 bpd and is currently
processing white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums, gelled
hydrocarbons, cable fillers, and natural petroleum sulfonates.
The Karns City facilitys processing capability includes
hydrotreating, fractionation, acid treating, filtering, blending
and packaging, approximately 817,000 barrels of storage
capacity in 250 tanks and related loading and unloading
facilities and utilities. The facility receives its base oil
feedstocks by railcar and truck under long-term supply
agreements with various suppliers, the most significant of which
is ConocoPhillips. Please read Crude Oil and
Feedstock Supply for further discussion of the long-term
supply agreements with ConocoPhillips.
Dickinson
Facility
The Dickinson facility, located on a
28-acre site
in Dickinson, Texas, currently has aggregate base oil throughput
capacity of 1,300 bpd and is currently processing white
mineral oils, compressor lubricants, and natural petroleum
sulfonates. The Dickinson facilitys processing capability
includes acid treating, filtering, and blending, approximately
183,000 barrels of storage capacity in 186 tanks and
related loading and unloading facilities and utilities. The
facility receives its base oil feedstocks by railcar and truck
under long-term supply agreements with various suppliers, the
most significant of which is ConocoPhillips. Please read
Crude Oil and Feedstock Supply for
further discussion of the long-term supply agreements with
ConocoPhillips.
The following table sets forth the combined historical
information about production at our Karns City and Dickinson
facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined Karns City
|
|
|
and Dickinson Facilities
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(in bpd)
|
|
Feedstock throughput capacity (1)
|
|
|
6,800
|
|
|
|
6,800
|
|
|
|
6,800
|
|
Total feedstock runs (2)
|
|
|
5,051
|
|
|
|
4,595
|
|
|
|
6,456
|
|
Total production (3)
|
|
|
5,041
|
|
|
|
4,590
|
|
|
|
6,456
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes Karns City and Dickinson facilities only. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes feedstock runs at our Karns City and Dickinson
facilities as well as throughput at certain third-party
facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements and
includes certain interplant feedstocks supplied from our
Shreveport refinery. |
|
(3) |
|
Total production represents the barrels per day of specialty
products yielded from processing feedstocks at our Karns City
and Dickinson facilities and certain third-party facilities
pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements. The difference
between total production and total feedstock runs is primarily a
result of the time lag between the input of feedstocks and the
production of finished products. |
LyondellBasell
Agreements
Effective November 4, 2009, we entered into the
LyondellBasell Agreements with Houston Refining to form a
long-term specialty products affiliation. The initial term of
the LyondellBasell Agreements expires on October 31,
11
2014 after which it is automatically extended for additional
one-year terms until either party terminates with 24 months
notice. Under the terms of the LyondellBasell Agreements,
(i) we are required to purchase at least a minimum volume
of 3,100 bpd of naphthenic lubricating oils produced at
Houston Refinings Houston, Texas refinery, and we have a
right of first refusal to purchase any additional naphthenic
lubricating oils produced at the refinery, and (ii) Houston
Refining is required to process a minimum of approximately
800 bpd of white mineral oil for us at its Houston, Texas
refinery, which supplements the white mineral oil production at
our Karns City and Dickinson facilities. LyondellBasell has also
granted us rights to use certain registered trademarks and
tradenames, including Tufflo, Duoprime, Duotreat, Crystex, Ideal
and Aquamarine.
The following table sets forth the combined historical
information about production under the LyondellBasell Agreements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Houston Refining
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
|
(in bpd)
|
|
Feedstock throughput capacity (1)
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
Total production for the Company (2)
|
|
|
2,876
|
|
|
|
1,994
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Estimated total capacity of the naphthenic lubricating oil and
white oil hydrotreating units at Houston Refinings
Houston, Texas refinery. |
|
(2) |
|
For 2009, represents the period from November 4, 2009
through December 31, 2009. Total production in both 2010
and 2009 did not meet anticipated levels as Houston
Refinings Houston, Texas refinery experienced downtime due
to various turnarounds and operational issues. |
Burnham
Terminal and Other Logistics Assets
We own and operate a terminal, located on an
11-acre
site, in Burnham, Illinois. The Burnham terminal receives
specialty products from our refineries and distributes them by
truck to our customers in the Upper Midwest and East Coast
regions of the United States and in Canada.
The terminal includes a tank farm with 67 tanks with aggregate
lubricating oil, solvent and specialty product storage capacity
of approximately 150,000 barrels as well as blending
equipment. The Burnham terminal is complementary to our
refineries and plays a key role in moving our products to the
end-user market by providing the following services:
|
|
|
|
|
distribution;
|
|
|
|
blending to achieve specified products; and
|
|
|
|
storage and inventory management.
|
We also lease a fleet of approximately 1,850 railcars from
various lessors. This fleet enables us to receive crude oil and
distribute various specialty products throughout the United
States and Canada to and from each of our facilities.
Crude Oil
and Feedstock Supply
We purchase crude oil from major oil companies, various
gatherers and marketers in east Texas and north Louisiana and
from Legacy Resources, an affiliate of our general partner. The
Shreveport refinery also receives crude oil through the
ExxonMobil pipeline system originating in St. James, Louisiana,
which provides the refinery with access to domestic crude oils
and foreign crude oils through the LOOP or other terminal
locations.
In 2010, we purchased 58.1% of our crude oil supply through
evergreen crude oil supply contracts, which are typically
terminable on 30 days notice by either party, and
0.4% of our crude oil supply on the spot market. Legacy
Resources supplied us with the remaining 41.5% of our crude oil
in 2010. Refer to Item 13 Certain Relationships and
Related Transactions and Director Independence Crude
Oil Purchases for further information on our
12
related party crude oil purchases. We also purchase foreign
crude oil when its spot market price is attractive relative to
the price of crude oil from domestic sources. We believe that
adequate supplies of crude oil will continue to be available to
us.
Our cost to acquire crude oil and feedstocks and the prices for
which we ultimately can sell refined products depend on a number
of factors beyond our control, including regional and global
supply of and demand for crude oil and other feedstocks and
specialty and fuel products. These in turn are dependent upon,
among other things, the availability of imports, overall
economic conditions, the production levels of domestic and
foreign suppliers, U.S. relationships with foreign
governments, political affairs and the extent of governmental
regulation. We have historically been able to pass on the costs
associated with increased crude oil and feedstock prices to our
specialty products customers, although the increase in selling
prices for specialty products typically lags the rising cost of
crude oil. We use a hedging program to manage a portion of this
commodity price risk. Please read Item 7A
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk Commodity Price Risk Crude Oil
Hedging Policy for a discussion of our crude oil hedging
program.
We have various long-term supply agreements with ConocoPhillips,
with remaining terms ranging from one to seven years, with some
agreements operating under the option to continue on a
month-to-month
basis thereafter, for feedstocks that are key to the operations
of our Karns City and Dickinson facilities. In addition, certain
products of our refineries can be used as feedstocks by these
facilities. We believe that adequate supplies of feedstocks are
available for these facilities.
Markets
and Customers
We produce a full line of specialty products, including
lubricating oils, solvents and waxes, as well as a variety of
fuel products. Our customers purchase these products primarily
as raw material components for basic industrial, consumer and
automotive goods. The following table depicts the diversity of
end-use applications for the products we produce:
Representative
Sample of End Use Applications by
Product1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating Oils
|
|
Solvents
|
|
Waxes
|
|
Asphalt & Other
|
|
Fuels & Fuel Related
|
24%
|
|
16%
|
|
2%
|
|
12%
|
|
46%
|
|
Hydraulic Oils
Passenger car motor oils
Railroad engine oils
Cutting oils
Compressor oils
Rubber process oils
Industrial lubricants
Gear oils
Grease
Automatic transmission fluid
Animal feed dedusting
Baby oils
Bakery pan oils
Catalyst carriers
Gelatin capsule lubricants
Sunscreen
|
|
Waterless hand cleaners
Alkyd resin diluents
Automotive products
Calibration fluids
Camping fuel
Charcoal lighter fluids
Chemical processing
Drilling fluids
Printing inks
|
|
Paraffin waxes
FDA compliant products
Candles
Adhesives
Crayons
Floor care
PVC
Paint strippers
Skin & hair care
Timber treatment
Waterproofing
Pharmaceuticals
Cosmetics
|
|
Roofing
Paving
|
|
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet fuel
Fluid catalytic cracking feedstock
Asphalt vacuum residuals
Mixed butanes
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Based on the percentage of actual total production for the year
ended December 31, 2010. We do not produce any of these
end-use products. |
13
We have an experienced marketing department with an average
industry tenure of approximately 20 years. Our salespeople
regularly visit customers and our marketing department works
closely with both the laboratories at our refineries and our
technical department to help create specialized blends that will
work optimally for our customers.
Markets
Specialty Products. The specialty products
market represents a small portion of the overall petroleum
refining industry in the United States. Of the nearly 150
refineries currently in operation in the United States, only a
small number of the refineries are considered specialty products
producers and only a few compete with us in terms of the number
of products produced.
Our specialty products are utilized in applications across a
broad range of industries, including in:
|
|
|
|
|
industrial goods such as metalworking fluids, belts, hoses,
sealing systems, batteries, hot melt adhesives, pressure
sensitive tapes, electrical transformers, refrigeration
compressors and drilling fluids;
|
|
|
|
consumer goods such as candles, petroleum jelly, creams, tonics,
lotions, coating on paper cups, chewing gum base, automotive
aftermarket car-care products (fuel injection cleaners, tire
shines and polishes), lamp oils, charcoal lighter fluids,
camping fuel and various aerosol products; and
|
|
|
|
automotive goods such as motor oils, greases, transmission fluid
and tires.
|
We have the capability to ship our specialty products worldwide.
In the United States and Canada, we ship our specialty products
via railcars, trucks and barges. In 2010, about 33.5% of our
specialty products were shipped in our fleet of approximately
1,850 leased railcars, about 63.0% of our specialty products
shipped in trucks owned and operated by several different
third-party carriers and the remaining 3.5% were shipped via
water transportation. For shipments outside of North America,
which accounted for less than 10% of our consolidated sales in
2010, we ship railcars and trucks to several ports where the
product is loaded on vessels for shipment to customers.
Fuel Products. We produce a variety of fuel
and fuel-related products at our Shreveport refinery.
Fuel products produced at the Shreveport refinery can be sold
locally or through the TEPPCO pipeline. Local sales are made
from the TEPPCO terminal in Bossier City, Louisiana, which is
located approximately 15 miles from the Shreveport
refinery, as well as from our own refinery terminal. Any excess
volumes are sold to marketers further up the TEPPCO pipeline.
During 2010, we sold gasoline, diesel and jet fuel into the
Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas markets, and any excess volumes to
marketers further up the TEPPCO pipeline. Should the appropriate
market conditions arise, we have the capability to redirect and
sell additional volumes into the Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas
markets rather than transport them to the Midwest region.
The Shreveport refinery has the capacity to produce about
9,000 bpd of commercial jet fuel that can be marketed to
the Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, Louisiana, sold as
Jet-A locally or via the TEPPCO pipeline, or occasionally
transferred to the Cotton Valley refinery to be processed
further as a feedstock to produce solvents. Jet fuel sales
volumes change as the margins between diesel and jet fuel
change. We have a sales contract with the U.S. Department
of Defense covering the Barksdale Air Force Base for
approximately 5,200 bpd of jet fuel. This contract is
effective until April 2011 and is bid annually.
Additionally, we produce a number of fuel-related products
including fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) feedstock,
asphalt vacuum residuals and mixed butanes.
Vacuum residuals are blended or processed further to make
specialty asphalt products. Volumes of vacuum residuals which we
cannot process are sold locally into the fuel oil market or sold
via railcar to other refiners. FCC feedstock is sold to other
refiners as a feedstock for their FCC units to make fuel
products. Butanes are primarily available in the summer months
and are primarily sold to local marketers. If the butanes are
not sold they are blended into our gasoline production.
14
Customers
Specialty Products. We have a diverse customer
base for our specialty products, with approximately 2,600 active
accounts. Most of our customers are long-term customers who use
our products in specialty applications which require six months
to two years to gain approval for use in their products. No
single customer of our specialty products segment accounted for
more that 10% of our consolidated sales in each of the three
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.
Fuel Products. We have a diverse customer base
for our fuel products, with approximately 90 active accounts. We
are able to sell the majority of the fuel products we produce to
the local markets of Louisiana, east Texas and Arkansas. We also
have the ability to ship our fuel products to the Midwest region
through the TEPPCO pipeline should the need arise. During the
year ended December 31, 2008, one of our customers, Murphy
Oil U.S.A., represented approximately 10.5% of consolidated
sales due to rising gasoline and diesel prices and increased
fuel products sales to this customer. No other fuel products
segment customer represented 10% or greater of consolidated
sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008.
Competition
Competition in our markets is from a combination of large,
integrated petroleum companies, independent refiners and wax
production companies. Many of our competitors are substantially
larger than us and are engaged on a national or international
basis in many segments of the petroleum products business,
including refining, transportation and marketing. These
competitors may have greater flexibility in responding to or
absorbing market changes occurring in one or more of these
business segments. We distinguish our competitors according to
the products that they produce. Set forth below is a description
of our significant competitors according to product category.
Naphthenic Lubricating Oils. Our primary
competitor in producing naphthenic lubricating oils is Ergon
Refining, Inc. We also compete with Cross Oil Refining and
Marketing, Inc. and San Joaquin Refining Co., Inc.
Paraffinic Lubricating Oils. Our primary
competitors in producing paraffinic lubricating oils include
ExxonMobil, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ConocoPhillips,
Petro-Canada, Holly Corporation and Sonneborn Refined Products.
Paraffin Waxes. Our primary competitors in
producing paraffin waxes include ExxonMobil and The
International Group Inc.
Solvents. Our primary competitors in producing
solvents include Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Chemical and
ConocoPhillips.
Fuel Products. Our primary competitors in
producing fuel products in the local markets in which we operate
include Delek Refining, Ltd. and Lion Oil Company.
Our ability to compete effectively depends on our responsiveness
to customer needs and our ability to maintain competitive prices
and product offerings. We believe that our flexibility and
customer responsiveness differentiate us from many of our larger
competitors. However, it is possible that new or existing
competitors could enter the markets in which we operate, which
could negatively affect our financial performance.
Environmental,
Health and Safety Matters
We operate crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon refining and
terminal operations, which are subject to stringent and complex
federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the
discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise
relating to environmental protection. These laws and regulations
can impair our operations that affect the environment in many
ways, such as requiring the acquisition of permits to conduct
regulated activities, restricting the manner in which the
Company can release materials into the environment, requiring
remedial activities or capital expenditures to mitigate
pollution from former or current operations, and imposing
substantial liabilities on us for pollution resulting from our
operations. Certain environmental laws impose joint and several,
strict liability for costs required to remediate and restore
sites where petroleum hydrocarbons, wastes, or other materials
have been released or disposed.
15
Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may
result in the triggering of administrative, civil and criminal
measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the
imposition of remedial obligations, and the issuance of
injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of our
operations. On occasion, we receive notices of violation,
enforcement and other complaints from regulatory agencies
alleging non-compliance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations. In particular, the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) initiated enforcement
actions in prior years for the following alleged violations:
(i) a May 2001 notification received by the Cotton Valley
refinery from the LDEQ regarding several alleged violations of
various air emission regulations, as identified in the course of
our Leak Detection and Repair program, and also for failure to
submit various reports related to the facilitys air
emissions; (ii) a December 2002 notification received by
the Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding alleged
violations for excess emissions, as identified in the
LDEQs file review of the Cotton Valley refinery;
(iii) a December 2004 notification received by the Cotton
Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding alleged violations for
the construction of a multi-tower pad and associated pump pads
without a permit issued by the agency; and (iv) an August
2005 notification received by the Princeton refinery from the
LDEQ regarding alleged violations of air emissions regulations,
as identified by LDEQ following performance of a compliance
review, due to excess emissions and failures to continuously
monitor and record air emission levels. As further discussed
below, on December 23, 2010, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with the LDEQ that consolidated the terms
of its settlement of the aforementioned alleged violations with
the Companys agreement to voluntarily participate in the
LDEQs Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery
Initiative.
The clear trend in environmental regulation is to place more
restrictions and limitations on activities that may affect the
environment, and thus, any changes in environmental laws and
regulations that result in more stringent and costly waste
handling, storage, transport, disposal, or remediation
requirements could have a material adverse effect on our
operations and financial position. Moreover, in connection with
accidental spills or releases associated with our operations, we
cannot assure our unitholders that we will not incur substantial
costs and liabilities as a result of such spills or releases,
including those relating to claims for damage to property and
persons. In the event of future increases in costs, we may be
unable to pass on those increases to our customers. While we
believe that we are in substantial compliance with existing
environmental laws and regulations and that continued compliance
with these requirements will not have a material adverse effect
on us, there can be no assurance that our environmental
compliance expenditures will not become material in the future.
Air
Our operations are subject to the federal Clean Air Act, as
amended, and comparable state and local laws. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 require most industrial operations in the
U.S. to incur capital expenditures to meet the air emission
control standards that are developed and implemented by the EPA
and state environmental agencies. Under the Clean Air Act,
facilities that emit volatile organic compounds or nitrogen
oxides face increasingly stringent regulations, including
requirements to install various levels of control technology on
sources of pollutants. In addition, the petroleum refining
sector has come under stringent new EPA regulations, imposing
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) on
refinery equipment emitting certain listed hazardous air
pollutants. Some of our facilities have been included within the
categories of sources regulated by MACT rules. In addition, air
permits are required for our refining and terminal operations
that result in the emission of regulated air contaminants. These
permits incorporate stringent control technology requirements
and are subject to extensive review and periodic renewal. We
believe that we are in substantial compliance with the Clean Air
Act and similar state and local laws.
The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to require modifications in
the formulation of the refined transportation fuel products we
manufacture in order to limit the emissions associated with the
fuel products final use. For example, in December 1999,
the EPA promulgated regulations limiting the sulfur content
allowed in gasoline. These regulations required the phase-in of
gasoline sulfur standards beginning in 2004, with special
provisions for small refiners and for refiners serving those
Western states exhibiting lesser air quality problems.
Similarly, the EPA promulgated regulations that limit the sulfur
content of highway diesel beginning in 2006 from its former
level of 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15 ppm
(the ultra low sulfur standard). The Shreveport
refinery has implemented the sulfur standard with respect to
produced gasoline and produces diesel meeting the ultra low
sulfur standard.
16
Pursuant to the Energy Act of 2005 and 2007, the EPA has issued
Renewable Fuels Standards II (RFS II) that
implement mandates to blend renewable fuels into the petroleum
fuels produced at our refineries. Under the RFS II, the EPA
establishes a volume of renewable fuels that obligated
refineries must blend into their finished petroleum fuels. In
addition, we are required to meet the MSAT II regulations to
reduce the benzene content of motor gasoline produced at our
facilities. We have completed capital projects at our Shreveport
refinery to comply with these fuel quality requirements.
On December 23, 2010, we entered into a settlement
agreement with the LDEQ regarding the Companys voluntary
participation in the LDEQs Small Refinery and Single
Site Refinery Initiative. This state initiative is
patterned after the EPAs National Petroleum Refinery
Initiative, which is a coordinated, integrated compliance
and enforcement strategy to address federal Clean Air Act
compliance issues at the nations largest petroleum
refineries. The agreement requires us to make a
$1.0 million payment to the LDEQ, resulting in an
additional $0.6 million expense recorded during the fourth
quarter of 2010, and complete beneficial environmental programs
and implement emissions reduction projects at our Shreveport,
Cotton Valley and Princeton refineries. We estimate
implementation of these requirements will result in
approximately $11.0 million to $15.0 million of
capital expenditures and expenditures related to additional
personnel and environmental studies. This agreement also fully
settles the aforementioned alleged environmental and permit
violations at our Shreveport, Cotton Valley and Princeton
refineries and stipulates that no further civil penalties over
alleged past violations will be pursued by the LDEQ. The
required investments are expected to include i) nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide emission reductions from heaters and
boilers and New Source Performance Standards applicability of,
and compliance for, sulfur recovery plants and flaring devices,
iii) control of incidents related to acid gas flaring, tail
gas and hydrocarbon flaring, iv) electrical reliability
improvements to reduce flaring, v) flare refurbishment at
the Shreveport refinery, vi) enhance the Benzene Waste
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
programs and the Leak Detection and Repair programs at the
Companys three Louisiana refineries, and
vii) Title V audits and targeted audits of certain
regulatory compliance programs. During these negotiations with
the LDEQ, we voluntarily initiated projects for certain of these
requirements prior to our settlement with the LDEQ, and we
currently anticipate completion of these projects over the next
five years. These capital investment requirements will be
incorporated into our annual capital expenditures budget and we
do not expect any additional capital expenditures as a result of
the required audits or required operational changes included in
the settlement to have a material adverse effect on our
financial results or operations. We estimate that the total
additional expenditures above our already planned levels will be
approximately $1.0 million to $3.0 million. For
additional information regarding the impact on our capital
expenditures, please read Item 7 Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Capital Expenditures. Before the
terms of this settlement agreement are deemed final, the terms
remain subject to public comment and the concurrence of the
Louisiana Attorney General until the end of the first quarter of
2011.
Climate
Change
In response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide,
methane and other greenhouse gases (GHG)
present an endangerment to public health and the environment
because emissions of such gases are contributing to the warming
of the earths atmosphere and other climate changes, the
EPA has adopted regulations under existing provisions of the
federal Clean Air Act that require a reduction in emissions of
GHGs from motor vehicles and thereby triggered construction and
operating permit review for GHG emissions from certain
stationary sources. The EPA has published its final rule to
address the permitting of GHG emissions from stationary sources
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Title V permitting programs, pursuant
to which these permitting programs have been
tailored to apply to certain stationary sources of
GHG emissions in a multi-step process, with the largest sources
first subject to permitting. Facilities required to obtain PSD
permits for their GHG emissions also will be required to meet
best available control technology standards, which
will be established by the states or, in some instances, by the
EPA on a
case-by-case
basis. Moreover, on December 23, 2010, EPA entered a
settlement agreement with environmental groups requiring the
agency to propose by December 15, 2011 GHG New Source
Performance Standards for refineries and to finalize these rules
by November 15, 2012. In addition, the EPA published a
final rule in October 2009 requiring the reporting of GHG
emissions from specified large GHG emission sources in the
United States, including petroleum refineries, on an annual
basis beginning in 2011 for emissions occurring after
January 1, 2010. These EPA policies and
17
rulemakings could adversely affect our operations and restrict
or delay our ability to obtain air permits for new or modified
facilities.
In addition, from time to time Congress has actively considered
legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, and almost one-half of
the states have already taken legal measures to reduce emissions
of GHGs, primarily through the planned development of GHG
emission inventories
and/or
regional GHG cap and trade programs. Most of these cap and trade
programs work by requiring either major sources of emissions or
major producers of fuels, such as petroleum refineries, to
acquire and surrender emission allowances, with the number of
allowances available for purchase reduced each year until the
overall GHG emission reduction goal is achieved. These
allowances would be expected to escalate significantly in cost
over time. The adoption of any legislation or regulations that
requires reporting of GHGs or otherwise limits emissions of GHGs
from our equipment and operations could require us to incur
costs to reduce emissions of GHGs associated with our operations
or could adversely affect demand for the refined petroleum
products that we produce. Finally, it should be noted that some
scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHGs
in the Earths atmosphere may produce climate changes that
have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency
and severity of storms, floods and other climatic events; if any
such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on
our operations.
Hazardous
Substances and Wastes
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), also known as
the Superfund law, and comparable state laws impose
liability without regard to fault or the legality of the
original conduct, on certain classes of persons who are
considered to be responsible for the release of a hazardous
substance into the environment. Such classes of persons include
the current and past owners and operators of sites where a
hazardous substance was released, and companies that disposed or
arranged for disposal of hazardous substances at offsite
locations, such as landfills. Under CERCLA, these
responsible persons may be subject to joint and
several, strict liability for the costs of cleaning up the
hazardous substances that have been released into the
environment, for damages to natural resources, and for the costs
of certain health studies. It is not uncommon for neighboring
landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal
injury and property damage allegedly caused by the release of
hazardous substances into the environment. In the course of our
operations, we generate wastes or handle substances that may be
regulated as hazardous substances, and we could become subject
to liability under CERCLA and comparable state laws.
We also may incur liability under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and comparable state laws,
which impose requirements related to the handling, storage,
treatment, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. In the
course of our operations, we generate petroleum product wastes
and ordinary industrial wastes, such as paint wastes, waste
solvents, and waste oils, that may be regulated as hazardous
wastes. In addition, our operations also generate solid wastes,
which are regulated under RCRA and state laws. We believe that
we are in substantial compliance with the existing requirements
of RCRA and similar state and local laws, and the cost involved
in complying with these requirements is not material.
We currently own or operate, and have in the past owned or
operated, properties that for many years have been used for
refining and terminal activities. These properties have in the
past been operated by third parties whose treatment and disposal
or release of petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes was not under
our control. Although we used operating and disposal practices
that were standard in the industry at the time, petroleum
hydrocarbons or wastes have been released on or under the
properties owned or operated by us. These properties and the
materials disposed or released on them may be subject to CERCLA,
RCRA and analogous state laws. Under such laws, we could be
required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes or
property contamination, or to perform remedial activities to
prevent future contamination.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of our refinery sites. The remedial projects are being
overseen by the appropriate state agencies. Based on current
investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled
or remedied without having a material adverse effect on our
financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable
and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs
will not become material. In connection with the remediation of
groundwater impacts at our refinery sites, we incurred
approximately $0.5 million of capital expenditures at the
18
Cotton Valley refinery during 2010 and estimate that we will
incur another $0.8 million of capital expenditures in 2011
at this refinery in connection with ongoing remedial activities.
Water
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended,
also known as the Clean Water Act, and analogous state laws
impose restrictions and stringent controls on the discharge of
pollutants, including oil, into federal and state waters. Such
discharges are prohibited, except in accordance with the terms
of a permit issued by the EPA or the appropriate state agencies.
Any unpermitted release of pollutants, including crude or
hydrocarbon specialty oils as well as refined products, could
result in penalties, as well as significant remedial
obligations. Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure
requirements of federal laws require appropriate containment
berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination
of navigable waters in the event of a petroleum hydrocarbon tank
spill, rupture, or leak. We believe that we are in substantial
compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and
similar state laws.
The primary federal law for oil spill liability is the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (OPA), which
addresses three principal areas of oil pollution
prevention, containment, and cleanup. OPA applies to vessels,
offshore facilities, and onshore facilities, including
refineries, terminals, and associated facilities that may affect
waters of the U.S. Under OPA, responsible parties,
including owners and operators of onshore facilities, may be
subject to oil cleanup costs and natural resource damages as
well as a variety of public and private damages from oil spills.
We believe that we are in substantial compliance with OPA and
similar state laws.
Health,
Safety and Maintenance
We are subject to the requirements of the federal Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and comparable state
occupational safety statutes. These laws and the implementing
regulations strictly govern the protection of the health and
safety of employees. In addition, OSHAs hazard
communication standard requires that information be maintained
about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and
that this information be available to employees and contractors
and, where required, to state and local government authorities
and to local residents. We provide all required information to
employees and contractors on how to mitigate or protect against
exposure to hazardous materials present in our operations. Also,
we maintain safety, training, and maintenance programs as part
of our ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with applicable laws
and regulations. While the nature of our business may result in
industrial accidents from time to time, we believe that we have
operated in substantial compliance with OSHA and similar state
laws, including general industry standards, recordkeeping and
reporting, hazard communication and process safety management.
We have implemented an internal program of inspection designed
to monitor and enforce compliance with worker safety
requirements as well as a quality system that meets the
requirements of the ISO-9001-2000 Standard. The integrity of our
ISO-9001-2000 Standard certification is maintained through
surveillance audits by our registrar at regular intervals
designed to ensure adherence to the standards. On April 30,
2010, we received certification to the ISO-9001-2008 Standard.
Our compliance with applicable health and safety laws and
regulations has required and continues to require substantial
expenditures. Changes in safety and health laws and regulations
or a finding of non-compliance with current laws and regulations
could result in additional capital expenditures or operating
expenses, as well as civil penalties and, in the event of a
serious injury or fatality, criminal charges.
During 2010, we completed studies to assess the adequacy of our
process safety management practices at our Shreveport refinery
with respect to certain consensus codes and standards. We expect
to incur between $5.0 million and $8.0 million of
capital expenditures in total during 2011, 2012 and 2013 to
address OSHA process safety management compliance issues
identified in these studies. We expect these capital
expenditures will enhance equipment to maintain compliance with
applicable consensus codes and standards.
Beginning in February 2010, OSHA conducted an inspection of the
Shreveport refinerys process safety management program
under OSHAs National Emphasis Program which is targeting
all U.S. refineries for review. On August 19, 2010,
OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (the
Citation) to us as a result of this inspection which
included a proposed civil penalty amount of $0.2 million.
We contested the Citation and associated penalty amount and
agreed to a final penalty amount of $0.1 million, which was
paid in January 2011.
19
The Cotton Valley refinerys process safety management
program is currently undergoing inspection under OSHAs
National Emphasis Program.
We perform preventive and normal maintenance on all of our
refining and logistics assets and make repairs and replacements
when necessary or appropriate. We also conduct inspections of
these assets as required by law or regulation.
Other
Environmental Item
We are indemnified by Shell Oil Company, as successor to
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Atlas Processing Company, for
specified environmental liabilities arising from operations of
the Shreveport refinery prior to our acquisition of the
facility. The indemnity is unlimited in amount and duration, but
requires us to contribute up to $1.0 million of the first
$5.0 million of indemnified costs for certain of the
specified environmental liabilities.
Insurance
Our operations are subject to certain hazards of operations,
including fire, explosion and weather-related perils. We
maintain insurance policies, including business interruption
insurance for each of our facilities, with insurers in amounts
and with coverage and deductibles that we, with the advice of
our insurance advisors and brokers, believe are reasonable and
prudent. We cannot, however, ensure that this insurance will be
adequate to protect us from all material expenses related to
potential future claims for personal and property damage or that
these levels of insurance will be available in the future at
economical prices. We are not fully insured against certain
risks because such risks are not fully insurable, coverage is
unavailable, or premium costs, in our judgment, do not justify
such expenditures.
Seasonality
The operating results for the fuel products segment and the
selling prices of asphalt products we produce can be seasonal.
Asphalt demand is generally lower in the first and fourth
quarters of the year as compared to the second and third
quarters due to the seasonality of annual road construction.
Demand for gasoline is generally higher during the summer months
than during the winter months due to seasonal increases in
highway traffic. In addition, our natural gas costs can be
higher during the winter months. As a result, our operating
results for the first and fourth calendar quarters may be lower
than those for the second and third calendar quarters of each
year due to this seasonality.
Title to
Properties
We own the following properties, which are pledged as collateral
under our existing credit facilities as discussed in Item 7
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and
Capital Resources Debt and Credit Facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acres
|
|
Location
|
|
Shreveport refinery
|
|
|
240
|
|
|
Shreveport, Louisiana
|
Princeton refinery
|
|
|
208
|
|
|
Princeton, Louisiana
|
Cotton Valley refinery
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
Cotton Valley, Louisiana
|
Burnham terminal
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
Burnham, Illinois
|
Karns City facility
|
|
|
225
|
|
|
Karns City, Pennsylvania
|
Dickinson facility
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
Dickinson, Texas
|
Office
Facilities
In addition to our refineries and terminal discussed above, we
occupy approximately 26,900 square feet of office space in
Indianapolis, Indiana under a lease. We also lease but are not
currently using approximately 14,500 square feet of office
space in The Woodlands, Texas. While we may require additional
office space as our business expands, we believe that our
existing facilities are adequate to meet our needs for the
immediate future and that additional facilities will be
available on commercially reasonable terms as needed. We expect
that we will not
20
renew our lease of office space in The Woodlands, Texas at its
expiration on April 30, 2012 and are actively engaged in
efforts to sublease this office space for the remainder of the
lease term.
Employees
As of February 18, 2011, our general partner employs
approximately 650 people who provide direct support to the
Companys operations. Of these employees, approximately 360
are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Employees at
the Princeton, Cotton Valley and Dickinson facilities are
covered by separate collective bargaining agreements with the
International Union of Operating Engineers. The Princeton
facilitys collective bargaining agreement expires on
October 31, 2011. The Cotton Valley and Dickinson
facilities collective bargaining agreements will both
expire on March 31, 2013. Employees at the Shreveport
refinery are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with
the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied-Industrial, and Service Workers International
Union which expires on April 30, 2013. The Karns City
facility employees are covered by a collective bargaining
agreement with United Steel Workers that will expire on
January 31, 2012. None of the employees at the Burnham
terminal are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Our
general partner considers its employee relations to be good,
with no history of work stoppages.
Address,
Internet Website and Availability of Public Filings
Our principal executive offices are located at 2780 Waterfront
Parkway East Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46214
and our telephone number is
(317) 328-5660.
Our website is located at
http://www.calumetspecialty.com.
We make the following information available free of charge on
our website:
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Report on
Form 10-K;
|
|
|
|
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q;
|
|
|
|
Current Reports on
Form 8-K;
|
|
|
|
Amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934;
|
|
|
|
Charters for the Audit, Compensation and Conflicts
Committees; and
|
|
|
|
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.
|
Our Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings
are available on our website as soon as reasonably practicable
after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such
material to, the SEC. The above information is available to
anyone who requests it and is free of charge either in print
from our website or upon request by contacting investor
relations using the contact information listed above.
Information on our website is not incorporated into this Annual
Report or our other securities filings and is not a part of them.
We may
not have sufficient cash from operations to enable us to pay the
minimum quarterly distribution following the establishment of
cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including
payments to our general partner.
We may not have sufficient available cash from operations each
quarter to enable us to pay the minimum quarterly distribution.
Under the terms of our partnership agreement, we must pay
expenses, including payments to our general partner, and set
aside any cash reserve amounts before making a distribution to
our unitholders. The amount of cash we can distribute on our
units principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate
from our operations, which is primarily dependent upon our
producing and selling quantities of fuel and specialty products,
or refined products, at margins that are high enough to cover
our fixed and variable expenses. Crude oil costs, fuel
21
and specialty products prices and, accordingly, the cash we
generate from operations, will fluctuate from quarter to quarter
based on, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
overall demand for specialty hydrocarbon products, fuel and
other refined products;
|
|
|
|
the level of foreign and domestic production of crude oil and
refined products;
|
|
|
|
our ability to produce fuel and specialty products that meet our
customers unique and precise specifications;
|
|
|
|
the marketing of alternative and competing products;
|
|
|
|
the extent of government regulation;
|
|
|
|
results of our hedging activities; and
|
|
|
|
overall economic and local market conditions.
|
In addition, the actual amount of cash we will have available
for distribution will depend on other factors, some of which are
beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the level of capital expenditures we make, including those for
acquisitions, if any;
|
|
|
|
our debt service requirements;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in our working capital needs;
|
|
|
|
our ability to borrow funds and access capital markets;
|
|
|
|
restrictions on distributions and on our ability to make working
capital borrowings for distributions contained in our credit
facilities; and
|
|
|
|
the amount of cash reserves established by our general partner
for the proper conduct of our business.
|
The
amount of cash we have available for distribution to unitholders
depends primarily on our cash flow and not solely on
profitability.
Unitholders should be aware that the amount of cash we have
available for distribution depends primarily upon our cash flow,
including cash flow from financial reserves and working capital
borrowings, and not solely on profitability, which will be
affected by non-cash items. As a result, we may make cash
distributions during periods when we record net losses and may
not make cash distributions during periods when we record net
income.
Our
credit agreements contain operating and financial restrictions
that may restrict our business and financing
activities.
The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our
credit agreements and any future financing agreements could
restrict our ability to finance future operations or capital
needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business activities.
For example, our credit agreements restrict our ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
pay distributions;
|
|
|
|
incur indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
grant liens;
|
|
|
|
make certain acquisitions and investments;
|
|
|
|
make capital expenditures above specified amounts;
|
|
|
|
redeem or prepay other debt or make other restricted payments;
|
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates;
|
|
|
|
enter into a merger, consolidation or sale of assets; and
|
|
|
|
cease our crack spread hedging program.
|
22
Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions
contained in our credit agreements may be affected by events
beyond our control. If market or other economic conditions
deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants may be
impaired. If we violate any of the restrictions, covenants,
ratios or tests in our credit agreements, a significant portion
of our indebtedness may become immediately due and payable, our
ability to make distributions may be inhibited and our
lenders commitment to make further loans to us may
terminate. We might not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient
funds to make these accelerated payments. In addition, our
obligations under our credit agreements are secured by
substantially all of our assets and if we are unable to repay
our indebtedness under our credit agreements, the lenders could
seek to foreclose on our assets.
Our senior secured term loan credit agreement and revolving
credit facility contain operating and financial restrictions
similar to the above listed items. Financial covenants in the
term loan credit agreement and the amended revolving credit
facility agreement include a maximum consolidated leverage ratio
of 3.75 to 1.00 and a minimum consolidated interest coverage
ratio of 2.75 to 1.00. The failure to comply with any of these
or other covenants would cause a default under the credit
facilities. A default, if not waived, could result in
acceleration of our debt, in which case the debt would become
immediately due and payable. If this occurs, we may not be able
to repay our debt or borrow sufficient funds to refinance it.
Even if new financing were available, it may be on terms that
are less attractive to us than our then existing credit
facilities or it may not be on terms that are acceptable to us.
From time to time, our cash needs may exceed our internally
generated cash flows, and our business could be materially and
adversely affected if we were unable to obtain necessary funds
from financing activities. From time to time, we may need to
supplement our cash generation with proceeds from financing
activities. Our revolving credit facility provides us with
available financing to meet our ongoing cash needs.
Refining
margins are volatile, and a reduction in our refining margins
will adversely affect the amount of cash we will have available
for distribution to our unitholders.
Historically, refining margins have been volatile, and they are
likely to continue to be volatile in the future. Our financial
results are primarily affected by the relationship, or margin,
between our specialty products prices and fuel products prices
and the prices for crude oil and other feedstocks. The cost to
acquire our feedstocks and the price at which we can ultimately
sell our refined products depend upon numerous factors beyond
our control.
A widely used benchmark in the fuel products industry to measure
market values and margins is the Gulf Coast
3/2/1 crack
spread, which represents the approximate gross margin
resulting from refining crude oil, assuming that three barrels
of a benchmark crude oil are converted, or cracked, into two
barrels of gasoline and one barrel of heating oil. The Gulf
Coast 3/2/1
crack spread, as reported by Bloomberg L.P., has averaged as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Time Period
|
|
Crack spread
|
|
1990 to 1999
|
|
$
|
3.04
|
|
2000 to 2004
|
|
$
|
4.61
|
|
2005
|
|
$
|
10.63
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
10.70
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
14.27
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
9.98
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
8.68
|
|
First quarter 2010
|
|
$
|
8.89
|
|
Second quarter 2010
|
|
$
|
12.20
|
|
Third quarter 2010
|
|
$
|
8.60
|
|
Fourth quarter 2010
|
|
$
|
9.89
|
|
Calendar year 2010
|
|
$
|
9.90
|
|
Our actual refining margins vary from the Gulf Coast
3/2/1 crack
spread due to the actual crude oil used and products produced,
transportation costs, regional differences, and the timing of
the purchase of the feedstock and sale of the refined products,
but we use the Gulf Coast
3/2/1 crack
spread as an indicator of the volatility and general levels of
refining margins.
23
The prices at which we sell specialty products are strongly
influenced by the commodity price of crude oil. If crude oil
prices increase, our specialty products segment margins will
fall unless we are able to pass along these price increases to
our customers. Increases in selling prices for specialty
products typically lag the rising cost of crude oil and may be
difficult to implement when crude oil costs increase
dramatically over a short period of time. For example, in the
first six months of 2008, excluding the effects of hedges, we
experienced a 31.3% increase in the cost of crude oil per barrel
as compared to a 18.3% increase in the average sales price per
barrel of our specialty products. It is possible we may not be
able to pass on all or any portion of increased crude oil costs
to our customers. In addition, we are not able to completely
eliminate our commodity risk through our hedging activities.
Because refining margins are volatile, unitholders should not
assume that our current margins will be sustained. If our
refining margins fall, it will adversely affect the amount of
cash we will have available for distribution to our unitholders.
Because
of the volatility of crude oil and refined products prices, our
method of valuing our inventory may result in decreases in net
income.
The nature of our business requires us to maintain substantial
quantities of crude oil and refined product inventories. Because
crude oil and refined products are essentially commodities, we
have no control over the changing market value of these
inventories. Because our inventory is valued at the lower of
cost or market value, if the market value of our inventory were
to decline to an amount less than our cost, we would record a
write-down of inventory and a non-cash charge to cost of sales.
In a period of decreasing crude oil or refined product prices,
our inventory valuation methodology may result in decreases in
net income.
Decreases
in the price of crude oil may lead to a reduction in the
borrowing base under our revolving credit facility or the
requirement that we post substantial amounts of cash collateral
for derivative instruments, either of which could adversely
affect our liquidity, financial condition and our ability to
distribute cash to our unitholders.
The borrowing base under our revolving credit facility is
determined weekly or monthly depending upon availability levels.
Reductions in the value of our inventories as a result of lower
crude oil prices could result in a reduction in our borrowing
base, which would reduce our amount of financial resources
available to meet our capital requirements. Further, if at any
time our available capacity under our revolving credit facility
falls below $35.0 million, we may be required by our
lenders to take steps to reduce our leverage, pay off our debts
on an accelerated basis, limit or eliminate distributions to our
unitholders or take other similar measures. In addition,
decreases in the price of crude oil, may require us to post
substantial amounts of cash collateral to our hedging
counterparties in order to maintain our hedging positions. At
December 31, 2010, we had $145.5 million in
availability under our revolving credit facility. Please read
Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources Debt and Credit
Facilities for additional information. If the borrowing
base under our revolving credit facility decreases or we are
required to post substantial amounts of cash collateral to our
hedging counterparties, it could have a material adverse effect
on our liquidity, financial condition and our ability to
distribute cash to our unitholders.
The
price volatility of fuel and utility services may result in
decreases in our earnings, profitability and cash
flows.
The volatility in costs of fuel, principally natural gas, and
other utility services, principally electricity, used by our
refinery and other operations affect our net income and cash
flows. Fuel and utility prices are affected by factors outside
of our control, such as supply and demand for fuel and utility
services in both local and regional markets. Natural gas prices
have historically been volatile.
For example, daily prices for natural gas as reported on the New
York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) ranged between
$3.29 and $6.01 per million British thermal unit, or MMBtu, in
2010 and between $2.51 and $6.07 per MMBtu in 2009. Typically,
electricity prices fluctuate with natural gas prices. Future
increases in fuel and utility prices may have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations. Fuel and utility costs
constituted approximately 21.6% and 20.7% of our total operating
expenses included in cost of sales for the years ended
24
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. If our natural
gas costs rise, it will adversely affect the amount of cash we
will have available for distribution to our unitholders.
Our
hedging activities may not be effective in reducing the
volatility of our cash flows and may reduce our earnings,
profitability and cash flows.
We are exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude oil, fuel
products, natural gas and interest rates. We utilize derivative
financial instruments related to the future price of crude oil,
natural gas and fuel products with the intent of reducing
volatility in our cash flows due to fluctuations in commodity
prices and derivative instruments related to interest rates for
future periods with the intent of reducing volatility in our
cash flows due to fluctuations in interest rates. We are not
able to enter into derivative financial instruments to reduce
the volatility of the prices of the specialty products we sell
as there is no established derivative market for such products.
The extent of our commodity price exposure is related largely to
the effectiveness and scope of our hedging activities. For
example, the derivative instruments we utilize are based on
posted market prices, which may differ significantly from the
actual crude oil prices, natural gas prices or fuel products
prices that we incur or realize in our operations. Accordingly,
our commodity price risk management policy may not protect us
from significant and sustained increases in crude oil or natural
gas prices or decreases in fuel products prices. Conversely, our
policy may limit our ability to realize cash flows from crude
oil and natural gas price decreases.
We have a policy to enter into derivative transactions related
to only a portion of the volume of our expected purchase and
sales requirements and, as a result, we will continue to have
direct commodity price exposure to the unhedged portion of our
expected purchase and sales requirements. For example, during
2010 we entered into monthly crude oil collars and swaps to
hedge up to approximately 11,000 bpd of crude oil purchases
related to our specialty products segment, which had average
total daily production for 2010 of approximately
32,000 bpd. As of December 31, 2010, we had
significantly reduced the volume and duration of our crude oil
collars and swap positions and were hedging approximately
1,200 bpd of crude oil purchases through March 31,
2011. Thus, we could be exposed to significant crude oil cost
increases on a portion of our purchases. Please read
Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
About Market Risk.
Our actual future purchase and sales requirements may be
significantly higher or lower than we estimate at the time we
enter into derivative transactions for such period. If the
actual amount is higher than we estimate, we will have greater
commodity price exposure than we intended. If the actual amount
is lower than the amount that is subject to our derivative
financial instruments, we might be forced to satisfy all or a
portion of our derivative transactions without the benefit of
the cash flow from our sale or purchase of the underlying
physical commodity, which may result in a substantial diminution
of our liquidity. As a result, our hedging activities may not be
as effective as we intend in reducing the volatility of our cash
flows. In addition, our hedging activities are subject to the
risks that a counterparty may not perform its obligations under
the applicable derivative instrument, the terms of the
derivative instruments are imperfect, and our hedging policies
and procedures are not properly followed. It is possible that
the steps we take to monitor our derivative financial
instruments may not detect and prevent violations of our risk
management policies and procedures, particularly if deception or
other intentional misconduct is involved.
Our
asset reconfiguration and enhancement initiatives may not result
in revenue or cash flow increases, may be subject to significant
cost overruns and are subject to regulatory, environmental,
political, legal and economic risks, which could adversely
affect our business, operating results, cash flows and financial
condition.
We plan to grow our business in part through the reconfiguration
and enhancement of our existing refinery assets. As a specific
example, we completed an expansion project at our Shreveport
refinery to increase throughput capacity and crude oil
processing flexibility in May 2008. This expansion project and
the construction of other additions or modifications to our
existing refineries have and will continue to involve numerous
regulatory, environmental, political, legal, labor and economic
uncertainties beyond our control, which could cause delays in
construction or require the expenditure of significant amounts
of capital, which we may finance with additional indebtedness or
by issuing additional equity securities. Our forecasted internal
rates of return on such projects are
25
also based on our projections of future market fundamentals,
which are not within our control, including changes in general
economic conditions, available alternative supply and customer
demand. For example, the total cost of the Shreveport refinery
expansion project completed in 2008 was approximately
$375.0 million and was significantly over budget due
primarily to increased construction labor costs. Future
reconfiguration and enhancement projects may not be completed at
the budgeted cost, on schedule, or at all due to the risks
described above which could significantly affect our cash flows
and financial condition.
Our
debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional
financing and in pursuing other business
opportunities.
We had approximately $378.2 million of outstanding
indebtedness under our credit facilities as of December 31,
2010 and availability for borrowings of $145.5 million
under our senior secured revolving credit facility. We continue
to have the ability to incur additional debt, including the
ability to borrow up to $375.0 million under our senior
secured revolving credit facility, subject to the borrowing base
limitations in that credit agreement. For further discussion of
our term loan and revolving credit facilities, please read
Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources Debt and Credit
Facilities. Our level of indebtedness could have important
consequences to us, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for
working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other
purposes may be impaired or such financing may not be available
on favorable terms;
|
|
|
|
covenants contained in our existing and future credit and debt
arrangements will require us to meet financial tests that may
affect our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes
in our business, including possible acquisition opportunities;
|
|
|
|
we will need a substantial portion of our cash flow to make
principal and interest payments on our indebtedness, reducing
the funds that would otherwise be available for operations,
future business opportunities and distributions to
unitholders; and
|
|
|
|
our debt level will make us more vulnerable than our competitors
with less debt to competitive pressures or a downturn in our
business or the economy generally.
|
Our ability to service our indebtedness will depend upon, among
other things, our future financial and operating performance,
which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and
financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which
are beyond our control. If our operating results are not
sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we
will be forced to take actions such as reducing distributions,
reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions,
investments
and/or
capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or
refinancing our indebtedness, or seeking additional equity
capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to effect
any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.
We may
be unable to consummate potential acquisitions we identify or
successfully integrate such acquisitions.
We regularly consider and enter into discussions regarding
potential acquisitions that we believe are complementary to our
business. Any such purchase is subject to substantial due
diligence, the negotiation of a definitive purchase and sale
agreement and ancillary agreements, including, but not limited
to supply, transition services and licensing agreements, and the
receipt of various board of directors, governmental and other
approvals. In the alternative, if we are successful in closing
any such acquisitions, we will be subject to many risks
including integration risks and the risk that a substantial
portion of an acquired business may not produce qualifying
income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. If our
non-qualifying income exceeds 10% we would lose our election to
be treated as a partnership for tax purposes and will be taxed
as a corporation.
26
If our
general financial condition deteriorates, we may be limited in
our ability to issue letters of credit which may affect our
ability to enter into hedging arrangements, to enter into
leasing arrangements, or to purchase crude oil.
We rely on our ability to issue letters of credit to enter into
hedging arrangements in an effort to reduce our exposure to
adverse fluctuations in the prices of crude oil, natural gas and
crack spreads. We also rely on our ability to issue letters of
credit to purchase crude oil for our refineries, lease certain
precious metals for use in our refinery operations and enter
into cash flow hedges of crude oil and natural gas purchases and
fuel products sales. If, due to our financial condition or other
reasons, we are limited in our ability to issue letters of
credit or we are unable to issue letters of credit at all, we
may be required to post substantial amounts of cash collateral
to our hedging counterparties, lessors or crude oil suppliers in
order to continue these activities, which would adversely affect
our liquidity and our ability to distribute cash to our
unitholders.
We
depend on certain key crude oil and other feedstock suppliers
for a significant portion of our supply of crude oil and other
feedstocks, and the loss of any of these key suppliers or a
material decrease in the supply of crude oil and other
feedstocks generally available to our refineries could
materially reduce our ability to make distributions to
unitholders.
We purchase crude oil and other feedstocks from major oil
companies as well as from various crude oil gatherers and
marketers in east Texas and north Louisiana. In 2010,
subsidiaries of Plains and Genesis Crude Oil, L.P. supplied us
with approximately 49.6% and 4.6%, respectively, of our total
crude oil supplies under term contracts and evergreen crude oil
supply contracts. In addition, 41.5% of our total crude oil
purchases in 2010 were from Legacy Resources, an affiliate of
our general partner, to supply crude oil to our Princeton and
Shreveport refineries. Each of our refineries is dependent on
one or more of these suppliers and the loss of any of these
suppliers would adversely affect our financial results to the
extent we were unable to find another supplier of this
substantial amount of crude oil. We do not maintain long-term
contracts with most of our suppliers. For example, our contracts
with Plains are currently
month-to-month
terminable upon 90 days notice. Please read
Items 1 and 2 Business and Properties
Crude Oil and Feedstock Supply.
To the extent that our suppliers reduce the volumes of crude oil
and other feedstocks that they supply us as a result of
declining production or competition or otherwise, our revenues,
net income and cash available for distribution to unitholders
would decline unless we were able to acquire comparable supplies
of crude oil and other feedstocks on comparable terms from other
suppliers, which may not be possible in areas where the supplier
that reduces its volumes is the primary supplier in the area. A
material decrease in crude oil production from the fields that
supply our refineries, as a result of depressed commodity
prices, lack of drilling activity, natural production declines,
governmental moratoriums on drilling or production activities or
otherwise, could result in a decline in the volume of crude oil
we refine. Fluctuations in crude oil prices can greatly affect
production rates and investments by third parties in the
development of new oil reserves. Drilling activity generally
decreases as crude oil prices decrease. We have no control over
the level of drilling activity in the fields that supply our
refineries, the amount of reserves underlying the wells in these
fields, the rate at which production from a well will decline or
the production decisions of producers, which are affected by,
among other things, prevailing and projected energy prices,
demand for hydrocarbons, geological considerations, governmental
regulation and the availability and cost of capital.
We are
dependent on certain third-party pipelines for transportation of
crude oil and refined products, and if these pipelines become
unavailable to us, our revenues and cash available for
distribution could decline.
Our Shreveport refinery is interconnected to pipelines that
supply most of its crude oil and ship a portion of its refined
fuel products to customers, such as pipelines operated by
subsidiaries of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and
ExxonMobil. Since we do not own or operate any of these
pipelines, their continuing operation is not within our control.
If any of these third-party pipelines become unavailable to
transport crude oil or our refined fuel products because of
accidents, government regulation, terrorism or other events, our
revenues, net income and cash available for distribution to
unitholders could decline.
27
Distributions
to unitholders could be adversely affected by a decrease in the
demand for our specialty products.
Changes in our customers products or processes may enable
our customers to reduce consumption of the specialty products
that we produce or make our specialty products unnecessary.
Should a customer decide to use a different product due to
price, performance or other considerations, we may not be able
to supply a product that meets the customers new
requirements. In addition, the demand for our customers
end products could decrease, which could reduce their demand for
our specialty products. Our specialty products customers are
primarily in the industrial goods, consumer goods and automotive
goods industries and we are therefore susceptible to overall
economic conditions, which may change demand patterns and
products in those industries. Consequently, it is important that
we develop and manufacture new products to replace the sales of
products that mature and decline in use. If we are unable to
manage successfully the maturation of our existing specialty
products and the introduction of new specialty products our
revenues, net income and cash available for distribution to
unitholders could be reduced.
Distributions
to unitholders could be adversely affected by a decrease in
demand for fuel products in the markets we serve.
Any sustained decrease in demand for fuel products in the
markets we serve could result in a significant reduction in our
cash flows, reducing our ability to make distributions to
unitholders. Factors that could lead to a decrease in market
demand include:
|
|
|
|
|
a recession or other adverse economic condition that results in
lower spending by consumers on gasoline, diesel, and travel;
|
|
|
|
higher fuel taxes or other governmental or regulatory actions
that increase, directly or indirectly, the cost of fuel products;
|
|
|
|
an increase in fuel economy or the increased use of alternative
fuel sources;
|
|
|
|
an increase in the market price of crude oil that lead to higher
refined product prices, which may reduce demand for fuel
products;
|
|
|
|
competitor actions; and
|
|
|
|
availability of raw materials.
|
We
could be subject to damages based on claims brought against us
by our customers or lose customers as a result of the failure of
our products to meet certain quality
specifications.
Our specialty products provide precise performance attributes
for our customers products. If a product fails to perform
in a manner consistent with the detailed quality specifications
required by the customer, the customer could seek replacement of
the product or damages for costs incurred as a result of the
product failing to perform as guaranteed. A successful claim or
series of claims against us could result in a loss of one or
more customers and reduce our ability to make distributions to
unitholders.
We are
subject to compliance with stringent environmental, health and
safety laws and regulations that may expose us to substantial
costs and liabilities.
Our crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon refining, terminal and
related facility operations are subject to stringent and complex
federal, regional, state and local environmental, health and
safety laws and regulations governing worker health and safety
the discharge of materials into the environment and
environmental protection. These laws and regulations impose
numerous obligations that are applicable to our operations,
including the obligation to obtain permits to conduct regulated
activities, the incurrence of significant capital expenditures
to limit or prevent releases of materials from our refineries,
terminal, and related facilities, the expenditure of significant
monies in the application of specific health and safety criteria
addressing worker protection, and the incurrence of substantial
costs and liabilities for pollution resulting from our
operations or from those of prior owners. Numerous governmental
authorities, such as the EPA, OSHA, and state agencies, such as
the LDEQ, have
28
the power to enforce compliance with these laws and regulations
and the permits issued under them, often requiring difficult and
costly actions. Failure to comply with laws, regulations,
permits and orders may result in the assessment of
administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, the imposition of
remedial obligations, and the issuance of injunctions limiting
or preventing some or all of our operations. On occasion, we
receive notices of violation, enforcement proceedings and
regulatory inquiries from governmental agencies alleging
non-compliance with applicable environmental laws and other
regulations. Please read Items 1 and 2 Business and
Properties Environmental, Health and Safety
Matters for additional information regarding our
communications with the LDEQ and OSHA.
The workplaces associated with the facilities we operate are
subject to the requirements of federal OSHA and comparable state
statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety
of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard
requires that we maintain information about hazardous materials
used or produced in our operations and that we provide this
information to employees, state and local government
authorities, and local residents. Failure to comply with OSHA
requirements, including general industry standards,
recordkeeping requirements and monitoring of occupational
exposure to regulated substances could reduce our ability to
make distributions to our unitholders if we are subjected to
penalties or significant compliance costs.
Our
business subjects us to the inherent risk of incurring
significant environmental liabilities in the operation of our
refineries, terminal and related facilities.
There is inherent risk of incurring significant environmental
costs and liabilities in the operation of our refineries,
terminal, and related facilities due to our handling of
petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes because of air emissions and
water discharges related to our operations, and historical
operations and waste disposal practices of prior owners of our
facilities. We currently own or operate properties that for many
years have been used for industrial activities, including
refining or terminal storage operations, sometimes by third
parties over whom we had no control with respect to their
operations or waste disposal activities. Petroleum hydrocarbons
or wastes have been released on or under the properties owned or
operated by us. Joint and several strict liability may be
incurred in connection with such releases of petroleum
hydrocarbons and wastes on, under or from our properties and
facilities. Private parties, including the owners of properties
adjacent to our operations and facilities where our petroleum
hydrocarbons or wastes are taken for reclamation or disposal,
may also have the right to pursue legal actions to enforce
compliance as well as to seek damages for non-compliance with
environmental laws and regulations or for personal injury or
property damage. We may not be able to recover some or any of
these costs from insurance or other sources of indemnity.
Increasingly stringent environmental laws and regulations,
unanticipated remediation obligations or emissions control
expenditures and claims for penalties or damages could result in
substantial costs and liabilities, and our ability to make
distributions to our unitholders could suffer as a result.
Neither the owners of our general partner nor their affiliates
have indemnified us for any environmental liabilities, including
those arising from non-compliance or pollution, that may be
discovered at, or arise from operations on, the assets they
contributed to us in connection with the closing of our initial
public offering. As such, we can expect no economic assistance
from any of them in the event that we are required to make
expenditures to investigate or remediate any petroleum
hydrocarbons, wastes or other materials.
Climate
change legislation or regulations restricting emissions of
greenhouse gases could result in increased operating
costs and a decreased demand for our refining
services.
In December 2009, the EPA published its findings that emissions
of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases, or
GHGs, present an endangerment to public health and
the environment because emissions of such gases are, according
to the EPA, contributing to the warming of the earths
atmosphere and other climate changes. These findings allow the
EPA to adopt and implement regulations that would restrict
emissions of GHGs under existing provisions of the federal Clean
Air Act. The EPA has adopted two sets of regulations under the
Clean Air Act. The first limits emissions of GHGs from motor
vehicles beginning with the 2012 model year. On June 3,
2010, the EPA published its final rule to address the permitting
of GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, or PSD, and Title V
permitting programs. This rule tailors these
permitting programs to apply to certain stationary sources of
GHG emissions in a multi-step process, with the
29
largest sources first subject to permitting. It is widely
expected that facilities required to obtain PSD permits for
their GHG emissions also will be required to reduce those
emissions according to best available control
technology standards for GHG that have yet to be
developed. Also, in October 2009, the EPA published a final rule
requiring the reporting of GHG emissions from specified large
GHG emission sources in the United States, including refineries,
on an annual basis, beginning in 2011 for emissions occurring
after January 1, 2010. In addition, both houses of Congress
have actively considered legislation to reduce emissions of
GHGs, and almost one-half of the states have already taken legal
measures to reduce emissions of GHGs, primarily through the
planned development of GHG emission inventories
and/or
regional GHG cap and trade programs. Most of these cap and trade
programs work by requiring either major sources of emissions or
major producers of fuels to acquire and surrender emission
allowances, with the number of allowances available for purchase
reduced each year until the overall GHG emission reduction goal
is achieved. These allowances would be expected to escalate
significantly in cost over time. The adoption of any legislation
or regulations that requires reporting of GHGs or otherwise
limits emissions of GHGs from our equipment and operations could
require us to incur increased operating costs and could
adversely affect demand for the refined petroleum products we
produce.
We are
exposed to trade credit risk in the ordinary course of our
business activities.
We are exposed to risks of loss in the event of nonperformance
by our customers and by counterparties of our forward contracts,
options and swap agreements. Some of our customers and
counterparties may be highly leveraged and subject to their own
operating and regulatory risks. Even if our credit review and
analysis mechanisms work properly, we may experience financial
losses in our dealings with other parties. Any increase in the
nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers
and/or
counterparties could reduce our ability to make distributions to
our unitholders.
If we
do not make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, our
future growth will be limited.
Our ability to grow depends on our ability to make acquisitions
that result in an increase in the cash generated from operations
per unit. If we are unable to make these accretive acquisitions
either because we are: (1) unable to identify attractive
acquisition candidates or negotiate acceptable purchase
contracts with them, (2) unable to obtain financing for
these acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, or
(3) outbid by competitors, then our future growth and
ability to increase distributions to our unitholders will be
limited. Furthermore, any acquisition involves potential risks,
including, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
performance from the acquired assets and businesses that is
below the forecasts we used in evaluating the acquisition;
|
|
|
|
a significant increase in our indebtedness and working capital
requirements;
|
|
|
|
an inability to timely and effectively integrate the operations
of recently acquired businesses or assets, particularly those in
new geographic areas or in new lines of business;
|
|
|
|
the incurrence of substantial unforeseen environmental and other
liabilities arising out of the acquired businesses or assets;
|
|
|
|
the diversion of managements attention from other business
concerns;
|
|
|
|
customer or key employee losses at the acquired
businesses; and
|
|
|
|
significant changes in our capitalization and results of
operations.
|
Our
refineries, facilities and terminal operations face operating
hazards, and the potential limits on insurance coverage could
expose us to potentially significant liability
costs.
Our operations are subject to certain operating hazards, and our
cash from operations could decline if any of our facilities
experiences a major accident, explosion or fire, is damaged by
severe weather or other natural disaster, or otherwise is forced
to curtail its operations or shut down. For example, on
February 5, 2010, our Shreveport refinery experienced an
explosion that caused us to shut down one of this
refinerys environmental operating units until August 2010
when it was replaced with a newly constructed unit, resulting in
modified operations during the
30
period, including lower throughput rates at certain times during
this period. These operating hazards could result in substantial
losses due to personal injury
and/or loss
of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and
equipment and pollution or other environmental damage and may
result in significant curtailment or suspension of our related
operations.
Although we maintain insurance policies, including personal and
property damage and business interruption insurance for each of
our facilities with insurers in amounts and with coverage and
deductibles that we, with the advice of our insurance advisors
and brokers, believe are reasonable and prudent, we cannot
ensure that this insurance will be adequate to protect us from
all material expenses related to potential future claims for
personal and property damage or significant interruption of
operations. Our business interruption insurance will not apply
unless a business interruption exceeds 90 days.
Furthermore, we may be unable to maintain or obtain insurance of
the type and amount we desire at reasonable rates. As a result
of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain of
our insurance policies have increased and could escalate
further. In some instances, certain insurance could become
unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage.
In addition, we are not fully insured against all risks incident
to our business because certain risks are not fully insurable,
coverage is unavailable, or premium costs, in our judgment, do
not justify such expenditures. For example, we are not insured
for environmental accidents. If we were to incur a significant
liability for which we were not fully insured, it could diminish
our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
Downtime
for maintenance at our refineries and facilities will reduce our
revenues and cash available for distribution.
Our refineries and facilities consist of many processing units,
a number of which have been in operation for a long time. One or
more of the units may require additional unscheduled downtime
for unanticipated maintenance or repairs that are more frequent
than our scheduled turnaround for each unit every one to five
years. Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance reduce our revenues
during the period of time that our processing units are not
operating and could reduce our ability to make distributions to
our unitholders.
We
face substantial competition from other refining
companies.
The refining industry is highly competitive. Our competitors
include large, integrated, major or independent oil companies
that, because of their more diverse operations, larger
refineries and stronger capitalization, may be better positioned
than we are to withstand volatile industry conditions, including
shortages or excesses of crude oil or refined products or
intense price competition at the wholesale level. If we are
unable to compete effectively, we may lose existing customers or
fail to acquire new customers. For example, if a competitor
attempts to increase market share by reducing prices, our
operating results and cash available for distribution to our
unitholders could be reduced.
An
increase in interest rates will cause our debt service
obligations to increase.
Borrowings under our revolving credit facility bear interest at
a floating rate (3.75% as of December 31, 2010). Borrowings
under our term loan facility bear interest at a floating rate
(4.29% as of December 31, 2010). The interest rates are
subject to adjustment based on fluctuations in the London
Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) or prime rate. The
interest rate under our term loan credit facility, entered into
on January 3, 2008, is LIBOR plus 4.0%. An increase in the
interest rates associated with our floating-rate debt would
increase our debt service costs and affect our results of
operations and cash flow available for distribution to our
unitholders. In addition, an increase in interest rates could
adversely affect our future ability to obtain financing or
materially increase the cost of any additional financing.
Due to
our lack of asset and geographic diversification, adverse
developments in our operating areas would reduce our ability to
make distributions to our unitholders.
We rely primarily on sales generated from products processed at
the facilities we own. Furthermore, the majority of our assets
and operations are located in northwest Louisiana. Due to our
lack of diversification in asset type and location, an adverse
development in these businesses or areas, including adverse
developments due to
31
catastrophic events or weather, decreased supply of crude oil
and feedstocks
and/or
decreased demand for refined petroleum products, would have a
significantly greater impact on our financial condition and
results of operations than if we maintained more diverse assets
in more diverse locations.
We
depend on key personnel for the success of our business and the
loss of those persons could adversely affect our business and
our ability to make distributions to our
unitholders.
The loss of the services of any member of senior management or
key employee could have an adverse effect on our business and
reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders. We
may not be able to locate or employ on acceptable terms
qualified replacements for senior management or other key
employees if their services were no longer available. Except
with respect to Mr. Grube, neither we, our general partner
nor any affiliate thereof has entered into an employment
agreement with any member of our senior management team or other
key personnel. Furthermore, we do not maintain any key-man life
insurance.
We
depend on unionized labor for the operation of our refineries.
Any work stoppages or labor disturbances at these facilities
could disrupt our business.
Substantially all of our operating personnel at our Princeton,
Cotton Valley, Shreveport, Karns City and Dickinson facilities
are employed under collective bargaining agreements that expire
in October 2011, March 2013, April 2013, January 2012 and March
2013, respectively. Our inability to renegotiate these
agreements as they expire, any work stoppages or other labor
disturbances at these facilities could have an adverse effect on
our business and reduce our ability to make distributions to our
unitholders. In addition, employees who are not currently
represented by labor unions may seek union representation in the
future, and any renegotiation of current collective bargaining
agreements may result in terms that are less favorable to us.
The
operating results for our fuel products segment and the asphalt
we produce and sell are seasonal and generally lower in the
first and fourth quarters of the year.
The operating results for the fuel products segment and the
selling prices of asphalt products we produce can be seasonal.
Asphalt demand is generally lower in the first and fourth
quarters of the year as compared to the second and third
quarters due to the seasonality of road construction. Demand for
gasoline is generally higher during the summer months than
during the winter months due to seasonal increases in highway
traffic. In addition, our natural gas costs can be higher during
the winter months. Our operating results for the first and
fourth calendar quarters may be lower than those for the second
and third calendar quarters of each year as a result of this
seasonality.
The
recent adoption of financial reform legislation by the United
States Congress could have an adverse effect on our ability to
use derivative instruments to hedge risks associated with our
business.
The United States Congress recently adopted comprehensive
financial reform legislation that establishes federal oversight
and regulation of the
over-the-counter
derivatives market and entities, including businesses like ours,
that participate in that market. The new legislation, known as
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(the Act), was signed into law by the President on
July 21, 2010, and requires the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission (the CFTC) and the SEC to promulgate
rules and regulations implementing the new legislation within
360 days from the date of enactment. In its rulemaking
under the Act, the CFTC has proposed regulations to set position
limits for certain futures and option contracts in the major
energy markets and for swaps that are their economic
equivalents. Although certain bona fide hedging transactions or
positions would be exempt from these position limits, it is not
possible at this time to predict what impact these regulations
will have on our hedging program or when the CFTC will finalize
these regulations. The Act may also require us to comply with
margin requirements and with certain clearing and
trade-execution requirements in connection with our derivatives
activities, although the application of those provisions to us
is uncertain at this time. The Act may also require the
counterparties to our derivative instruments to spin off some of
their derivatives activities to a separate entity, which may not
be as creditworthy as the current counterparty. The new
legislation and any new regulations could significantly increase
the cost of derivatives contracts (including through
requirements to post collateral which could adversely affect our
available liquidity), materially alter the terms of derivatives
contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect
against risks we encounter, reduce our ability to monetize
32
or restructure our existing derivatives contracts, and increase
our exposure to less creditworthy counterparties. If we reduce
our use of derivatives as a result of the legislation and
regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile
and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could
adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital
expenditures. Finally, the legislation was intended, in part, to
reduce the volatility of oil and natural gas prices, which some
legislators attributed to speculative trading in derivatives and
commodity instruments related to oil and natural gas. Our
revenues could therefore be adversely affected if a consequence
of the legislation and regulations is to lower commodity prices.
Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect
on our business, our financial condition, and our results of
operations.
Risks
Inherent in an Investment in Us
The
families of our chairman, chief executive officer and vice
chairman, The Heritage Group and certain of their affiliates own
a 54.6% limited partner interest in us and own and control our
general partner, which has sole responsibility for conducting
our business and managing our operations. Our general partner
and its affiliates have conflicts of interest and limited
fiduciary duties, which may permit them to favor their own
interests to other unitholders detriment.
The families of our chairman, chief executive officer and vice
chairman, the Heritage Group, and certain of their affiliates
own a 54.6% limited partner interest in us. In addition, The
Heritage Group and the families of our chairman and chief
executive officer and vice chairman own our general partner.
Conflicts of interest may arise between our general partner and
its affiliates, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on
the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, the general
partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its
affiliates over the interests of our unitholders. These
conflicts include, among others, the following situations:
|
|
|
|
|
our general partner is allowed to take into account the
interests of parties other than us, such as its affiliates, in
resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of
limiting its fiduciary duty to our unitholders;
|
|
|
|
our general partner has limited its liability and reduced its
fiduciary duties under our partnership agreement and has also
restricted the remedies available to our unitholders for actions
that, without the limitations, might constitute breaches of
fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing common units,
unitholders consent to some actions and conflicts of interest
that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other
duties under applicable state law;
|
|
|
|
our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset
purchases and sales, borrowings, issuance of additional
partnership securities, and reserves, each of which can affect
the amount of cash that is distributed to unitholders;
|
|
|
|
our general partner determines which costs incurred by it and
its affiliates are reimbursable by us;
|
|
|
|
our general partner determines the amount and timing of any
capital expenditures and whether a capital expenditure is a
maintenance capital expenditure, which reduces operating
surplus, or a capital expenditure for acquisitions or capital
improvements, which does not. This determination can affect the
amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders;
|
|
|
|
our general partner has the flexibility to cause us to enter
into a broad variety of derivative transactions covering
different time periods, the net cash receipts from which will
increase operating surplus and adjusted operating surplus, with
the result that our general partner may be able to shift the
recognition of operating surplus and adjusted operating surplus
between periods to increase the distributions it and its
affiliates receive on their incentive distribution
rights; and
|
|
|
|
in some instances, our general partner may cause us to borrow
funds in order to permit the payment of cash distributions, even
if the purpose or effect of the borrowing is to make incentive
distributions.
|
The
Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates may engage in
limited competition with us.
Pursuant to the omnibus agreement we entered into in connection
with our initial public offering, The Heritage Group and its
controlled affiliates have agreed not to engage in, whether by
acquisition or otherwise, the business of refining or marketing
specialty lubricating oils, solvents and wax products as well as
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel
33
products in the continental United States for so long as it
controls us. This restriction does not apply to certain assets
and businesses which are more fully described under Item 13
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and
Director Independence Omnibus Agreement.
Although Mr. Grube is prohibited from competing with us
pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, the owners of
our general partner, other than The Heritage Group, are not
prohibited from competing with us.
Our
partnership agreement limits our general partners
fiduciary duties to our unitholders and restricts the remedies
available to unitholders for actions taken by our general
partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary
duty.
Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the
standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held
by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership
agreement:
|
|
|
|
|
Permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its
individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our
general partner. This entitles our general partner to consider
only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no
duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of,
or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner.
Examples include the exercise of its limited call right, its
voting rights with respect to the units it owns, its
registration rights and its determination whether or not to
consent to any merger or consolidation of our partnership or
amendment of our partnership agreement;
|
|
|
|
Provides that our general partner will not have any liability to
us or our unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as a
general partner so long as it acted in good faith, meaning it
believed the decision was in the best interests of our
partnership;
|
|
|
|
Generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions
of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee
of the board of directors of our general partner and not
involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less
favorable to us than those generally being provided to or
available from unrelated third parties or be fair and
reasonable to us. In determining whether a transaction or
resolution is fair and reasonable, our general
partner may consider the totality of the relationships between
the parties involved, including other transactions that may be
particularly advantageous or beneficial to us; and
|
|
|
|
Provides that our general partner and its officers and directors
will not be liable for monetary damages to us or our limited
partners for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final
and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent
jurisdiction determining that the general partner or those other
persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful
misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, acted with
knowledge that such persons conduct was criminal.
|
In order to become a limited partner of our partnership, a
common unitholder is required to agree to be bound by the
provisions in the partnership agreement, including the
provisions discussed above.
Unitholders
have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our
general partner or its directors.
Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders
have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our
business and, therefore, limited ability to influence
managements decisions regarding our business. Unitholders
do not elect our general partner or its board of directors, and
have no right to elect our general partner or its board of
directors on an annual or other continuing basis. The board of
directors of our general partner is chosen by the members of our
general partner. Furthermore, if the unitholders are
dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they
have little ability to remove our general partner. As a result
of these limitations, the price at which the common units trade
could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a
takeover premium in the trading price.
Even
if unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot remove our general
partner without its consent.
The unitholders are unable to remove the general partner without
its consent because the general partner and its affiliates own
sufficient units to be able to prevent its removal. The vote of
the holders of at least
662/3%
of all
34
outstanding units voting together as a single class is required
to remove the general partner. At February 18, 2011, the
owners of our general partner and certain of their affiliates
own 54.6% of our common units.
Our
partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of those
unitholders owning 20% or more of our common
units.
Unitholders voting rights are further restricted by the
partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by
a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then
outstanding, other than our general partner, its affiliates,
their transferees, and persons who acquired such units with the
prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner,
cannot vote on any matter. Our partnership agreement also
contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call
meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well
as other provisions limiting the unitholders ability to
influence the manner or direction of management.
Control
of our general partner may be transferred to a third party
without unitholder consent.
Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to
a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially
all of its assets without the consent of the unitholders.
Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not restrict the
ability of the members of our general partner from transferring
their respective membership interests in our general partner to
a third party. The new members of our general partner would then
be in a position to replace the board of directors and officers
of our general partner with their own choices and thereby
control the decisions taken by the board of directors.
We do
not have our own officers and employees and rely solely on the
officers and employees of our general partner and its affiliates
to manage our business and affairs.
We do not have our own officers and employees and rely solely on
the officers and employees of our general partner and its
affiliates to manage our business and affairs. We can provide no
assurance that our general partner will continue to provide us
the officers and employees that are necessary for the conduct of
our business nor that such provision will be on terms that are
acceptable to us. If our general partner fails to provide us
with adequate personnel, our operations could be adversely
impacted and our cash available for distribution to unitholders
could be reduced.
We may
issue additional common units without unitholder approval, which
would dilute our current unitholders existing ownership
interests.
We may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests of
any type without the approval of our unitholders. Our
partnership agreement does not give our unitholders the right to
approve our issuance of equity securities ranking junior to the
common units at any time. In addition, our partnership agreement
does not prohibit the issuance by our subsidiaries of equity
securities, which may effectively rank senior to the common
units. The issuance of additional common units or other equity
securities of equal or senior rank to the common units will have
the following effects:
|
|
|
|
|
our unitholders proportionate ownership interest in us may
decrease;
|
|
|
|
the amount of cash available for distribution on each unit may
decrease;
|
|
|
|
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit
may be diminished;
|
|
|
|
the market price of the common units may decline; and
|
|
|
|
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase.
|
Our
general partners determination of the level of cash
reserves may reduce the amount of available cash for
distribution to unitholders.
Our partnership agreement requires our general partner to deduct
from operating surplus cash reserves that it establishes are
necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In
addition, our partnership agreement also permits our general
partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves
for the proper conduct of our
35
business, to comply with applicable law or agreements to which
we are a party, or to provide funds for future distributions to
partners. These reserves will affect the amount of cash
available for distribution to unitholders.
Cost
reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates
will reduce cash available for distribution to
unitholders.
Prior to making any distribution on the common units, we will
reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all
expenses they incur on our behalf. Any such reimbursement will
be determined by our general partner and will reduce the cash
available for distribution to unitholders. These expenses will
include all costs incurred by our general partner and its
affiliates in managing and operating us. Please read
Item 13 Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions and Director Independence.
Our
general partner has a limited call right that may require
unitholders to sell their units at an undesirable time or
price.
If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more
than 80% of the issued and outstanding common units, our general
partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which right
it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all,
but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated
persons at a price not less than their then-current market
price. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their
common units to our general partner, its affiliates or us at an
undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on
their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability
upon a sale of their common units. At February 18, 2011,
our general partner and its affiliates own approximately 54.6%
of the common units.
Unitholder
liability may not be limited if a court finds that unitholder
action constitutes control of our business.
A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited
liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for
those contractual obligations of the partnership that are
expressly made without recourse to the general partner. Our
partnership is organized under Delaware law and we conduct
business in a number of other states. The limitations on the
liability of holders of limited partner interests for the
obligations of a limited partnership have not been clearly
established in some of the other states in which we do business.
Unitholders could be liable for any and all of our obligations
as if they were a general partner if:
|
|
|
|
|
a court or government agency determined that we were conducting
business in a state but had not complied with that particular
states partnership statute; or
|
|
|
|
unitholders right to act with other unitholders to remove
or replace the general partner, to approve some amendments to
our partnership agreement or to take other actions under our
partnership agreement constitute control of our
business.
|
Unitholders
may have liability to repay distributions that were wrongfully
distributed to them.
Under certain circumstances, unitholders may have to repay
amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under
Section 17-607
of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, which
we call the Delaware Act, we may not make a distribution to our
unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to
exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that
for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible
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 limited partnership for the
distribution amount. Purchasers of units who become limited
partners are liable for the obligations of the transferring
limited partner to make contributions to the partnership that
are known to the purchaser of the units at the time it became a
limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities
could be determined from the partnership agreement. Liabilities
to partners on account of their partnership interest and
liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not
counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is
permitted.
36
Our
common units have a low trading volume compared to other units
representing limited partner interests.
Our common units are traded publicly on the NASDAQ Global Select
Market under the symbol CLMT. However, our common
units have a low average daily trading volume compared to many
other units representing limited partner interests quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market. The price of our common units may
continue to be volatile.
The market price of our common units may also be influenced by
many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our quarterly distributions;
|
|
|
|
our quarterly or annual earnings or those of other companies in
our industry;
|
|
|
|
changes in commodity prices or refining margins;
|
|
|
|
loss of a large customer;
|
|
|
|
announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts
or acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance,
interpretations or principles;
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
the failure of securities analysts to cover our common units or
changes in financial estimates by analysts;
|
|
|
|
future sales of our common units; and
|
|
|
|
the other factors described in Item 1A Risk
Factors of this Annual Report.
|
Tax Risks
to Common Unitholders
Our
tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal
income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to a
material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states.
If the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, treats us as a
corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or we become
subject to additional amounts of entity-level taxation for state
tax purposes, it would substantially reduce the amount of cash
available for distribution to common unitholders.
The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in
our common units depends largely on our being treated as a
partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A
publicly traded partnership such as us may be treated as a
corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes unless it
satisfies a qualifying income exception. Based on
our current operations we believe that we are treated as a
partnership rather than a corporation for such purposes;
however, a change in our business could cause us to be treated
as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
In addition, a change in current law may cause us to be treated
as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For
example, members of Congress have recently considered
substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax
laws that would affect the tax treatment of certain publicly
traded partnerships. Any change to the U.S. federal income
tax laws may or may not be applied retroactively. In addition,
because of widespread state budget deficits, several states are
evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity level taxation
through the imposition of state income, franchise or other forms
of taxation. If we were subject to federal income tax as a
corporation or any state was to impose a tax upon us, our cash
available to pay distributions would be reduced. Therefore, our
treatment as a corporation would result in a material reduction
in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our
unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value
of our common units.
Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or
existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that
subjects us to taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects
us to entity level taxation for federal, state or local income
tax purposes, then the minimum quarterly distribution amount and
the target distribution amounts will be adjusted to reflect the
impact of that law on us.
37
If the
IRS contests the federal income tax positions we take, the
market for our common units may be adversely impacted and the
cost of any IRS contest will reduce our cash available for
distribution.
We have not requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to our
treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax
purposes. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the
positions we take. It may be necessary to resort to
administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of
the positions we take. A court may not agree with the positions
we take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely
impact the market for our common units and the price at which
they trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS
will be borne indirectly by our unitholders because the costs
will reduce our cash available for distribution.
Unitholders
may be required to pay taxes on income from us even if they do
not receive any cash distributions from us.
Because our unitholders will be treated as partners in us for
U.S. federal income tax purposes we will allocate a share
of our taxable income to our unitholders which could be
different in amount than the cash we distribute, and our
unitholders may be required to pay any U.S. federal income
taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes on their
share of our taxable income even if they do not receive any cash
distributions from us.
Tax
gain or loss on disposition of common units could be more or
less than expected.
If our unitholders sell their common units, they will recognize
a gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount they
realized and their tax basis in those common units. Because
distributions in excess of their allocable shares of our total
net taxable income result in a reduction in their tax basis in
their common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess
distributions with respect to the units sold will, in effect,
become taxable income to our unitholders if they sell their
units at a price greater than their tax basis in those common
units, even if the price they receive is equal to their original
cost. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the amount realized,
whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary
income due to potential recapture of depreciation deductions. In
addition, because the amount realized includes a
unitholders share of our nonrecourse liabilities, if
unitholders sell their units they may incur a tax liability in
excess of the amount of cash they receive from the sale.
Tax-exempt
entities and
non-U.S.
persons face unique tax issues from owning our common units that
may result in adverse tax consequences to them.
Investments in our common units by tax-exempt entities,
including employee benefit plans and individual retirement
accounts (known as IRAs), and
non-U.S. persons
raise issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our
income allocated to organizations exempt from federal income
tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be
unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them.
Distributions to
non-U.S. persons
will be reduced by withholding taxes imposed at the highest
applicable tax rate, and
non-U.S. persons
will be required to file U.S. federal tax returns and pay
tax on their shares of our taxable income. Tax-exempt entities
and
non-U.S. persons
should consult their tax advisors before investing in our common
units.
We
treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax
benefits without regard to the actual common units purchased.
The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely
affect the value of the common units.
To maintain the uniformity of the economic and tax
characteristics of our common units, we have adopted certain
depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform to
all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations. These positions
may result in an understatement of deductions and an
overstatement of income to our unitholders. For example, we do
not amortize certain goodwill assets, the value of which has
been attributed to certain of our outstanding units. A
subsequent holder of those units may be entitled to an
amortization deduction attributable to that goodwill under
Internal Revenue Code Section 743(b). But, because we
cannot identify these units once they are traded by the initial
holder, we do not allocate any subsequent holder of a unit any
such amortization deduction. This approach may understate
deductions available to those unitholders who own those units
and may result in those unitholders reporting that they have a
higher tax basis in their units than would be the case if the
IRS strictly applied Treasury Regulations relating to these
depreciation or amortization adjustments.
38
This, in turn, may result in those unitholders reporting less
gain or more loss on a sale of their units than would be the
case if the IRS strictly applied those Treasury Regulations.
The IRS may challenge the manner in which we calculate our
unitholders basis adjustment under Section 743(b). If
so, because the specific unitholders to which this issue relates
cannot be identified, the IRS may assert adjustments to all
unitholders selling units within the period under audit. A
successful IRS challenge to this position or other positions we
may take could adversely affect the amount of taxable income or
loss allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the gain
from a unitholders sale of common units or result in audit
adjustments to our unitholders tax returns without the
benefit of additional deductions. Consequently, a successful IRS
challenge could have a negative impact on the value of our
common units.
We
have a subsidiary that is treated as a corporation for federal
income tax purposes and subject to corporate-level income
taxes.
We conduct all or a portion of our operations in which we market
finished petroleum products to certain customers through a
subsidiary that is organized as a corporation. We may elect to
conduct additional operations through this corporate subsidiary
in the future. This corporate subsidiary is obligated to pay
corporate income taxes, which reduce the corporations cash
available for distribution to us and, in turn, to our
unitholders. If the IRS were to successfully assert that this
corporation has more tax liability than we anticipate or
legislation were enacted that increased the corporate tax rate,
our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be
further reduced.
We
prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between
existing unitholders and unitholders who purchase units each
month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of
each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular
unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which
could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and
deduction among our unitholders.
We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between
existing unitholders and unitholders who purchase our units
based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each
month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is
transferred. The use of this proration method may not be
permitted under existing Treasury Regulations. Recently, the
U.S. Treasury Department issued proposed Treasury
Regulations that provide a safe harbor pursuant to which
publicly traded partnerships may use a similar monthly
simplifying convention to allocate tax items. Nonetheless, the
proposed regulations do not specifically authorize the use of
the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to
challenge our proration method or new Treasury Regulations were
issued, we may be required to change the allocation of items of
income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.
A
unitholder whose units are loaned to a short seller
to cover a short sale of units may be considered as having
disposed of those units. If so, the unitholder would no longer
be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those
units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or
loss from the disposition.
If a unitholder loans units to a short seller to
cover a short sale of units, they may be considered as having
disposed of the loaned units, and may no longer be treated for
tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the
period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from such
disposition. During the period of the loan, any of our income,
gain, loss or deduction with respect to those units may not be
reportable by a unitholder and any cash distributions received
as to those units may be fully taxable as ordinary income. To
assure unitholder status as a partner and avoid the risk of gain
recognition from a loan to a short seller unitholders are urged
to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to
prohibit brokers from borrowing their units.
We
have adopted certain valuation methodologies for U.S. federal
income tax purposes that may result in a shift of income, gain,
loss and deduction between our general partner and the
unitholders. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could
adversely affect the value of the common units.
When we issue additional units or engage in certain other
transactions, we will determine the fair market value of our
assets and allocate any unrealized gain or loss attributable to
our assets to the capital accounts of our unitholders and our
general partner. Our methodology may be viewed as understating
the value of our assets. In that
39
case, there may be a shift of income, gain, loss and deduction
between certain unitholders and our general partner, which may
be unfavorable to such unitholders. Moreover, under our
valuation methods, subsequent purchasers of common units may
have a greater portion of their Internal Revenue Code
Section 743(b) adjustment allocated to our tangible assets
and a lesser portion allocated to our intangible assets. The IRS
may challenge our valuation methods, or our allocation of the
Section 743(b) adjustment attributable to our tangible and
intangible assets, and allocations of taxable income, gain, loss
and deduction between our general partner and certain of our
unitholders.
A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could
adversely affect the amount of taxable income or loss being
allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of
taxable gain from our unitholders sale of common units and
could have a negative impact on the value of the common units or
result in audit adjustments to our unitholders tax returns
without the benefit of additional deductions.
The
sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits
interests during any twelve-month period will result in the
termination of our partnership for federal income tax
purposes.
We will be considered to have constructively terminated as a
partnership for federal income tax purposes if there is a sale
or exchange within a twelve-month period of 50% or more of the
total interests in our capital and profits. For purposes of
determining whether the 50% threshold has been met, multiple
sales of the same interest will be counted only once. Our
termination would, among other things, result in the closing of
our taxable year for all unitholders which could result in us
filing two tax returns (and unitholders receiving two
Schedule K-1s)
for one calendar year. Our termination could also result in a
deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our
taxable income. In the case of a unitholder reporting on a
taxable year other than a calendar year, the closing of our
taxable year may also result in more than twelve months of our
taxable income or loss being includable in his taxable income
for the year of termination. Our termination would not affect
our classification as a partnership for federal income tax
purposes, but instead, we would be treated as a new partnership
for federal income tax purposes. If treated as a new
partnership, we must make new tax elections and could be subject
to penalties if we are unable to determine that a termination
occurred. The IRS has recently announced a relief procedure
whereby if a publicly traded partnership that has constructively
terminated requests and the IRS grants special relief, among
other things, the partnership may be permitted to provide only a
single
Schedule K-1
to unitholders for the tax years in which the termination occurs.
Unitholders
may be subject to state, local and
non-U.S.
taxes and return filing requirements.
In addition to federal income taxes, our unitholders will likely
be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes,
non-U.S. taxes,
unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or
intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions
in which we do business or own property, even if unitholders do
not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our unitholders will
likely be required to file tax returns and pay taxes in some or
all of these jurisdictions. Further, unitholders may be subject
to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. We
do business in 30 states. The states we operate in, with
the exception of Texas and Florida, currently impose a personal
income tax as well as an income tax on corporations and other
entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may
own assets or do business in additional states that impose a
personal income tax. It is the responsibility of our common
unitholders to file all required U.S. federal, state, local
and
non-U.S. tax
returns.
The risks described in this Annual Report are not the only
risks facing the Company. Additional risks and uncertainties not
currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial
also may materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition or future results.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
We are not a party to, and our property is not the subject of,
any pending legal proceedings other than ordinary routine
litigation incidental to our business. Our operations are
subject to a variety of risks and disputes normally incident to
our business. As a result, we may, at any given time, be a
defendant in various legal proceedings and
40
litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Please
see Items 1 and 2 Business and Properties
Environmental, Health and Safety Matters for a description
of our current regulatory matters related to the environment,
health and safety. Additionally, the information provided under
Note 6 Commitments and Contingencies in
Part I, Item 8 Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data Notes to Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. Consolidated Financial Statements
is incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 4.
|
(Removed
and Reserved)
|
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Market
Information
Our common units are quoted and traded on the NASDAQ Global
Select Market under the symbol CLMT. Our common
units began trading on January 26, 2006 at an initial
public offering price of $21.50. Prior to that date, there was
no public market for our common units. The following table shows
the low and high sales prices per common unit, as reported by
NASDAQ, for the periods indicated. Cash distributions presented
below represent amounts declared subsequent to each respective
quarter end based on the results of that quarter. During each
quarter in the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009,
identical cash distributions per unit were paid among all
outstanding common and subordinated units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Distribution
|
|
|
Low
|
|
High
|
|
per Unit (1)
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
8.11
|
|
|
$
|
13.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
9.45
|
|
|
$
|
16.84
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
13.20
|
|
|
$
|
18.53
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
14.75
|
|
|
$
|
19.87
|
|
|
$
|
0.455
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
17.75
|
|
|
$
|
21.31
|
|
|
$
|
0.455
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
14.00
|
|
|
$
|
23.93
|
|
|
$
|
0.455
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
16.20
|
|
|
$
|
19.89
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
19.39
|
|
|
$
|
22.23
|
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We also paid cash distributions to our general partner with
respect to its 2% general partner interest. |
As of February 18, 2011, there were approximately
23 unitholders of record of our common units. This number
does not include unitholders whose units are held in trust by
other entities. The actual number of unitholders is greater than
the number of holders of record. As of February 18, 2011,
there were 35,279,778 common units outstanding. The number of
common units outstanding on this date includes 13,066,000 common
units that converted from subordinated units on
February 16, 2011. The last reported sale price of our
common units by NASDAQ on February 18, 2011 was $23.83.
On December 14, 2009, we completed a public equity offering
in which we sold 3,000,000 common units to the underwriters at a
price to the public of $18.00 per common unit and received net
proceeds of approximately $51.2 million. In addition, on
January 7, 2010 we sold an additional 47,778 common units
to the underwriters at a price to the public of $18.00 per
common unit pursuant to the underwriters over-allotment
option. In connection with this offering, our general partner
contributed an additional $1.1 million to us to retain its
2% general partner interest.
41
Cash
Distribution Policy
General. Within 45 days after the end of
each quarter, we distribute our available cash (as defined in
our partnership agreement) to unitholders of record on the
applicable record date.
Available Cash. Available cash generally
means, for any quarter, all cash on hand at the end of the
quarter:
|
|
|
|
|
less the amount of cash reserves established by our general
partner to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
provide for the proper conduct of our business;
|
|
|
|
comply with applicable law, any of our debt instruments or other
agreements; or
|
|
|
|
provide funds for distributions to our unitholders and to our
general partner for any one or more of the next four quarters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
plus all cash on hand on the date of determination of available
cash for the quarter resulting from working capital borrowings
made after the end of the quarter for which the determination is
being made. Working capital borrowings are generally borrowings
that will be made under our revolving credit facility and in all
cases are used solely for working capital purposes or to pay
distributions to partners.
|
Intent to Distribute the Minimum Quarterly
Distribution. We distribute to the holders of
common units on a quarterly basis at least the minimum quarterly
distribution of $0.45 per unit, or $1.80 per year, to the extent
we have sufficient cash from our operations after establishment
of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including
payments to our general partner. However, there is no guarantee
that we will pay the minimum quarterly distribution on the units
in any quarter. Even if our cash distribution policy is not
modified or revoked, the amount of distributions paid under our
policy and the decision to make any distribution is determined
by our general partner, taking into consideration the terms of
our partnership agreement. We will be prohibited from making any
distributions to unitholders if it would cause an event of
default, or an event of default is existing, under our credit
agreements. Please read Item 7 Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt and Credit Facilities for a
discussion of the restrictions in our credit agreements that
restrict our ability to make distributions. On February 14,
2011, we paid a quarterly cash distribution of $0.47 per unit on
all outstanding units totaling $16.9 million for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010 to all unitholders of
record as of the close of business on February 4, 2011.
General Partner Interest and Incentive Distribution
Rights. Our general partner is entitled to 2% of
all quarterly distributions since inception that we make prior
to our liquidation. This general partner interest is represented
by 719,995 general partner units. Our general partner has the
right, but not the obligation, to contribute a proportionate
amount of capital to us to maintain its current general partner
interest. The general partners 2% interest in these
distributions may be reduced if we issue additional units in the
future and our general partner does not contribute a
proportionate amount of capital to us to maintain its 2% general
partner interest. Our general partner also currently holds
incentive distribution rights that entitle it to receive
increasing percentages, up to a maximum of 50%, of the cash we
distribute from operating surplus (as defined below) in excess
of $0.495 per unit. The maximum distribution of 50% includes
distributions paid to our general partner on its 2% general
partner interest, and assumes that our general partner maintains
its general partner interest at 2%. The maximum distribution of
50% does not include any distributions that our general partner
may receive on units that it owns. Our general partner did not
earn incentive distribution rights during the years ended
December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010.
Conversion of Subordinated Units. In February
2011, we satisfied the last of the earnings and distribution
tests contained in our partnership agreement for the automatic
conversion of all 13,066,000 outstanding subordinated units into
common units on a
one-for-one
basis. The last of these requirements was met upon payment of
the quarterly distribution paid on February 14, 2011. Two
days following this quarterly distribution to unitholders, or
February 16, 2011, all of the outstanding subordinated
units automatically converted to common units.
42
After the subordination period ended on February 16, 2011,
the Companys general partner is entitled to incentive
distributions if the amount it distributes to unitholders with
respect to any quarter exceeds specified target levels shown
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage
|
|
|
|
Total Quarterly
|
|
Interest in
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
Distributions
|
|
|
|
Target Amount
|
|
Unitholders
|
|
|
General Partner
|
|
|
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
|
|
$0.45
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
First Target Distribution
|
|
up to $0.495
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Second Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.495 up to $0.563
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Third Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.563 up to $0.675
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Thereafter
|
|
above $0.675
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Equity
Compensation Plans
The equity compensation plan information required by
Item 201(d) of
Regulation S-K
in response to this item is incorporated by reference into
Item 12 Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial
Owners and Management and Related Unitholder Matters, of
this Annual Report.
Sales of
Unregistered Securities
None.
Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities
None.
43
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The following table shows selected historical consolidated
financial and operating data of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries (the
Company) and includes Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership (Predecessor) for the period of
January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2006. The selected
historical financial data as of and after December 31, 2008
includes the operations acquired as part of the acquisition of
Penreco from their date of acquisition, January 3, 2008.
The following table includes the non-GAAP financial measures
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow. For a
reconciliation of EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash
Flow to net income and net cash provided by operating
activities, our most directly comparable financial performance
and liquidity measures calculated in accordance with GAAP,
please read Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
We derived the information in the following table from, and the
information should be read together with, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to, the historical consolidated
financial statements and the accompanying notes included in
Item 8 Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data of this Annual Report except for operating data such
as sales volume, feedstock runs and production. The table also
should be read together with Item 7 Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except unit, per unit and operations data)
|
|
|
Summary of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,992,003
|
|
|
|
1,673,498
|
|
|
|
2,235,111
|
|
|
|
1,456,492
|
|
|
|
1,436,108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
198,749
|
|
|
|
173,102
|
|
|
|
253,883
|
|
|
|
181,356
|
|
|
|
204,940
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
35,224
|
|
|
|
32,570
|
|
|
|
34,267
|
|
|
|
19,614
|
|
|
|
20,430
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
85,471
|
|
|
|
67,967
|
|
|
|
84,702
|
|
|
|
54,026
|
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
4,601
|
|
|
|
3,839
|
|
|
|
4,598
|
|
|
|
3,662
|
|
|
|
3,592
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
|
|
1,366
|
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
2,854
|
|
|
|
863
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
71,490
|
|
|
|
67,360
|
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(30,497
|
)
|
|
|
(33,573
|
)
|
|
|
(33,938
|
)
|
|
|
(4,717
|
)
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
170
|
|
|
|
388
|
|
|
|
1,944
|
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(898
|
)
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(7,704
|
)
|
|
|
8,342
|
|
|
|
(58,833
|
)
|
|
|
(12,484
|
)
|
|
|
(30,309
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(15,843
|
)
|
|
|
23,736
|
|
|
|
3,454
|
|
|
|
(1,297
|
)
|
|
|
12,264
|
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(217
|
)
|
|
|
(4,099
|
)
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(919
|
)
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(54,191
|
)
|
|
|
(5,424
|
)
|
|
|
(84,046
|
)
|
|
|
(17,825
|
)
|
|
|
(27,365
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
17,299
|
|
|
|
61,936
|
|
|
|
44,694
|
|
|
|
83,375
|
|
|
|
95,768
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,701
|
|
|
$
|
61,785
|
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner units outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
35,334,720
|
|
|
|
32,372,000
|
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
29,744,000
|
|
|
|
27,708,000
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
35,351,020
|
|
|
|
32,372,000
|
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
29,746,000
|
|
|
|
27,708,000
|
|
Common and subordinated unitholders basic and diluted net
income per unit
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
1.87
|
|
|
$
|
1.35
|
|
|
$
|
2.61
|
|
|
$
|
3.19
|
|
Cash distributions declared per common and subordinated unit
|
|
$
|
1.84
|
|
|
$
|
1.81
|
|
|
$
|
1.98
|
|
|
$
|
2.43
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except unit, per unit and operations data)
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
612,433
|
|
|
$
|
629,275
|
|
|
$
|
659,684
|
|
|
$
|
442,882
|
|
|
$
|
191,732
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
1,016,672
|
|
|
|
1,031,856
|
|
|
|
1,081,062
|
|
|
|
678,857
|
|
|
|
531,651
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
174,715
|
|
|
|
109,976
|
|
|
|
93,855
|
|
|
|
167,977
|
|
|
|
78,752
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
369,275
|
|
|
|
401,058
|
|
|
|
465,091
|
|
|
|
39,891
|
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
Total partners capital
|
|
|
398,279
|
|
|
|
485,347
|
|
|
|
473,212
|
|
|
|
399,644
|
|
|
|
385,267
|
|
Cash Flow Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flow provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
134,143
|
|
|
$
|
100,854
|
|
|
$
|
130,341
|
|
|
$
|
167,546
|
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(34,759
|
)
|
|
|
(22,714
|
)
|
|
|
(480,461
|
)
|
|
|
(260,875
|
)
|
|
|
(75,803
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
(99,396
|
)
|
|
|
(78,139
|
)
|
|
|
350,133
|
|
|
|
12,409
|
|
|
|
(22,183
|
)
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
109,044
|
|
|
$
|
157,612
|
|
|
$
|
135,575
|
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
130,369
|
|
|
|
146,017
|
|
|
|
128,075
|
|
|
|
104,272
|
|
|
|
104,458
|
|
Distributable Cash Flow
|
|
|
79,040
|
|
|
|
101,736
|
|
|
|
94,514
|
|
|
|
87,684
|
|
|
|
85,913
|
|
Operating Data (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (1)
|
|
|
55,668
|
|
|
|
57,086
|
|
|
|
56,232
|
|
|
|
47,663
|
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
Total feedstock runs (2)
|
|
|
55,957
|
|
|
|
60,081
|
|
|
|
56,243
|
|
|
|
48,354
|
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
Total facility production (3)
|
|
|
57,314
|
|
|
|
58,792
|
|
|
|
55,330
|
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
facilities and certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply
and/or processing agreements, and sales of inventories. |
|
(2) |
|
Total feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our facilities and certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing
agreements. |
|
(3) |
|
Total facility production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other feedstocks at our facilities and certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing
agreements, including the LyondellBasell Agreements. The
difference between total facility production and total feedstock
runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstocks and production of finished products and volume loss. |
Non-GAAP Financial
Measures
We include in this Annual Report the non-GAAP financial measures
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow, and provide
reconciliations of EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable
Cash Flow to net income and net cash provided by operating
activities, our most directly comparable financial performance
and liquidity measures calculated and presented in accordance
with GAAP.
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow are used as
supplemental financial measures by our management and by
external users of our financial statements such as investors,
commercial banks, research analysts and others, to assess:
|
|
|
|
|
the financial performance of our assets without regard to
financing methods, capital structure or historical cost basis;
|
|
|
|
the ability of our assets to generate cash sufficient to pay
interest costs and support our indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
our operating performance and return on capital as compared to
those of other companies in our industry, without regard to
financing or capital structure; and
|
|
|
|
the viability of acquisitions and capital expenditure projects
and the overall rates of return on alternative investment
opportunities.
|
We believe that these non-GAAP measures are useful to our
analysts and investors as they exclude transactions not related
to our core cash operating activities and provide metrics to
analyze our ability to pay distributions. We
45
believe that excluding these transactions allows investors to
meaningfully trend and analyze the performance of our core cash
operations.
We define EBITDA as net income plus interest expense (including
debt issuance and extinguishment costs), taxes and depreciation
and amortization. We define Adjusted EBITDA to be Consolidated
EBITDA as defined in our credit facilities. Consistent with that
definition, Adjusted EBITDA means, for any period: (1) net
income plus (2)(a) interest expense; (b) taxes;
(c) depreciation and amortization; (d) unrealized
losses from mark to market accounting for hedging activities;
(e) unrealized items decreasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); and (f) other
non-recurring expenses reducing net income which do not
represent a cash item for such period; minus (3)(a) tax credits;
(b) unrealized items increasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); (c) unrealized gains
from mark to market accounting for hedging activities; and
(d) other non-recurring expenses and unrealized items that
reduced net income for a prior period, but represent a cash item
in the current period.
We are required to report Adjusted EBITDA to our lenders under
our credit facilities and it is used to determine our compliance
with the consolidated leverage and consolidated interest
coverage tests thereunder. Please refer to Item 7
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and
Capital Resources Debt and Credit Facilities
for additional details regarding our credit agreements.
We define Distributable Cash Flow as Adjusted EBITDA less
replacement capital expenditures, cash interest paid (excluding
capitalized interest) and income tax expense. Distributable Cash
Flow is used by us and our investors to analyze our ability to
pay distributions.
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow should not
be considered alternatives to net income, operating income, net
cash provided by operating activities or any other measure of
financial performance presented in accordance with GAAP. In
evaluating our performance as measured by EBITDA, Adjusted
EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow, management recognizes and
considers the limitations of these measurements. EBITDA,
Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow do not reflect our
obligations for the payment of income taxes, interest expense or
other obligations such as capital expenditures. Accordingly,
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow are only
three of the measurements that management utilizes. Moreover,
our EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow may not
be comparable to similarly titled measures of another company
because all companies may not calculate EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA
and Distributable Cash Flow in the same manner. The following
table presents a reconciliation of both net income to EBITDA,
Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow and Distributable
Cash Flow, Adjusted EBITDA and EBITDA to net cash provided by
46
operating activities, our most directly comparable GAAP
financial performance and liquidity measures, for each of the
periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net income to EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and
Distributable Cash Flow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,701
|
|
|
$
|
61,785
|
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
30,497
|
|
|
|
33,573
|
|
|
|
34,836
|
|
|
|
5,069
|
|
|
|
11,997
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
61,248
|
|
|
|
62,103
|
|
|
|
56,045
|
|
|
|
14,275
|
|
|
|
11,821
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
109,044
|
|
|
$
|
157,612
|
|
|
$
|
135,575
|
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized loss (gain) from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities
|
|
$
|
18,833
|
|
|
$
|
(14,458
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11,509
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,487
|
|
|
$
|
(13,145
|
)
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and accrued non-recurring
expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
2,492
|
|
|
|
2,863
|
|
|
|
4,009
|
|
|
|
(1,934
|
)
|
|
|
(1,983
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
130,369
|
|
|
$
|
146,017
|
|
|
$
|
128,075
|
|
|
$
|
104,272
|
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA attributable to Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,494
|
)
|
Replacement capital expenditures (1)
|
|
|
(24,342
|
)
|
|
|
(13,787
|
)
|
|
|
(6,304
|
)
|
|
|
(12,007
|
)
|
|
|
(5,737
|
)
|
Cash interest expense (2)
|
|
|
(26,389
|
)
|
|
|
(30,343
|
)
|
|
|
(27,000
|
)
|
|
|
(4,080
|
)
|
|
|
(8,124
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(598
|
)
|
|
|
(151
|
)
|
|
|
(257
|
)
|
|
|
(501
|
)
|
|
|
(190
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributable Cash Flow
|
|
$
|
79,040
|
|
|
$
|
101,736
|
|
|
$
|
94,514
|
|
|
$
|
87,684
|
|
|
$
|
85,913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Replacement capital expenditures are defined as those capital
expenditures which do not increase operating capacity or reduce
operating costs. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents cash interest paid by the Company, excluding
capitalized interest. |
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Distributable Cash Flow, Adjusted EBITDA
and EBITDA to net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributable Cash Flow
|
|
$
|
79,040
|
|
|
$
|
101,736
|
|
|
$
|
94,514
|
|
|
$
|
87,684
|
|
|
$
|
85,913
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA attributable to Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,494
|
|
Replacement capital expenditures (1)
|
|
|
24,342
|
|
|
|
13,787
|
|
|
|
6,304
|
|
|
|
12,007
|
|
|
|
5,737
|
|
Cash interest expense (2)
|
|
|
26,389
|
|
|
|
30,343
|
|
|
|
27,000
|
|
|
|
4,080
|
|
|
|
8,124
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
130,369
|
|
|
$
|
146,017
|
|
|
$
|
128,075
|
|
|
$
|
104,272
|
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gain) loss from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities
|
|
$
|
18,833
|
|
|
$
|
(14,458
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11,509
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,487
|
|
|
$
|
(13,145
|
)
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and accrued non-recurring
expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
2,492
|
|
|
|
2,863
|
|
|
|
4,009
|
|
|
|
(1,934
|
)
|
|
|
(1,983
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
109,044
|
|
|
$
|
157,612
|
|
|
$
|
135,575
|
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and debt extinguishment costs, net of
amortization
|
|
|
(26,633
|
)
|
|
|
(29,902
|
)
|
|
|
(31,440
|
)
|
|
|
(4,638
|
)
|
|
|
(11,997
|
)
|
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
15,843
|
|
|
|
(23,736
|
)
|
|
|
(3,454
|
)
|
|
|
1,297
|
|
|
|
(12,264
|
)
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
(598
|
)
|
|
|
(151
|
)
|
|
|
(257
|
)
|
|
|
(501
|
)
|
|
|
(190
|
)
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
Non-cash debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
898
|
|
|
|
352
|
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(35,267
|
)
|
|
|
(12,296
|
)
|
|
|
45,042
|
|
|
|
(15,038
|
)
|
|
|
16,031
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(9,860
|
)
|
|
|
(18,726
|
)
|
|
|
55,532
|
|
|
|
3,321
|
|
|
|
(2,554
|
)
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
4,669
|
|
|
|
(2,848
|
)
|
|
|
1,834
|
|
|
|
(4,121
|
)
|
|
|
16,183
|
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
2,990
|
|
|
|
8,531
|
|
|
|
41,757
|
|
|
|
2,121
|
|
|
|
(879
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
64,739
|
|
|
|
15,951
|
|
|
|
(103,136
|
)
|
|
|
89,225
|
|
|
|
33,993
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
11,853
|
|
|
|
(905
|
)
|
|
|
(1,284
|
)
|
|
|
(4,150
|
)
|
|
|
657
|
|
Other, including changes in noncurrent assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(2,711
|
)
|
|
|
8,240
|
|
|
|
(12,174
|
)
|
|
|
(3,082
|
)
|
|
|
5,063
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
134,143
|
|
|
$
|
100,854
|
|
|
$
|
130,341
|
|
|
$
|
167,546
|
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Replacement capital expenditures are defined as those capital
expenditures which do not increase operating capacity or reduce
operating costs. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents cash interest paid by the Company, excluding
capitalized interest. |
48
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
The historical consolidated financial statements included in
this Annual Report reflect all of the assets, liabilities and
results of operations of the Company. The following discussion
analyzes the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009,
and 2008. Unitholders should read the following discussion and
analysis of the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company in conjunction with the historical consolidated
financial statements and notes of the Company included elsewhere
in this Annual Report.
Overview
We are a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty
hydrocarbon products in North America. We own plants located in
Princeton, Louisiana, Cotton Valley, Louisiana, Shreveport,
Louisiana, Karns City, Pennsylvania, and Dickinson, Texas, and a
terminal located in Burnham, Illinois. Our business is organized
into two segments: specialty products and fuel products. In our
specialty products segment, we process crude oil and other
feedstocks into a wide variety of customized lubricating oils,
white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums and waxes. Our
specialty products are sold to domestic and international
customers who purchase them primarily as raw material components
for basic industrial, consumer and automotive goods. In our fuel
products segment, we process crude oil into a variety of fuel
and fuel-related products, including gasoline, diesel and jet
fuel. In connection with our production of specialty products
and fuel products, we also produce asphalt and a limited number
of other by-products which are allocated to either the specialty
products or fuel products segment. In 2010, approximately 94.3%
of our gross profit was generated from our specialty products
segment and approximately 5.7% of our gross profit was generated
from our fuel products segment.
2010
Update
For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, 53.0% and
45.0%, respectively, of our sales volume and 94.3% and 81.8%,
respectively, of our gross profit was generated from our
specialty products segment while, for the same periods, 47.0%
and 55.0%, respectively, of our sales volume and approximately
5.7% and 18.2%, respectively, of our gross profit was generated
from our fuel products segment.
Despite uncertainty surrounding the pace of recovery in the
overall economy, we noted continued improvements in demand for
our specialty products, with particular strength in the second
half of the year. Specialty products segment sales volume during
the last six months of 2010 combined were 21.7% higher than the
same six-month period in 2009, with an increase of 14.9% for the
full year of 2010 compared to 2009. Specialty segment gross
profit also improved in 2010 compared to 2009 supported by
relatively stable crude oil prices and increased demand for our
specialty products. Our specialty products segment generated a
gross profit margin of 15.2% for the last six months of 2010
compared to a gross profit margin of 11.5% for the same period
in 2009.
While our total production in 2010 was relatively flat compared
to 2009, our production levels trended higher over the course of
the year. During the first quarter of 2010 we opted to run at
reduced crude oil rates, primarily at our Shreveport refinery,
due to the poor economics of running additional barrels in both
the specialty products and fuel products segments. We also
experienced the failure of an environmental operating unit
during the first quarter of 2010 and completed scheduled
turnarounds at our Shreveport refinery during the second and
fourth quarters of 2010 which impacted overall production levels
for the year. Subsequent to the completion of the extended
turnaround at the Shreveport refinery in April 2010, we
increased this refinerys throughput rates in order to meet
increasing specialty products demand and historically higher
demand for fuel products during the second and third quarters or
2010. Other factors increasing production levels year over year
were higher production volumes at our Cotton Valley and
Princeton refineries as well as increased specialty products
volumes under the LyondellBasell Agreements, which were
effective in November 2009. We intend to continue to run at
these higher production levels in 2011 based on current demand
for both specialty products and fuel products.
We improved our cash flow from operations by generating
$134.1 million during 2010 with $91.6 million
generated in the last six months of 2010. We paid distributions
of $65.7 million to our unitholders during 2010, an
increase of $6.5 million compared to 2009. We continue to
focus our efforts on generating positive cash flow from
operations which we expect will be used to i) maintain
compliance with the financial covenants of our credit
49
agreements, ii) improve our liquidity position,
iii) pay our quarterly distributions to our unitholders and
iv) provide funding for general operational purposes.
LyondellBasell
Agreements
Effective November 4, 2009, we entered into the
LyondellBasell Agreements with Houston Refining to form a
long-term specialty products affiliation. The initial term of
the LyondellBasell Agreements expires on October 31, 2014
after which it is automatically extended for additional one-year
terms until either party terminates with 24 months notice.
Under the terms of the LyondellBasell Agreements, (i) we
are required to purchase at least a minimum volume of
3,100 bpd of naphthenic lubricating oils produced at
Houston Refinings Houston, Texas refinery, and we have a
right of first refusal to purchase any additional naphthenic
lubricating oils produced at the refinery, and (ii) Houston
Refining is required to process a minimum of approximately
800 bpd of white mineral oil for us at its Houston, Texas
refinery, which supplements the white mineral oil production at
our Karns City and Dickinson facilities. Our annual purchase
commitment under these agreements is approximately
$158.0 million. LyondellBasell has also granted us rights
to use certain registered trademarks and tradenames, including
Tufflo, Duoprime, Duotreat, Crystex, Ideal and Aquamarine.
While no fixed assets were purchased under the LyondellBasell
Agreements, these agreements have increased our working capital
as of December 31, 2010 by approximately $24.6 million
from December 31, 2009 and our sales by $139.6 million
for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the
prior year.
Key
Performance Measures
Our sales and net income are principally affected by the price
of crude oil, demand for specialty and fuel products, prevailing
crack spreads for fuel products, the price of natural gas used
as fuel in our operations and our results from derivative
instrument activities.
Our primary raw materials are crude oil and other specialty
feedstocks and our primary outputs are specialty petroleum and
fuel products. The prices of crude oil, specialty products and
fuel products are subject to fluctuations in response to changes
in supply, demand, market uncertainties and a variety of
additional factors beyond our control. We monitor these risks
and enter into financial derivatives designed to mitigate the
impact of commodity price fluctuations on our business. The
primary purpose of our commodity risk management activities is
to economically hedge our cash flow exposure to commodity price
risk so that we can meet our cash distribution, debt service and
capital expenditure requirements despite fluctuations in crude
oil and fuel products prices. We enter into derivative contracts
for future periods in quantities that do not exceed our
projected purchases of crude oil and natural gas and sales of
fuel products. Please read Item 7A Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Commodity
Price Risk. As of December 31, 2010, we have hedged
approximately 11.4 million barrels of fuel products through
December 2012 at an average refining margin of $12.62 per barrel
with average refining margins ranging from a low of $11.87 in
2011 to a high of $13.07 in 2012. As of December 31, 2010,
we have approximately 71,000 barrels of crude oil swaps
through March 2011 to hedge our purchases of crude oil for
specialty products production. The strike prices and types of
these crude oil swaps vary. Please refer to Item 7A
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk Existing Commodity Derivative Instruments
and Existing Interest Rate Derivative
Instruments for detailed information regarding our
derivative instruments and our commodity price and interest rate
risks.
Our management uses several financial and operational
measurements to analyze our performance. These measurements
include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
sales volumes;
|
|
|
|
production yields; and
|
|
|
|
specialty products and fuel products gross profit.
|
Sales volumes. We view the volumes of
specialty products and fuel products sold as an important
measure of our ability to effectively utilize our refining
assets. Our ability to meet the demands of our customers is
driven by the volumes of crude oil and feedstocks that we run at
our facilities. Higher volumes improve profitability both
through
50
the spreading of fixed costs over greater volumes and the
additional gross profit achieved on the incremental volumes.
Production yields. In order to maximize our
gross profit and minimize lower margin by-products, we seek the
optimal product mix for each barrel of crude oil we refine,
which we refer to as production yield.
Specialty products and fuel products gross
profit. Specialty products and fuel products
gross profit are important measures of our ability to maximize
the profitability of our specialty products and fuel products
segments. We define specialty products and fuel products gross
profit as sales less the cost of crude oil and other feedstocks
and other production-related expenses, the most significant
portion of which includes labor, plant fuel, utilities, contract
services, maintenance, depreciation and processing materials. We
use specialty products and fuel products gross profit as
indicators of our ability to manage our business during periods
of crude oil and natural gas price fluctuations, as the prices
of our specialty products and fuel products generally do not
change immediately with changes in the price of crude oil and
natural gas. The increase in selling prices typically lags
behind the rising costs of crude oil feedstocks for specialty
products. Other than plant fuel, production-related expenses
generally remain stable across broad ranges of throughput
volumes, but can fluctuate depending on maintenance activities
performed during a specific period.
Our fuel products segment gross profit may differ from a
standard U.S. Gulf Coast
2/1/1 or
3/2/1 market
crack spread due to many factors, including our fuel products
mix as shown in our production table being different than the
ratios used to calculate such market crack spreads, the
allocation of by-product (primarily asphalt) losses at the
Shreveport refinery to the fuel products segment, operating
costs including fixed costs, derivative activity to hedge our
fuel products segment revenues and cost of crude oil reflected
in gross profit and our local market pricing differential in
Shreveport, Louisiana as compared to U.S. Gulf Coast
postings.
In addition to the foregoing measures, we also monitor our
selling, general and administrative expenditures, substantially
all of which are incurred through our general partner, Calumet
GP, LLC.
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth information about our combined
operations. Production volume differs from sales volume due to
changes in inventory. The table does not include volumes under
the LyondellBasell Agreements in 2008 and the majority of 2009,
as such agreements were not effective until November 4,
2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
Total sales volume (1)
|
|
|
55,668
|
|
|
|
57,086
|
|
|
|
56,232
|
|
Total feedstock runs (2)
|
|
|
55,957
|
|
|
|
60,081
|
|
|
|
56,243
|
|
Facility production: (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
13,697
|
|
|
|
11,681
|
|
|
|
12,462
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
9,347
|
|
|
|
7,749
|
|
|
|
8,130
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,220
|
|
|
|
1,049
|
|
|
|
1,736
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,050
|
|
|
|
853
|
|
|
|
1,208
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,907
|
|
|
|
7,574
|
|
|
|
6,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
32,221
|
|
|
|
28,906
|
|
|
|
30,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
8,754
|
|
|
|
9,892
|
|
|
|
8,476
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
12,796
|
|
|
|
10,407
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
5,004
|
|
|
|
6,709
|
|
|
|
5,918
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
535
|
|
|
|
489
|
|
|
|
370
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
25,093
|
|
|
|
29,886
|
|
|
|
25,171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total facility production (3)
|
|
|
57,314
|
|
|
|
58,792
|
|
|
|
55,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production at our
facilities and, certain third-party facilities pursuant to
supply and/or processing agreements, and sales of inventories. |
|
(2) |
|
Total feedstock runs represent the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our facilities and at certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing
agreements. The decrease in feedstock runs in 2010 compared to
2009 is due primarily to our decision to reduce crude oil run
rates at our Shreveport refinery during the entire first quarter
of 2010 because of the poor economics of running additional
barrels, the failure of an environmental operating unit during
the first quarter of 2010 and scheduled turnarounds completed in
the second and fourth quarters related to various operating
units at our Shreveport refinery. These decreases were partially
offset by higher year-long throughput rates at our Cotton Valley
refinery and the addition of volumes under the LyondellBasell
Agreements. |
|
|
|
The increase in feedstock runs in 2009 compared to 2008 is due
primarily to the Shreveport refinery expansion project placed in
service in May 2008, resulting in a full year of increased
production in 2009 compared to 2008, and the addition of volumes
under the LyondellBasell Agreements in 2009. Partially
offsetting these increases were lower overall feedstock runs at
our other facilities in 2009 compared to 2008 due to general
economic conditions. |
|
(3) |
|
Total facility production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other feedstocks at our facilities and at certain
third-party facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing
agreements, including the LyondellBasell Agreements. The
difference between total facility production and total feedstock
runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstocks and production of finished products and volume loss. |
|
|
|
The increase in the production of specialty products in 2010
compared to 2009 is primarily the result of the addition of
volumes under the LyondellBasell Agreements and higher
throughput rates at our Cotton Valley refinery. The reduction in
production of fuel products in 2010 compared to 2009 is due
primarily to reduced feedstock runs at our Shreveport refinery
as discussed in footnote 2 of this table. |
|
|
|
The change in production mix to higher fuel products production
in 2009 compared to 2008 is due primarily to reduced demand for
certain specialty products due to overall economic conditions. |
52
The following table reflects our consolidated results of
operations and includes the non-GAAP financial measures EBITDA,
Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow. For a
reconciliation of EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash
Flow to net income and net cash provided by operating
activities, our most directly comparable financial performance
and liquidity measures calculated in accordance with GAAP,
please read Non-GAAP Financial
Measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,992,003
|
|
|
|
1,673,498
|
|
|
|
2,235,111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
198,749
|
|
|
|
173,102
|
|
|
|
253,883
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
35,224
|
|
|
|
32,570
|
|
|
|
34,267
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
85,471
|
|
|
|
67,967
|
|
|
|
84,702
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
4,601
|
|
|
|
3,839
|
|
|
|
4,598
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
|
|
1,366
|
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
71,490
|
|
|
|
67,360
|
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(30,497
|
)
|
|
|
(33,573
|
)
|
|
|
(33,938
|
)
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(898
|
)
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(7,704
|
)
|
|
|
8,342
|
|
|
|
(58,833
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(15,843
|
)
|
|
|
23,736
|
|
|
|
3,454
|
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,770
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(147
|
)
|
|
|
(3,929
|
)
|
|
|
399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(54,191
|
)
|
|
|
(5,424
|
)
|
|
|
(84,046
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
17,299
|
|
|
|
61,936
|
|
|
|
44,694
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,701
|
|
|
$
|
61,785
|
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
109,044
|
|
|
$
|
157,612
|
|
|
$
|
135,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
130,369
|
|
|
$
|
146,017
|
|
|
$
|
128,075
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributable Cash Flow
|
|
$
|
79,040
|
|
|
$
|
101,736
|
|
|
$
|
94,514
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53
Year
Ended December 31, 2010 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2009
Sales. Sales increased $344.2 million, or
18.6%, to $2,190.8 million in 2010 from
$1,846.6 million in 2009. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Sales by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
759,701
|
|
|
$
|
500,938
|
|
|
|
51.7
|
%
|
Solvents
|
|
|
396,894
|
|
|
|
260,185
|
|
|
|
52.5
|
%
|
Waxes
|
|
|
124,964
|
|
|
|
97,658
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
Fuels (1)
|
|
|
5,507
|
|
|
|
8,951
|
|
|
|
(38.5
|
)%
|
Asphalt and by-products (2)
|
|
|
121,806
|
|
|
|
103,488
|
|
|
|
17.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products
|
|
$
|
1,408,872
|
|
|
$
|
971,220
|
|
|
|
45.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
10,766,000
|
|
|
|
9,370,000
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
%
|
Average specialty products sales price per barrel
|
|
$
|
130.86
|
|
|
$
|
103.65
|
|
|
|
26.3
|
%
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
304,544
|
|
|
$
|
317,435
|
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)%
|
Diesel
|
|
|
330,756
|
|
|
|
372,359
|
|
|
|
(11.2
|
)%
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
135,796
|
|
|
|
167,638
|
|
|
|
(19.0
|
)%
|
By-products (3)
|
|
|
10,784
|
|
|
|
17,948
|
|
|
|
(39.9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products
|
|
$
|
781,880
|
|
|
$
|
875,380
|
|
|
|
(10.7
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
9,553,000
|
|
|
|
11,466,000
|
|
|
|
(16.7
|
)%
|
Average fuel products sales price per barrel
|
|
$
|
88.93
|
|
|
$
|
69.84
|
|
|
|
27.3
|
%
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
20,319,000
|
|
|
|
20,836,000
|
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents fuels produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at the Princeton and Cotton Valley facilities. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents asphalt and other by-products produced in connection
with the production of specialty products at the Princeton,
Cotton Valley and Shreveport refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents by-products produced in connection with the
production of fuels at the Shreveport refinery. |
Specialty products segment sales in 2010 increased
$437.7 million, or 45.1%, due primarily to an increase in
the average selling price per barrel of $27.21, or 26.3%, and a
14.9% increase in sales volume, from approximately
9.4 million barrels in 2009 to 10.8 million barrels in
2010. Specialty products average selling prices per barrel
increased in all product categories driven by improving overall
demand and in response to an increase of 31.8% in the average
cost of crude oil per barrel in 2010 compared to 2009. The
increased sales volume is due primarily to improving overall
specialty products demand as a result of improved economic
conditions and the addition of sales volume under the
LyondellBasell Agreements in 2010, partially offset by decreased
production due primarily to our decision to reduce crude oil run
rates at our Shreveport refinery during the entire first quarter
of 2010 because of the poor economics of running additional
barrels, the failure of an environmental operating unit during
the first quarter of 2010 and scheduled turnarounds completed in
the second quarter related to various operating units at our
Shreveport refinery.
Fuel products segment sales in 2010 decreased
$93.5 million, or 10.7%, due primarily to a 16.7% decrease
in sales volumes, from approximately 11.5 million barrels
in 2009 to 9.6 million barrels in 2010, due primarily to
our decision to reduce crude oil run rates at our facilities
during the entire first quarter of 2010 because of the poor
54
economics of running additional barrels, the failure of an
environmental operating unit during the first quarter of 2010
and scheduled turnarounds completed in the second and fourth
quarters related to various operating units at our Shreveport
refinery. Partially offsetting this decrease in sales volume was
an increase in the average selling price per barrel of $19.09,
or 27.3%, as compared to a 32.3% increase in the average cost of
crude oil per barrel. Increases in sales prices lagged crude oil
cost increases due to local market conditions. Also contributing
to the overall decrease in sales was a $142.2 million
decrease in derivative gains on our fuel products cash flow
hedges recorded in sales. Please read Gross Profit
below for the net impact of our crude oil and fuel products
derivative instruments designated as hedges.
Gross Profit. Gross profit increased
$25.6 million, or 14.8%, to $198.7 million in 2010
from $173.1 million in 2009. Gross profit for our specialty
and fuel products segments was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Gross profit by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
187,416
|
|
|
$
|
141,577
|
|
|
|
32.4
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products gross profit per barrel
|
|
$
|
17.41
|
|
|
$
|
15.11
|
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
Fuel products
|
|
$
|
11,333
|
|
|
$
|
31,525
|
|
|
|
(64.1
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products gross profit per barrel
|
|
$
|
1.19
|
|
|
$
|
2.75
|
|
|
|
(56.7
|
)%
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
198,749
|
|
|
$
|
173,102
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in specialty products segment gross profit is due
primarily to the 14.9% increase in sales volume. Also improving
our gross profit was an increase of $10.9 million in 2010
compared to 2009 from the liquidation of lower cost inventory
layers. Further, the increase in the average selling price per
barrel of $27.21 exceeded the increase in the average cost of
crude oil per barrel. Partially offsetting these increases were
higher operating costs per barrel sold at our Shreveport
refinery due to lower production levels in 2010 compared to 2009.
The decrease in fuel products segment gross profit is due
primarily to reduced sales volume of 16.7%, increased crude oil
costs per barrel of 32.3% compared to the 27.3% increase in the
average sales price per barrel, a $15.6 million reduction
in gains from the liquidation of lower cost inventory layers,
higher operating costs per barrel at our Shreveport refinery due
to lower production levels and decreased derivative gains of
$4.6 million from our crack spread cash flow hedges.
Selling, general and administrative. Selling,
general and administrative expenses increased $2.7 million,
or 8.1%, to $35.2 million in 2010 from $32.6 million
in 2009. This increase is due primarily to lower bad debt
expense in 2009 resulting from the recovery of $0.9 million
account receivable and the write off of the remaining costs
related to the proposed offering for sale of senior unsecured
notes in July 2010 which we opted not to complete.
Transportation. Transportation expenses
increased $17.5 million, or 25.8%, to $85.5 million in
2010 from $68.0 million in 2009. This increase is due
primarily to increased sales volumes of lubricating oils,
solvents and waxes.
Interest expense. Interest expense decreased
$3.1 million, or 9.2%, to $30.5 million in 2010 from
$33.6 million in 2009. This decrease is due primarily to
lower interest rates and lower balances being carried on the
Companys revolver and term loan during the 2010 as
compared to 2009. Revolver borrowings were reduced due to
reductions in working capital as we improved payment terms with
certain suppliers.
Realized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Realized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments decreased $16.0 million to a loss of
$7.7 million in 2010 from an $8.3 million gain in
2009. This decrease is due primarily to reduced derivative gains
of $13.6 million in 2010 on settlements of our crack spread
derivatives used to economically lock in gains on a portion of
our fuel products segment derivative hedging activity. Also
contributing to this decrease was higher loss ineffectiveness on
settled fuel products derivatives designated as cash flow hedges
55
of $9.2 million. Partially offsetting these items were
decreased realized losses in 2010 on crude oil derivatives in
our specialty products segment due to the significant decline in
crude oil prices late in 2008 (which resulted in larger realized
losses early in 2009), whereas crude oil prices were relatively
stable in 2010 as well as significantly less volume of these
derivative contracts settled in 2010.
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments decreased $39.6 million, to a $15.8 million
loss in 2010 from a $23.7 million gain in 2009. This
increased loss is due primarily to decreased gains of
$11.4 million on the derivatives used to economically hedge
our specialty products crude oil purchases and increased losses
of $7.8 million on our crack spread derivatives used to
economically lock in gains on a portion of our fuel products
segment derivative hedging activity with minimal related
activity in 2010. This decrease was also due to lower gain
ineffectiveness in 2010 as compared to 2009.
Year
Ended December 31, 2009 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2008
Sales. Sales decreased $642.4 million, or
25.8%, to $1,846.6 million in 2009 from
$2,489.0 million in 2008. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Sales by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
500,938
|
|
|
$
|
841,225
|
|
|
|
(40.5
|
)%
|
Solvents
|
|
|
260,185
|
|
|
|
419,831
|
|
|
|
(38.0
|
)%
|
Waxes
|
|
|
97,658
|
|
|
|
142,525
|
|
|
|
(31.5
|
)%
|
Fuels (1)
|
|
|
8,951
|
|
|
|
30,389
|
|
|
|
(70.5
|
)%
|
Asphalt and by-products (2)
|
|
|
103,488
|
|
|
|
144,065
|
|
|
|
(28.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products
|
|
$
|
971,220
|
|
|
$
|
1,578,035
|
|
|
|
(38.5
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
9,370,000
|
|
|
|
10,289,000
|
|
|
|
(8.9
|
)%
|
Average specialty products sales price per barrel
|
|
$
|
103.65
|
|
|
$
|
153.37
|
|
|
|
(32.4
|
)%
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
317,435
|
|
|
$
|
332,669
|
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)%
|
Diesel
|
|
|
372,359
|
|
|
|
379,739
|
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)%
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
167,638
|
|
|
|
186,675
|
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)%
|
By-products (3)
|
|
|
17,948
|
|
|
|
11,876
|
|
|
|
51.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products
|
|
$
|
875,380
|
|
|
$
|
910,959
|
|
|
|
(3.9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
11,466,000
|
|
|
|
10,292,000
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
Average fuel products sales price per barrel
|
|
$
|
69.84
|
|
|
$
|
117.40
|
|
|
|
(40.5
|
)%
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
|
(25.8
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
20,836,000
|
|
|
|
20,581,000
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents fuels produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at the Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents asphalt and other by-products produced in connection
with the production of specialty products at the Princeton,
Cotton Valley and Shreveport refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents by-products produced in connection with the
production of fuels at the Shreveport refinery. |
Specialty products segment sales in 2009 decreased 38.5% due
primarily to a 32.4% decrease in the average selling price per
barrel, with prices decreasing across all specialty product
categories in response to the 40.7% decrease in the average cost
of crude oil per barrel from 2008. In addition, specialty
products segment volumes sold
56
decreased by 8.9% from approximately 10.3 million barrels
in 2008 to 9.4 million barrels in 2009. This decrease is
due primarily to lower demand for lubricating oils, solvents and
waxes as a result of the economic downturn. Asphalt and other
by-products sales volume increased slightly due to higher
production of these products resulting from increased throughput
of sour crude oil at our Shreveport refinery.
Fuel products segment sales in 2009 decreased 3.9% due to a
40.5% decrease in the average selling price per barrel as
compared to a 41.1% decrease in the overall cost of crude oil
per barrel, partially offset by an 11.4% increase in sales
volume. Selling prices decreased across all fuel products
categories. Fuel products sales volumes increased from
approximately 10.3 million barrels in 2008 to
11.5 million barrels in 2009, due primarily to increases in
diesel and jet fuel sales volume as a result of the startup of
the Shreveport refinery expansion project during the second
quarter of 2008. Further offsetting the decrease in selling
prices was a $371.9 million increase in derivative gains on
our fuel products cash flow hedges recorded in sales. Please
read Gross Profit below for the net impact of our
crude oil and fuel products derivative instruments designated as
hedges.
Gross Profit. Gross profit decreased
$80.8 million, or 31.8%, to $173.1 million in 2009
from $253.9 million in 2008. Gross profit for each of our
specialty and fuel products segments was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Gross profit by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
141,577
|
|
|
$
|
187,561
|
|
|
|
(24.5
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products gross profit per barrel
|
|
$
|
15.11
|
|
|
$
|
18.23
|
|
|
|
(17.1
|
)%
|
Fuel products
|
|
$
|
31,525
|
|
|
$
|
66,322
|
|
|
|
(52.5
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products gross profit per barrel
|
|
$
|
2.75
|
|
|
$
|
6.44
|
|
|
|
(57.3
|
)%
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
173,102
|
|
|
$
|
253,883
|
|
|
|
(31.8
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
|
|
10.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
The $80.8 million decrease in total gross profit includes a
decrease in gross profit of $46.0 million in the specialty
products segment and a $34.8 million decrease in gross
profit in the fuel products segment.
The decrease in specialty products segment gross profit is due
primarily to an 8.9% decrease in sales volume, as discussed
above, as well as a 32.4% decrease in the average selling price
per barrel partially offset by a 40.7% reduction in the cost of
crude oil per barrel. Further lowering our gross profit was a
reduction in the cost of sales benefit of $1.8 million in
2009 from the liquidation of lower cost inventory layers and
decreased derivative gains of $21.4 million in 2009 as
compared to 2008.
Fuel products segment gross profit was negatively impacted by a
40.5% decrease in the average fuel products selling price per
barrel as compared to a 41.1% decrease in the crude oil cost per
barrel, resulting in a reduction of approximately 36.4% in our
gross profit per barrel. Also lowering fuel products gross
profit was a reduction in the cost of sales benefit of
$16.6 million in 2009 from the liquidation of lower cost
inventory layers. Partially offsetting these decreases in gross
profit were increased sales volumes of fuel products of
1.2 million barrels from 10.3 million barrels in 2008
to 11.5 million barrels in 2009 and increased derivative
gains of $30.9 million from our crack spread cash flow
hedges.
Selling, general and administrative. Selling,
general and administrative expenses decreased $1.7 million,
or 5.0%, to $32.6 million in 2009 from $34.3 million
in 2008. This decrease is due primarily to reduced bad debt
expense of $2.4 million.
Transportation. Transportation expenses
decreased $16.7 million, or 19.8%, to $68.0 million in
2009 from $84.7 million in 2008. This decrease is due
primarily to reduced sales volumes of lubricating oils, solvents
and waxes as well as cost reductions achieved in 2009 from
improvements in railcar leasing, lower fuel surcharges and
variable rail rates being reduced on certain routes.
57
Realized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Realized gain on derivative
instruments increased $67.2 million to a gain of
$8.3 million in 2009 from a $58.8 million loss in
2008. This increased gain is primarily the result of realized
gains on our crack spread derivatives that were executed to lock
in gains on a portion of our fuel products segment derivative
hedging activity in 2009 with no comparable activity in 2008. In
addition, we experienced significant losses in the third quarter
of 2008 on derivatives used to hedge our specialty products
segment crude oil purchases with no comparable activity in 2009.
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Unrealized gain on derivative
instruments increased $20.3 million to $23.7 million
in 2009 from $3.5 million in 2008. This increased gain is
due primarily to the derivatives used to economically hedge our
specialty products crude oil purchases experiencing significant
losses in 2008 as market prices declined in the third quarter of
2008 with no comparable losses in 2009.
Gain on sale of mineral rights. We recorded a
$5.8 million gain in 2008 resulting from the lease of
mineral rights on the real property at our Shreveport and
Princeton refineries to an unaffiliated third party, which was
accounted for as a sale, with no comparable activity in 2009. We
have retained a royalty interest in any future production
associated with these mineral rights.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Our principal sources of cash have historically included cash
flow from operations, proceeds from public equity offerings and
bank borrowings. Principal uses of cash have included capital
expenditures, acquisitions, distributions to our limited
partners and general partner and debt service. We expect that
our principal uses of cash in the future will be for
distributions to our limited partners and general partner, debt
service, replacement and environmental capital expenditures and
capital expenditures related to internal growth projects and
acquisitions from third parties or affiliates. We expect to fund
future capital expenditures with current cash flow from
operations and borrowings under our existing revolving credit
facility. Future internal growth projects or acquisitions may
require expenditures in excess of our then-current cash flow
from operations and borrowings under our existing revolving
credit facility and may require us to issue debt or equity
securities in public or private offerings or incur additional
borrowings under bank credit facilities to meet those costs.
Cash
Flows
We believe that we have sufficient liquid assets, cash flow from
operations and borrowing capacity to meet our financial
commitments, debt service obligations, and anticipated capital
expenditures. However, we are subject to business and
operational risks that could materially adversely affect our
cash flows. A material decrease in our cash flow from operations
including a significant, sudden decrease in crude oil prices
would likely produce a corollary material adverse effect on our
borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facility and
potentially our ability to comply with the covenants under our
credit facilities. A significant, sudden increase in crude oil
prices, if sustained, would likely result in increased working
capital requirements which would be funded by borrowings under
our revolving credit facility.
The following table summarizes our primary sources and uses of
cash in each of the most recent three years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
134,143
|
|
|
$
|
100,854
|
|
|
$
|
130,341
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
$
|
(34,759
|
)
|
|
$
|
(22,714
|
)
|
|
$
|
(480,461
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
$
|
(99,396
|
)
|
|
$
|
(78,139
|
)
|
|
$
|
350,133
|
|
Operating Activities. Operating activities
provided $134.1 million in cash during 2010 compared to
$100.9 million during 2009. The increase in cash provided
by operating activities is due primarily to reduced working
capital needs in 2010 providing $26.0 million in cash
compared to 2009 working capital changes using
$14.8 million. This improvement is due primarily to
improved payment terms with suppliers, offset by increases in
both accounts receivable and inventories from higher crude oil
prices.
58
Operating activities provided $100.9 million in cash during
2009 compared to $130.3 million during 2008. The decrease
in cash provided by operating activities during 2009 is due
primarily to increased working capital requirements of
$19.2 million resulting from the LyondellBasell Agreements
as well as rising crude oil prices increasing our working
capital requirements, partially offset by increased net income
of $17.3 million.
Investing Activities. Cash used in investing
activities increased to $34.8 million in 2010 compared to
$22.7 million in 2009 due primarily to increased capital
expenditures in 2010 compared to 2009.
Cash used in investing activities decreased to
$22.7 million during 2009 compared to $480.5 million
during 2008. This decrease is due primarily to the acquisition
of Penreco for $269.1 million and spending on the
Shreveport expansion project in 2008 of $119.6 million,
with no comparable activity in 2009. Also decreasing the use of
cash for investing activities in 2009 was the early settlement
in 2008 of $49.7 million of derivative instruments related
to 2008 and 2009 utilized to economically hedge the risk of
rising crude oil prices with no comparable activity in 2009.
Financing Activities. Cash used in financing
activities was $99.4 million during 2010 compared to
$78.1 million during 2009. This increased use of cash is
due primarily to proceeds received from our December 2009 public
equity offering of approximately $52.3 million, including
$1.1 million of contributions received from our general
partner, with only $0.8 million of proceeds received in
early 2010 from the exercise of the underwriters
overallotment option on our December 2009 public equity offering
in addition to increased distributions of $6.5 million in
2010 as compared to 2009 due to higher amounts of outstanding
units and an increase in our distribution per unit. Partially
offsetting these increases is decreased net repayments of
revolver borrowings of $33.6 million in 2010 as compared to
2009.
Cash used in financing activities was $78.1 million during
2009 compared to cash provided of $350.1 million during
2008. This change is due primarily to proceeds from borrowings
under the new senior secured term loan credit facility of
$385.0 million along with associated debt issuance costs
incurred during 2008 with no comparable activity in 2009. The
increased use of cash was also due to net repayments on the
revolving credit facility of $62.6 million compared to net
borrowings of $95.6 million in 2008, due primarily to final
spending on the Shreveport refinery expansion project in 2008.
Partially offsetting the increased use of cash were the proceeds
received from our December 2009 public equity offering of
approximately $52.3 million, including $1.1 million of
contributions received from our general partner.
On January 14, 2011, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.47 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$16.9 million, for the quarter ended December 31,
2010. The distribution was paid on February 14, 2011 to
unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 4, 2011. This quarterly distribution of $0.47 per
unit equates to $1.88 per unit, or $67.7 million on an
annualized basis.
Capital
Expenditures
Our capital expenditure requirements consist of capital
improvement expenditures, replacement capital expenditures and
environmental capital expenditures. Capital improvement
expenditures include expenditures to acquire assets to grow our
business, to expand existing facilities, such as projects that
increase operating capacity, or to reduce operating costs.
Replacement capital expenditures replace worn out or obsolete
equipment or parts. Environmental capital expenditures include
asset additions to meet or exceed environmental and operating
regulations.
The following table sets forth our capital improvement
expenditures, replacement capital expenditures and environmental
capital expenditures in each of the periods shown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Capital improvement expenditures
|
|
$
|
10,656
|
|
|
$
|
8,013
|
|
|
$
|
161,398
|
|
Replacement capital expenditures
|
|
|
14,700
|
|
|
|
12,149
|
|
|
|
4,555
|
|
Environmental capital expenditures
|
|
|
9,645
|
|
|
|
3,359
|
|
|
|
1,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
35,001
|
|
|
$
|
23,521
|
|
|
$
|
167,702
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
We anticipate that future capital expenditure requirements will
be provided primarily through cash from operations and available
borrowings under our revolving credit facility. In 2009 and
2010, we limited our overall capital expenditures to required
environmental expenditures, necessary replacement capital
expenditures to maintain our facilities and minor capital
improvement projects to reduce energy costs, improve finished
product quality and improve finished product yields. We estimate
our replacement and environmental capital expenditures will
average approximately $5.0 million per quarter in 2011 with
total capital expenditures below 2010 levels. These estimated
amounts for 2011 include a portion of the $11.0 million to
$15.0 million in environmental projects required by our
settlement with the LDEQ under the Small Refinery and
Single Site Refining Initiative. Please read Items 1
and 2 Business and Properties Environmental,
Health and Safety Matters Air for additional
information.
Debt
and Credit Facilities
As of December 31, 2010, our credit facilities consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
a $375.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility,
subject to borrowing base restrictions, with a standby letter of
credit sublimit of $300.0 million; and
|
|
|
|
a $435.0 million senior secured first lien credit facility
consisting of a $385.0 million term loan facility and a
$50.0 million letter of credit facility to support crack
spread hedging. In connection with the execution of the above
senior secured first lien credit facility, we incurred total
debt issuance costs of $23.4 million, including
$17.4 million of issuance discounts.
|
Borrowings under the amended revolving credit facility are
limited to a borrowing base that is determined based on advance
rates of percentages of eligible accounts receivable and
inventory (as defined by the revolving credit agreement). As
such, the borrowing base can fluctuate based on changes in
selling prices of our products and our current material costs,
primarily the cost of crude oil. Our borrowing base at
December 31, 2010 was $247.0 million. The borrowing
base cannot exceed the total commitments of the lender group.
The lender group under our revolving credit facility is
comprised of a syndicate of nine lenders with total commitments
of $375.0 million. Currently, the largest member of our
bank group provides a commitment for $87.5 million. The
smallest commitment is $15 million and the median
commitment is $42.5 million. In the event of a default by
one of the lenders in the syndicate, the total commitments under
the revolving credit facility would be reduced by the defaulting
lenders commitment, unless another lender or a combination
of lenders increase their commitments to replace the defaulting
lender. In the alternative, the revolving credit facility also
permits us to replace a defaulting lender. Although we do not
expect any current lenders to default under the revolving credit
facility, we can provide no assurance that lender defaults will
not occur. Also, our borrowing base at December 31, 2010
was $247.0 million; thus, we would have to experience
defaults in commitments totaling $128.0 million from our
lender group before such defaults would impact our liquidity as
of December 31, 2010. Accordingly, at least three of our
nine lenders would have to default in order for our liquidity
position as of December 31, 2010 under the revolving credit
facility to be adversely impacted.
The revolving credit facility, which is our primary source of
liquidity for cash needs in excess of cash generated from
operations, currently bears interest at prime plus a basis
points margin or LIBOR plus a basis points margin, at our
option. This margin is currently at 50 basis points for
prime and 200 basis points for LIBOR; however, it
fluctuates based on measurement of our Consolidated Leverage
Ratio discussed below. The revolving credit facility, which
matures in January 2013, has a first priority lien on our cash,
accounts receivable and inventory and a second priority lien on
our fixed assets. On December 31, 2010, we had availability
on our revolving credit facility of $145.5 million, based
upon a $247.0 million borrowing base, $90.7 million in
outstanding standby letters of credit, and outstanding
borrowings of $10.8 million. The improvement in our
availability under our revolving credit facility of
approximately $38.2 million from December 31, 2009 to
December 31, 2010 is due primarily to increased cash flow
from operations.
Amounts outstanding on our revolving credit facility do
materially fluctuate during each quarter due to normal changes
in working capital, payments of quarterly distributions to
unitholders and debt service costs. Specifically, the amount
borrowed under our revolving credit facility is typically at its
highest level after we pay for the majority of our crude oil
supplies on the 20th day of every month per standard
industry terms. The maximum revolving credit
60
facility borrowings during the fourth quarter of 2010 was
$107.2 million. Nonetheless, our availability on our
revolving credit facility during the peak borrowing days of a
quarter has been ample to support our operations and service
upcoming requirements. During the quarter ended
December 31, 2010, availability for additional borrowings
under our revolving credit facility was approximately
$78.6 million at its lowest point. We believe that we will
continue to have sufficient cash flow from operations and
borrowing availability under our revolving credit facility to
meet our financial commitments, minimum quarterly distributions
to our unitholders, debt service obligations, credit agreement
covenants, contingencies and anticipated capital expenditures.
However, we are subject to business and operational risks that
could materially adversely affect our cash flows. A material
decrease in our cash flow from operations or a significant,
sustained decline in crude oil prices would likely produce a
corollary material adverse effect on our borrowing capacity
under our revolving credit facility and potentially have a
material adverse effect on our ability to comply with the
covenants under our credit facilities. Substantial declines in
crude oil prices, if sustained, may materially diminish our
borrowing base which is based, in part, on the value of our
crude oil inventory and could result in a material reduction in
our borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facility.
The term loan facility bears interest at a rate of LIBOR plus
400 basis points or prime plus 300 basis points, at
our option. Management has historically kept the outstanding
balance on a LIBOR basis; however, that decision is evaluated
every three months to determine if a portion should be converted
back to the prime rate. Each lender under this facility has a
first priority lien on our fixed assets and a second priority
lien on our cash, accounts receivable and inventory. Our term
loan facility matures in January 2015. Under the terms of our
term loan facility, we applied a portion of the net proceeds
from the term loan to the acquisition of Penreco. We are
required to make mandatory repayments of approximately
$1.0 million at the end of each fiscal quarter, beginning
with the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 and ending
with the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2014, with the
remaining balance due at maturity on January 3, 2015.
Our letter of credit facility to support crack spread hedging
bears interest at a rate of 4.0% and is secured by a first
priority lien on our fixed assets. We have issued a letter of
credit in the amount of $50.0 million, the full amount
available under this letter of credit facility, to one
counterparty. As long as this first priority lien is in effect
and the counterparty remains the beneficiary of the
$50.0 million letter of credit, we will have no obligation
to post additional cash, letters of credit or other collateral
with the counterparty to provide additional credit support for a
mutually-agreed maximum volume of executed crack spread hedges.
In the event the counterpartys exposure to us exceeds
$100.0 million, we would be required to post additional
credit support with the counterparty to enter into additional
crack spread hedges up to the aforementioned maximum volume. In
addition, we have other crack spread hedges in place with other
approved counterparties under the letter of credit facility
whose credit exposure to us is also secured by a first priority
lien on our fixed assets, subject to certain conditions.
The credit facilities require us to satisfy certain financial
and other covenants, including:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Requirement
|
|
Actual Level at December 31, 2010
|
|
Consolidated Leverage Ratio
|
|
|
< 3.75 to 1
|
|
|
|
2.90 to 1
|
|
Consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio
|
|
|
> 2.75 to 1
|
|
|
|
4.22 to 1
|
|
Our credit facilities permit us to make distributions to our
unitholders as long as we are not in default and would not be in
default following the distribution. Under the credit facilities,
we are obligated to comply with certain financial covenants
requiring us to maintain a Consolidated Leverage Ratio of no
more than 3.75 to 1 and a Consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio
of no less than 2.75 to 1 (as of the end of each fiscal quarter
and after giving effect to a proposed distribution or other
restricted payments as defined in the credit agreements) and
Availability (as such term is defined in our credit agreements)
of at least $35.0 million (after giving effect to a
proposed distribution or other restricted payments as defined in
the credit agreements). The Consolidated Leverage Ratio is
defined under our credit agreements to mean the ratio of our
Consolidated Debt (as defined in the credit agreements) as of
the last day of any fiscal quarter to our Adjusted EBITDA (as
defined below) for the last four fiscal quarter periods ending
on such date. The Consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio is
defined as the ratio of Consolidated EBITDA for the last four
fiscal quarters to Consolidated Interest Charges for the same
period. Adjusted EBITDA means Consolidated EBITDA as defined in
our credit facilities to mean, for any period: (1) net
income plus (2)(a) interest expense; (b) taxes;
(c) depreciation and amortization; (d) unrealized
losses from mark to market accounting for hedging activities;
(e) unrealized items decreasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring,
61
decommissioning and asset impairments in the periods presented);
(f) other non-recurring expenses reducing net income which
do not represent a cash item for such period; and (g) all
non-recurring restructuring charges associated with the
acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008 minus (3)(a) tax
credits; (b) unrealized items increasing net income
(including the non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning
and asset impairments in the periods presented);
(c) unrealized gains from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities; and (d) other non-recurring expenses
and unrealized items that reduced net income for a prior period,
but represent a cash item in the current period. In addition, if
at any time that our borrowing capacity under our revolving
credit facility falls below $35.0 million, meaning we have
Availability of less than $35.0 million, we will be
required to immediately measure and maintain a Fixed Charge
Coverage Ratio of at least 1 to 1 (as of the end of each fiscal
quarter). The Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio is defined under our
credit agreements to mean the ratio of (a) Adjusted EBITDA
minus Consolidated Capital Expenditures minus Consolidated Cash
Taxes, to (b) Fixed Charges (as each such term is defined
in our credit agreements).
Compliance with the financial covenants pursuant to our credit
agreements is measured quarterly based upon performance over the
most recent four fiscal quarters, and as of December 31,
2010, we believe we were in compliance with all financial
covenants under our credit agreements and have adequate
liquidity to conduct our business. Even though our liquidity and
leverage improved during fiscal year 2010, we are continuing to
take steps to ensure that we continue to meet the requirements
of our credit agreements and currently believe that we will be
in compliance for all future measurement dates, although
assurances cannot be made regarding our future compliance with
these covenants.
Failure to achieve our anticipated results may result in a
breach of certain of the financial covenants contained in our
credit agreements. If this occurs, we will enter into
discussions with our lenders to either modify the terms of the
existing credit facilities or obtain waivers of non-compliance
with such covenants. There can be no assurances of the timing of
the receipt of any such modification or waiver, the term or
costs associated therewith or our ultimate ability to obtain the
relief sought. Our failure to obtain a waiver of non-compliance
with certain of the financial covenants or otherwise amend the
credit facilities would constitute an event of default under our
credit facilities and would permit the lenders to pursue
remedies. These remedies could include acceleration of maturity
under our credit facilities and limitations on, or the
elimination of, our ability to make distributions to our
unitholders. If our lenders accelerate maturity under our credit
facilities, a significant portion of our indebtedness may become
due and payable immediately. We might not have, or be able to
obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments. If
we are unable to make these accelerated payments, our lenders
could seek to foreclose on our assets.
In addition, our credit agreements contain various covenants
that limit our ability, among other things, to: incur
indebtedness; grant liens; make certain acquisitions and
investments; make capital expenditures above specified amounts;
redeem or prepay other debt or make other restricted payments
such as distributions to unitholders; enter into transactions
with affiliates; enter into a merger, consolidation or sale of
assets; and cease our refining margin hedging program (our
lenders have required us to obtain and maintain derivative
contracts for fuel products margins in our fuel products segment
for a rolling period of 1 to 12 months for at least 60% and
no more than 90% of our anticipated fuels production, and for a
rolling
13-24 months
forward for at least 50% and no more than 90% of our anticipated
fuels production).
If an event of default exists under our credit agreements, the
lenders will be able to accelerate the maturity of the credit
facilities and exercise other rights and remedies. An event of
default is defined as nonpayment of principal interest, fees or
other amounts; failure of any representation or warranty to be
true and correct when made or confirmed; failure to perform or
observe covenants in the credit agreement or other loan
documents, subject to certain grace periods; payment defaults in
respect of other indebtedness; cross-defaults in other
indebtedness if the effect of such default is to cause the
acceleration of such indebtedness under any material agreement
if such default could have a material adverse effect on us;
bankruptcy or insolvency events; monetary judgment defaults;
asserted invalidity of the loan documentation; and a change of
control in us.
On July 12, 2010, we announced that we and Calumet Finance
Corp., our wholly owned subsidiary, intended to offer for sale
in a private placement under Rule 144A to eligible
purchasers $450 million in aggregate principal amount of
senior unsecured notes. We viewed the offering as an
opportunity, but not a necessity, to refinance our existing term
loan facility with longer-term unsecured notes. However, on
July 22, 2010, we announced that, due to
62
market conditions, we opted to not move forward with the
contemplated senior notes offering at that time. We intend to
continue monitoring the capital markets for the opportunity to
complete a debt refinancing transaction under appropriate market
conditions.
Contractual
Obligations and Commercial Commitments
A summary of our total contractual cash obligations as of
December 31, 2010 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
1-3
|
|
|
3-5
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest on long-term debt at contractual rates
|
|
$
|
70,458
|
|
|
$
|
20,026
|
|
|
$
|
34,908
|
|
|
$
|
15,524
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations (1)
|
|
|
36,339
|
|
|
|
12,572
|
|
|
|
16,355
|
|
|
|
6,644
|
|
|
|
768
|
|
Letters of credit (2)
|
|
|
140,725
|
|
|
|
90,725
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase commitments (3)
|
|
|
1,006,114
|
|
|
|
560,015
|
|
|
|
315,264
|
|
|
|
130,835
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension obligations
|
|
|
10,063
|
|
|
|
1,763
|
|
|
|
4,300
|
|
|
|
3,500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Employment agreements (4)
|
|
|
742
|
|
|
|
371
|
|
|
|
371
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
1,781
|
|
|
|
994
|
|
|
|
787
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt obligations, excluding capital lease obligations
|
|
|
378,217
|
|
|
|
3,850
|
|
|
|
18,532
|
|
|
|
355,835
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total obligations
|
|
$
|
1,644,439
|
|
|
$
|
690,316
|
|
|
$
|
440,517
|
|
|
$
|
512,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We have various operating leases for the use of land, storage
tanks, pressure stations, railcars, equipment, precious metals
and office facilities that extend through August 2015. |
|
(2) |
|
Letters of credit supporting crude oil purchases, precious
metals leasing and hedging activities. |
|
(3) |
|
Purchase commitments consist of obligations to purchase fixed
volumes of crude oil and other feedstocks and finished products
for resale from various suppliers based on current market prices
at the time of delivery. |
|
(4) |
|
Annual compensation under the employment agreement of F. William
Grube, chief executive officer and vice chairman of the board of
our general partner. |
In connection with the closing of the acquisition of Penreco on
January 3, 2008, we entered into a feedstock purchase
agreement with ConocoPhillips related to the LVT unit at its
Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery (the LVT Feedstock
Agreement). Pursuant to the LVT Feedstock Agreement,
ConocoPhillips is obligated to supply a minimum quantity (the
Base Volume) of feedstock for the LVT unit for a
term of ten years. Based upon this minimum supply quantity, we
expect to purchase $64.9 million of feedstock for the LVT
unit in each fiscal year of the term based on pricing estimates
as of December 31, 2010. This amount is not included in the
table above. If the Base Volume is not supplied at any point
during the first five years of the ten-year term, a penalty for
each gallon of shortfall must be paid to us as liquidated
damages.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We have no material off-balance sheet arrangements.
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our discussion and analysis of results of operations and
financial condition are based upon our consolidated financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008. These consolidated financial statements have been prepared
in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these financial
statements requires
63
us to make estimates and judgments that affect the amounts
reported in those financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we
evaluate estimates and base our estimates on historical
experience and assumptions believed to be reasonable under the
circumstances. Those estimates form the basis for our judgments
that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements.
Actual results could differ from our estimates under different
assumptions or conditions. Our significant accounting policies,
which may be affected by our estimates and assumptions, are more
fully described in Note 2 to our consolidated financial
statements in Item 8 Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data of this Annual Report. We believe that
the following are the more critical judgment areas in the
application of our accounting policies that currently affect our
financial condition and results of operations.
Revenue
Recognition
We recognize revenue on orders received from our customers when
there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement with the customer
that is supportive of revenue recognition, the customer has made
a fixed commitment to purchase the product for a fixed or
determinable sales price, collection is reasonably assured under
our normal billing and credit terms, and ownership and all risks
of loss have been transferred to the buyer, which is primarily
upon shipment to the customer or, in certain cases, upon receipt
by the customer in accordance with contractual terms.
Inventories
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method and valued at the lower of cost or
market. Costs include crude oil and other feedstocks, labor and
refining overhead costs. We review our inventory balances
quarterly for excess inventory levels or obsolete products and
write down, if necessary, the inventory to net realizable value.
The replacement cost of our inventory, based on current market
values, would have been $55.9 million and
$30.4 million higher at December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Statement
(ASC)
815-10,
Derivatives and Hedging (formerly Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 161,
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities), we
recognize all derivative transactions as either assets or
liabilities at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets. We
utilize third party valuations and published market data to
determine the fair value of these derivatives and thus does not
directly rely on market indices. We perform an independent
verification of the third party valuation statements to validate
inputs for reasonableness and complete a comparison of implied
crack spread
mark-to-market
valuations among our counterparties.
Our derivative instruments, consisting of derivative liabilities
of $32.8 million as of December 31, 2010, are valued
at Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 fair value
measurement under
ASC 820-10,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (formerly
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements),
depending upon the degree by which inputs are observable. We
recorded realized and unrealized losses on derivative
instruments of $7.7 million and $15.8 million,
respectively, on our derivative instruments in 2010. The
decrease in the fair market value of our outstanding derivative
instruments from a net asset of $26.1 million as of
December 31, 2009 to a liability of $32.8 million as
of December 31, 2010 was due primarily to
$28.9 million in settlements of fuel products derivative
instruments outstanding as of December 31, 2009, in
addition to $18.5 million in liabilities related to new
derivative instruments. We believe that the fair values of our
derivative instruments may diverge materially from the amounts
currently recorded to fair value at settlement due to the
volatility of commodity prices.
64
Holding all other variables constant, we expect a $1 increase in
the applicable commodity prices would change our recorded
mark-to-market
valuation by the following amounts based upon the volumes hedged
as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In millions
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
11.5
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
$
|
(3.9
|
)
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
$
|
(6.6
|
)
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
$
|
(0.9
|
)
|
We enter into crude oil, gasoline, and diesel hedges to hedge an
implied crack spread in our fuel products segment. Therefore,
any increase in crude oil swap
mark-to-market
valuation due to changes in commodity prices will generally be
accompanied by a decrease in gasoline and diesel swap
mark-to-market
valuation.
In addition, we measure our investments associated with the
Companys non-contributory defined benefit plan
(Pension Plan) on a recurring basis. The
Companys investments associated with its Pension Plan
consist of mutual funds that are publicly traded and for which
market prices are readily available, thus these investments are
categorized as Level 1.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2008, the FASB issued pronouncements under
ASC 715-20,
Compensation-Retirement Benefits-Defined Benefit Plans
(formerly FSP
FAS 132R-1,
Employers Disclosures about Postretirement Benefit Plan
Assets).
ASC 715-20
replaces the requirement to disclose the percentage of the fair
value of total plan assets with a requirement to disclose the
fair value of each major asset category.
ASC 715-20
also requires additional disclosure regarding the level of the
plan assets within the fair value hierarchy according to
ASC 820-10,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (formerly
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements), and a
reconciliation of activity for any plan assets being measured
using unobservable inputs as defined in
ASC 715-20.
ASC 715-20
is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15,
2009. The adoption of
ASC 715-20
did not have a material impact on the Companys financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-06,
Disclosures About Fair Value Measurements (ASU
2010-06),
which amends ASC No. 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures to add new requirements for disclosures about
transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 and separate
disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements
relating to Level 3 measurements. ASU
2010-06 also
clarifies existing fair value disclosures about the level of
disaggregation and about inputs and valuation techniques used to
measure fair value. ASU
2010-06 is
effective for the first reporting period (including interim
periods) beginning after December 15, 2009. The Company
adopted ASU
2010-06
effective January 1, 2010; however, the Companys
adoption of the ASU did not have a material effect on the
Companys financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-28,
When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for
Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts
(ASU
2010-28),
which amends ASC No. 830, Intangibles
Goodwill and Other to modify Step 1 of the evaluation of
goodwill impairment for reporting units with zero or negative
carrying amounts to require that Step 2 of the impairment test
be performed to measure the amount of any impairment loss when
it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exits. ASU
2010-28 is
effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those
years, beginning after December 15, 2010, with early
adoption not permitted. The Company does not expect the adoption
of ASU
2010-28 to
have a material impact on the Companys financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-29,
Disclosures of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for
Business Combinations (ASU
2010-29),
which amends ASC No. 805, Business Combinations, to
expand the requirements for supplemental pro forma disclosures
to include a description of the nature and amount of material,
nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the
business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue
and earnings. ASU
2010-29 is
effective for business combinations for which the acquisition
date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting
period beginning on or after December 15, 2010, and should
be
65
applied prospectively. The Company will apply the provisions of
ASU 2010-29
for all future business combinations.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Commodity
Price Risk
Consistent with prior years, both our profitability and our cash
flows are affected by volatility in prevailing crude oil,
gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and natural gas prices. The primary
purpose of our commodity risk management activities is to hedge
our exposure to price risks associated with the cost of crude
oil and natural gas and sales prices of our fuel products.
Crude
Oil Price Volatility
We are exposed to significant fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, our principal raw material. Given the historical volatility
of crude oil prices, this exposure can significantly impact
product costs and gross profit. Holding all other variables
constant, and excluding the impact of our current hedges, we
expect a $1.00 change in the per barrel price of crude oil would
change our specialty product segment cost of sales by
$10.8 million and our fuel product segment cost of sales by
$9.6 million based on our sales volumes for 2010.
Crude
Oil Hedging Policy
Because we typically do not set prices for our specialty
products in advance of our crude oil purchases, we can generally
take into account the cost of crude oil in setting specialty
products prices. However, as evidenced during the prior three
years when crude oil prices ranged from a low of approximately
$34 per barrel to a high of approximately $145 per barrel, we
are not always able to adjust our selling prices as quickly as
increases in the price of crude oil. Due to this lack of
correlation between our specialty products selling prices and
crude oil in periods of high volatility, we further manage our
exposure to fluctuations in crude oil prices in our specialty
products segment through the use of derivative instruments,
which can include both swaps and options, generally executed in
the
over-the-counter
(OTC) market. Our policy is generally to enter into crude oil
derivative contracts that match our expected future cash
outflows for up to 70% of our anticipated crude oil purchases
related to our specialty products production. While our policy
generally requires that these positions be short term in nature
and expire within three to nine months from execution, we may
execute derivative instruments for up to two years forward, if a
change in crude oil price risks supports lengthening our
position. Our fuel products sales are based on market prices at
the time of sale. Accordingly, in conjunction with our fuel
products hedging policy discussed below, we enter into crude oil
derivative contracts related to our fuel products segment for up
to five years and no more than 75% of our fuel products sales on
average for each fiscal year.
Natural
Gas Price Volatility
Since natural gas purchases comprise a significant component of
our cost of sales, changes in the price of natural gas also
significantly affect our profitability and our cash flows.
Holding all other cost and revenue variables constant, and
excluding the impact of our current hedges, we expect a $0.50
change per MMBtu (one million British Thermal Units) in the
price of natural gas would change our cost of sales by
$4.0 million based on our results for the year ended
December 31, 2010.
Natural
Gas Hedging Policy
We enter into derivative contracts to manage our exposure to
natural gas prices. Our policy is generally to enter into
natural gas swap contracts during the summer months for up to
approximately 50% of our anticipated natural gas requirements
for the upcoming fall and winter months with time to expiration
not to exceed three years.
Fuel
Products Selling Price Volatility
We are exposed to significant fluctuations in the prices of
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Given the historical volatility
of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices, this exposure can
significantly impact sales and gross profit.
66
Holding all other variables constant, and excluding the impact
of our current hedges, we expect that a $1 change in the per
barrel selling price of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel would
change our fuel products segment sales by $9.6 million
based on our results for the year ended December 31, 2010.
Fuel
Products Hedging Policy
In order to manage our exposure to changes in gasoline, diesel,
and jet fuel selling prices, our policy is generally to enter
into derivative contracts to hedge our fuel products sales for a
period no greater than five years forward and for no more than
75% of anticipated fuels sales on average for each fiscal year,
which is consistent with our crude oil purchase hedging policy
for our fuel products segment discussed above. We believe this
policy lessens the volatility of our cash flows. In addition, in
connection with our credit facilities, our lenders require us to
hedge our fuel products margins for a rolling period of 1 to
12 months forward for at least 60% and no more than 90% of
our anticipated fuels production, and for a rolling 13 to
24 months forward for at least 50% and no more than 90% of
our anticipated fuels production. As of December 31, 2010,
we were over 60% hedged for the forward 12 month period and
over 50% hedged for the forward 24 month period. We are
currently hedging in calendar year 2013, with no positions
currently in 2014 or 2015.
The unrealized gain or loss on derivatives at a given point in
time is not necessarily indicative of the results realized when
such contracts mature. The decrease in the fair market value of
our outstanding derivative instruments from a net asset of
$26.1 million as of December 31, 2009 to a liability
of $32.8 million as of December 31, 2010 was due
primarily to increases in the forward market values of fuel
products margins, or cracks spreads, relative to our hedged fuel
products margins and settlement of derivatives in 2010 that
resulted in realized gain. Please read Note 2
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Derivatives in the notes to our consolidated financial
statements under Item 8 Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data for a discussion of the accounting
treatment for the various types of derivative transactions, and
a further discussion of our hedging policies.
Interest
Rate Risk
Our profitability and cash flows are affected by changes in
interest rates, specifically LIBOR and prime rates, which is
consistent with prior years. The primary purpose of our interest
rate risk management activities is to hedge our exposure to
changes in interest rates. Our policy is generally to enter into
interest rate swap agreements to hedge up to 75% of its interest
rate risk under our term loan agreement.
We are exposed to market risk from fluctuations in interest
rates. As of December 31, 2010, we had approximately
$378.2 million of variable rate debt. Holding other
variables constant (such as debt levels), a one hundred basis
point change in interest rates on our variable rate debt as of
December 31, 2010 would be expected to have an impact on
net income and cash flows for 2010 of approximately
$3.8 million.
We have a $375.0 million revolving credit facility as of
December 31, 2010, bearing interest at the prime rate or
LIBOR, at our option, plus the applicable margin. We had
borrowings of $10.8 million outstanding under this facility
as of December 31, 2010, bearing interest at the prime rate
or LIBOR, at our option, plus the applicable margin.
Existing
Interest Rate Derivative Instruments
In 2008, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its current
variable rate senior secured first lien term loan which closed
January 3, 2008. The Company hedged the future interest
payments related to $150.0 million and $50.0 million
of the total outstanding term loan indebtedness in 2009 and
2010, respectively, pursuant to this forward swap contract. This
swap contract is designated as a cash flow hedge of the future
payment of interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at
3.09% and 3.66% per annum in 2009 and 2010,
respectively.
In 2009, the Company hedged the future interest payments related
to $200.0 million of the total outstanding term loan
indebtedness for the period from February 15, 2010 to
February 15, 2011. This swap contract is designated as a
cash flow hedge of the future payment of interest with
three-month LIBOR fixed at an average rate during the hedge
period of 0.94%.
67
During 2010, the Company entered into forward swap contracts to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its current
variable rate senior secured first lien term loan. The Company
hedged the future interest payments related to
$100.0 million of the total outstanding term loan
indebtedness for the period from February 15, 2011 to
February 15, 2012 pursuant to these forward swap contracts.
These swap contracts are designated as cash flow hedges of the
future payments of interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at an
average rate during the hedge period of 2.03%.
Existing
Commodity Derivative Instruments
Fuel
Products Segment
As a result of our fuel products hedging activity, we recorded a
loss of $67.7 million and a gain of $81.6 million, to
sales and cost of sales, respectively, in the consolidated
statements of operations for 2010. As of December 31, 2010
we had not provided any cash margin in credit support to our
hedging counterparties. As of February 18, 2011, we had
provided $23.2 million in credit support to our hedging
counterparties due to the decrease in the fair market value of
our derivative instruments since December 31, 2010.
The following tables provide information about our derivative
instruments related to our fuel products segment as of
December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,215,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
$
|
75.32
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,729,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
76.62
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,610,000
|
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
77.38
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,334,000
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
77.71
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
5,535,000
|
|
|
|
15,123
|
|
|
|
86.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
11,423,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
89.57
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
637,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
89.57
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
552,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
91.74
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
552,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
91.74
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
1,560,000
|
|
|
|
4,262
|
|
|
|
99.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
3,931,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
94.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Jet Fuel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
405,000
|
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
$
|
86.12
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
819,000
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
89.58
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
920,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
89.86
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
644,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
89.21
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
3,838,500
|
|
|
|
10,480
|
|
|
|
99.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
6,626,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
95.28
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
180,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
$
|
81.84
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
82.66
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
85.50
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
85.50
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
136,500
|
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
89.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
865,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
84.40
|
|
The following table provides a summary of these derivatives and
implied crack spreads for the crude oil, diesel and gasoline
swaps disclosed above, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implied
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crack Spread
|
|
Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,215,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
$
|
11.96
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,729,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
11.87
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,610,000
|
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
12.75
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,334,000
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
12.16
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
5,535,000
|
|
|
|
15,123
|
|
|
|
13.07
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
11,423,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
12.62
|
|
Jet
Fuel Put Spread Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following jet
fuel put options related to jet fuel crack spreads in its fuel
products segment, none of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold Put
|
|
|
Bought Put
|
|
Jet Fuel Put Option Crack Spread Contracts by Expiration
Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
6.00
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
184,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
4.75
|
|
|
|
7.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
814,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.17
|
|
|
$
|
6.23
|
|
Specialty
Products Segment
As a result of our specialty products crude oil hedging
activity, we recorded a loss of $5.3 million, to realized
loss on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations for 2010. As of December 31, 2010 and
February 18, 2011, we had not provided any cash margin in
credit support to any of our hedging counterparties. At
December 31, 2010, the Company had the following crude oil
swap derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its specialty
products segment, none of which are designated as hedges. As a
result of these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the
Company recognized $0.7 million of gain in unrealized gain
(loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements
of operations in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
February 2011
|
|
|
33,600
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
$
|
83.10
|
|
March 2011
|
|
|
37,200
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
83.55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
70,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
83.34
|
|
69
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of Calumet GP, LLC
General Partner of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, partners capital, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2010. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the consolidated results
of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2010, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
Calumet Specialty Products Partners L.P.s internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on
criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission and our report dated February 18, 2011
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 18, 2011
70
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
|
|
|
|
unit data)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $633 and $801,
respectively
|
|
|
157,185
|
|
|
|
116,914
|
|
Other
|
|
|
776
|
|
|
|
5,854
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157,961
|
|
|
|
122,768
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
147,110
|
|
|
|
137,250
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,904
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
1,909
|
|
|
|
1,811
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
2,094
|
|
|
|
6,861
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
309,111
|
|
|
|
299,643
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
612,433
|
|
|
|
629,275
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
48,335
|
|
|
|
48,335
|
|
Other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
29,666
|
|
|
|
38,093
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
17,127
|
|
|
|
16,510
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,016,672
|
|
|
$
|
1,031,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
146,730
|
|
|
$
|
92,110
|
|
Accounts payable related party
|
|
|
27,985
|
|
|
|
17,866
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
7,559
|
|
|
|
6,500
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
7,174
|
|
|
|
7,551
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
16,605
|
|
|
|
6,114
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,844
|
|
|
|
5,009
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
32,814
|
|
|
|
4,766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
243,711
|
|
|
|
139,916
|
|
Pension and postretirement benefit obligations
|
|
|
9,168
|
|
|
|
9,433
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,083
|
|
|
|
1,111
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
364,431
|
|
|
|
396,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
618,393
|
|
|
|
546,509
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners capital:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common unitholders (22,213,778 units and
22,166,000 units, issued and outstanding at
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively)
|
|
|
390,843
|
|
|
|
418,902
|
|
Subordinated unitholders (13,066,000 units, issued and
outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009)
|
|
|
16,930
|
|
|
|
34,714
|
|
General partners interest
|
|
|
18,125
|
|
|
|
19,087
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(27,619
|
)
|
|
|
12,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total partners capital
|
|
|
398,279
|
|
|
|
485,347
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and partners capital
|
|
$
|
1,016,672
|
|
|
$
|
1,031,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
71
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per unit data)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,992,003
|
|
|
|
1,673,498
|
|
|
|
2,235,111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
198,749
|
|
|
|
173,102
|
|
|
|
253,883
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
35,224
|
|
|
|
32,570
|
|
|
|
34,267
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
85,471
|
|
|
|
67,967
|
|
|
|
84,702
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
4,601
|
|
|
|
3,839
|
|
|
|
4,598
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
|
|
1,366
|
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
71,490
|
|
|
|
67,360
|
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(30,497
|
)
|
|
|
(33,573
|
)
|
|
|
(33,938
|
)
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(898
|
)
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(7,704
|
)
|
|
|
8,342
|
|
|
|
(58,833
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(15,843
|
)
|
|
|
23,736
|
|
|
|
3,454
|
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,770
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(147
|
)
|
|
|
(3,929
|
)
|
|
|
399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(54,191
|
)
|
|
|
(5,424
|
)
|
|
|
(84,046
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
17,299
|
|
|
|
61,936
|
|
|
|
44,694
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,701
|
|
|
$
|
61,785
|
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,701
|
|
|
$
|
61,785
|
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General partners interest in net income
|
|
|
334
|
|
|
|
1,236
|
|
|
|
889
|
|
Holders of incentive distribution rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available to limited partners
|
|
|
16,367
|
|
|
|
60,549
|
|
|
|
43,548
|
|
Weighted average limited partner units outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
35,335
|
|
|
|
32,372
|
|
|
|
32,232
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
35,351
|
|
|
|
32,372
|
|
|
|
32,232
|
|
Common and subordinated unitholders basic and diluted net
income per unit
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
$
|
1.87
|
|
|
$
|
1.35
|
|
Cash distributions declared per common and subordinated unit
|
|
$
|
1.84
|
|
|
$
|
1.81
|
|
|
$
|
1.98
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
72
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS CAPITAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
Partners Capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
General
|
|
|
Limited Partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Partner
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance at January 1, 2008
|
|
$
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,364
|
|
|
$
|
375,925
|
|
|
$
|
43,996
|
|
|
$
|
399,644
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
889
|
|
|
|
25,895
|
|
|
|
17,653
|
|
|
|
44,437
|
|
Cash flow hedge loss reclassified to net income
|
|
|
(8,208
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,208
|
)
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
109,639
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109,639
|
|
Defined benefit pension and retiree health benefit plans
|
|
|
(6,224
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,224
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,644
|
|
Units repurchased for phantom unit grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
Amortization of vested phantom units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
179
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
179
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,320
|
)
|
|
|
(37,949
|
)
|
|
|
(25,871
|
)
|
|
|
(66,140
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
55,566
|
|
|
$
|
17,933
|
|
|
$
|
363,935
|
|
|
$
|
35,778
|
|
|
$
|
473,212
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,236
|
|
|
|
38,094
|
|
|
|
22,455
|
|
|
|
61,785
|
|
Cash flow hedge gain reclassified to net income
|
|
|
(15,068
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,068
|
)
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
(29,371
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,371
|
)
|
Defined benefit pension and retiree health benefit plans
|
|
|
1,517
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,517
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,863
|
|
Proceeds from public equity offering, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,225
|
|
Contribution from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,102
|
|
Units repurchased for phantom unit grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(164
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(164
|
)
|
Amortization of vested phantom units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
367
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
367
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,184
|
)
|
|
|
(34,555
|
)
|
|
|
(23,519
|
)
|
|
|
(59,258
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
12,644
|
|
|
$
|
19,087
|
|
|
$
|
418,902
|
|
|
$
|
34,714
|
|
|
$
|
485,347
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
334
|
|
|
|
10,305
|
|
|
|
6,062
|
|
|
|
16,701
|
|
Cash flow hedge gain reclassified to net income
|
|
|
(11,104
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,104
|
)
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
(29,015
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,015
|
)
|
Defined benefit pension and retiree health benefit plans
|
|
|
(144
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(144
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,562
|
)
|
Proceeds from public equity offering, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
793
|
|
Contribution from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Units repurchased for phantom unit grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(248
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(248
|
)
|
Amortization of vested phantom units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,670
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,670
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,314
|
)
|
|
|
(40,579
|
)
|
|
|
(23,846
|
)
|
|
|
(65,739
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
(27,619
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,125
|
|
|
$
|
390,843
|
|
|
$
|
16,930
|
|
|
$
|
398,279
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
73
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,701
|
|
|
$
|
61,785
|
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
64,151
|
|
|
|
65,407
|
|
|
|
59,261
|
|
Amortization of turnaround costs
|
|
|
10,006
|
|
|
|
7,256
|
|
|
|
2,468
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
Non-cash debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
898
|
|
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
15,843
|
|
|
|
(23,736
|
)
|
|
|
(3,454
|
)
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,770
|
)
|
Loss on disposal of fixed assets
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
4,455
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
Other non-cash activities
|
|
|
1,104
|
|
|
|
1,441
|
|
|
|
1,501
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(35,267
|
)
|
|
|
(12,296
|
)
|
|
|
45,042
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(9,860
|
)
|
|
|
(18,726
|
)
|
|
|
55,532
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
(98
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
5,834
|
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
2,990
|
|
|
|
8,531
|
|
|
|
41,757
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
4,767
|
|
|
|
(2,840
|
)
|
|
|
(4,000
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
(12,690
|
)
|
|
|
(6,889
|
)
|
|
|
(10,211
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
64,739
|
|
|
|
15,951
|
|
|
|
(103,136
|
)
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
1,059
|
|
|
|
(1,088
|
)
|
|
|
(1,657
|
)
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
(377
|
)
|
|
|
718
|
|
|
|
618
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
11,171
|
|
|
|
576
|
|
|
|
(245
|
)
|
Pension and postretirement benefit obligations
|
|
|
(409
|
)
|
|
|
1,233
|
|
|
|
(193
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
134,143
|
|
|
|
100,854
|
|
|
|
130,341
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(35,001
|
)
|
|
|
(23,521
|
)
|
|
|
(167,702
|
)
|
Acquisition of Penreco, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(269,118
|
)
|
Settlement of derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(49,746
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,065
|
|
Proceeds from disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
242
|
|
|
|
807
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(34,759
|
)
|
|
|
(22,714
|
)
|
|
|
(480,461
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from borrowings revolving credit facility
|
|
|
1,015,485
|
|
|
|
805,361
|
|
|
|
1,424,732
|
|
Repayments of borrowings revolving credit facility
|
|
|
(1,044,553
|
)
|
|
|
(868,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,329,150
|
)
|
Repayments of borrowings prior term loan credit
facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,099
|
)
|
Proceeds from borrowings existing term loan credit
facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
385,000
|
|
Repayments of borrowings existing term loan credit
facility
|
|
|
(3,850
|
)
|
|
|
(3,850
|
)
|
|
|
(9,915
|
)
|
Discount on existing term loan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,400
|
)
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,633
|
)
|
Payments on capital lease obligation
|
|
|
(1,302
|
)
|
|
|
(1,542
|
)
|
|
|
(618
|
)
|
Proceeds from public equity offerings, net
|
|
|
793
|
|
|
|
51,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
1,102
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in bank overdraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,013
|
)
|
|
|
3,471
|
|
Common units repurchased for vested phantom unit grants
|
|
|
(248
|
)
|
|
|
(164
|
)
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
(65,739
|
)
|
|
|
(59,258
|
)
|
|
|
(66,140
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
(99,396
|
)
|
|
|
(78,139
|
)
|
|
|
350,133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
|
$
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest
|
|
$
|
26,389
|
|
|
$
|
30,343
|
|
|
$
|
27,000
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$
|
188
|
|
|
$
|
161
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of noncash financing and investing
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment acquired under capital lease
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,659
|
|
|
$
|
171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
74
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(dollars
in thousands)
|
|
1.
|
Description
of the Business
|
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the
Company) is a Delaware limited partnership. The
general partner of the Company is Calumet GP, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company. As of December 31, 2010, the
Company had 22,213,778 common units, 13,066,000 subordinated
units, and 719,995 general partner units outstanding. The
general partner owns 2% of the Company while the remaining 98%
is owned by limited partners. The Company is engaged in the
production and marketing of crude oil-based specialty
lubricating oils, white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums,
waxes and fuels. The Company owns facilities located in
Shreveport, Louisiana (Shreveport), Princeton,
Louisiana (Princeton), Cotton Valley, Louisiana
(Cotton Valley), Karns City, Pennsylvania
(Karns City), and Dickinson, Texas
(Dickinson), and a terminal located in Burnham,
Illinois (Burnham).
|
|
2.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements of the Company include the
accounts of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and its
wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership, Calumet Sales Company Incorporated, Calumet
Penreco, LLC and Calumet Shreveport, LLC. Calumet Shreveport,
LLCs wholly-owned operating subsidiaries are Calumet
Shreveport Fuels, LLC and Calumet Shreveport
Lubricants & Waxes, LLC. All intercompany transactions
and accounts have been eliminated.
Use of
Estimates
The Companys financial statements are prepared in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles which require management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents includes all highly liquid investments
with a maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase.
Inventories
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method. Costs include crude oil and other
feedstocks, labor, processing costs and refining overhead costs.
Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market value.
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
12,885
|
|
|
$
|
1,323
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
49,006
|
|
|
|
51,304
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
85,219
|
|
|
|
84,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
147,110
|
|
|
$
|
137,250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $55,855 and $30,420 higher as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. During the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009
75
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
and 2008, the Company recorded $13,661, $18,375 and $5,446,
respectively, of gains in cost of sales in the consolidated
statements of operations due to the liquidation of lower cost
inventory layers.
Accounts
Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. Accounts receivable are generally due within
30 to 45 days for the specialty products segment and
10 days for the fuel products segment. The Company
maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated
losses in the collection of accounts receivable. The Company
makes estimates regarding the future ability of its customers to
make required payments based on historical credit experience and
expected future trends. The activity in the allowance for
doubtful accounts was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
801
|
|
|
$
|
2,121
|
|
|
$
|
786
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
Recoveries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
|
(415
|
)
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
633
|
|
|
$
|
801
|
|
|
$
|
2,121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are stated on the basis of cost.
Depreciation is calculated generally on composite groups, using
the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the
respective groups. Assets under capital leases are amortized
over the lesser of the useful life of the asset or the term of
the lease.
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
3,249
|
|
|
$
|
3,249
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to 40 years)
|
|
|
6,848
|
|
|
|
6,713
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to 20 years)
|
|
|
770,973
|
|
|
|
740,656
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to 10 years)
|
|
|
3,646
|
|
|
|
2,713
|
|
Assets under capital leases (1 to 4 years)
|
|
|
4,201
|
|
|
|
4,198
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
7,673
|
|
|
|
9,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
796,590
|
|
|
|
766,929
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(184,157
|
)
|
|
|
(137,654
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
612,433
|
|
|
$
|
629,275
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the composite depreciation method, the cost of partial
retirements of a group is charged to accumulated depreciation.
However, when there are dispositions of complete groups or
significant portions of groups, the cost and related accumulated
depreciation are retired, and any gain or loss is reflected in
earnings.
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
the Company incurred $30,886, $34,170 and $41,159, respectively,
of interest expense of which $389, $597 and $7,221,
respectively, was capitalized as a component of property, plant
and equipment.
76
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
The Company has not recorded an asset retirement obligation as
of December 31, 2010 or 2009 because such potential
obligations cannot be measured since it is not possible to
estimate the settlement dates.
Accumulated depreciation above includes $1,050 and $1,074 of
depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively, related to the Companys capital
lease assets. During the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008, the Company recorded $51,365, $50,327 and
$42,144, respectively, of depreciation expense on its property,
plant and equipment.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of purchase price over fair value
of the net assets acquired in the acquisition of Penreco on
January 3, 2008. In accordance with ASC 350,
Intangibles Goodwill and Other (formerly
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets), goodwill and other intangible assets are not
amortized, but are tested for impairment at least annually and
when indicators dictate, such as adverse changes in business
climate, market value of long-lived assets or a change in the
structure of the Company. The Company performs its annual
impairment review in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year,
unless circumstances dictate more frequent assessments. No
impairments were noted in 2010, 2009 or 2008.
Other
Intangible Assets
Other intangible assets primarily consist of supply agreements,
customer relationships, non-compete agreements and patents
acquired in the acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008.
The majority of these assets are being amortized using the
discounted estimated future cash flows method over the term of
the related agreements. Intangible assets associated with
customer relationships of Penreco are being amortized using the
discounted estimated future cash flows method based upon an
assumed rate of annual customer attrition. For more information,
refer to Note 5.
Impairment
of Long-Lived Assets
The Company periodically evaluates the carrying value of
long-lived assets to be held and used, including definite-lived
intangible assets, when events or circumstances warrant such a
review. The carrying value of a long-lived asset to be held and
used is considered impaired when the anticipated separately
identifiable undiscounted cash flows from such an asset are less
than the carrying value of the asset. In such an event, a
write-down of the asset would be recorded through a charge to
operations, based on the amount by which the carrying value
exceeds the fair value of the long-lived asset. Fair value is
determined primarily using anticipated cash flows assumed by a
market participant discounted at a rate commensurate with the
risk involved. Long-lived assets to be disposed of other than by
sale are considered held and used until disposal.
Revenue
Recognition
The Company recognizes revenue on orders received from its
customers when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement
with the customer that is supportive of revenue recognition, the
customer has made a fixed commitment to purchase the product for
a fixed or determinable sales price, collection is reasonably
assured under the Companys normal billing and credit
terms, all of the Companys obligations related to product
have been fulfilled and ownership and all risks of loss have
been transferred to the buyer, which is primarily upon shipment
to the customer or, in certain cases, upon receipt by the
customer in accordance with contractual terms.
Concentrations
of Credit Risk
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of its
customers financial condition and in some instances
requires cash in advance or letters of credit prior to shipment
for domestic orders. For international orders, letters of
77
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
credit are generally required. The Company maintains allowances
for doubtful customer accounts for estimated losses resulting
from the inability of its customers to make required payments.
The allowance for doubtful accounts is developed based on
several factors including customers credit quality,
historical write-off experience, age of accounts receivable,
average default rates provided by a third party and any known
specific issues or disputes which exist as of the balance sheet
dates. If the financial condition of the Companys
customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of
their ability to make payments, additional allowances may be
required. In addition, from time to time the Company has
significant derivative assets with a limited number of
counterparties. The evaluation of these counterparties is
performed quarterly in connection with the Companys
ASC 820-10,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (formerly
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements),
valuations to determine the impact of counterparty credit risk
on the valuation of its derivative instruments.
Income
Taxes
The Company, as a partnership, is not liable for income taxes on
the earnings of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and
its wholly-owned subsidiaries Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership and Calumet Shreveport, LLC. However, Calumet Sales
Company Incorporated (Calumet Sales Company), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is a corporation and as
a result, is liable for income taxes on its earnings. Income
taxes on the earnings of the Company, with the exception of
Calumet Sales Company, are the responsibility of the partners,
with earnings of the Company included in partners earnings.
In the event that the Companys taxable income did not meet
certain qualification requirements, the Company would be taxed
as a corporation. Interest and penalties related to income
taxes, if any, would be recorded in income tax expense. The
Company had no unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31,
2010 and 2009. The Companys income taxes generally remain
subject to examination by major tax jurisdictions for a period
of three years.
Net income for financial statement purposes may differ
significantly from taxable income reportable to partners as a
result of differences between the tax bases and financial
reporting bases of assets and liabilities and the taxable income
allocation requirements under the Companys partnership
agreement. Individual partners have different investment bases
depending upon the timing and price of acquisition of their
partnership units. Furthermore, each partners tax
accounting, which is partially dependent upon the partners
tax position, differs from the accounting followed in the
consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, the aggregate
difference in the basis of net assets for financial and tax
reporting purposes cannot be readily determined because
information regarding each partners tax attributes in the
partnership is not readily available.
Excise
and Sales Taxes
The Company assesses, collects and remits excise taxes
associated with the sale of certain of its fuel products.
Furthermore, the Company collects and remits sales taxes
associated with certain sales of jet fuel. Excise taxes and
sales taxes assessed and collected from customers are recorded
on a net basis within sales in the Companys consolidated
statements of operations.
Derivatives
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, its principal raw material, as well as the sales prices of
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Given the historical volatility
of crude oil, gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices, these
fluctuations can significantly impact sales, gross profit and
net income. Therefore, the Company utilizes derivative
instruments to minimize its price risk and volatility of cash
flows associated with the purchase of crude oil and natural gas,
the sale of fuel products and interest payments. The Company
employs various hedging strategies, and does not hold or issue
derivative instruments for trading purposes. For further
information, please refer to Note 8.
78
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets consist of deferred debt issuance costs
and turnaround costs. Deferred debt issuance costs were $5,812
and $7,385 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively,
and are being amortized on a straight-line basis over the lives
of the related debt instruments. These amounts are net of
accumulated amortization of $5,246 and $3,674 at
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Turnaround costs represent capitalized costs associated with the
Companys periodic major maintenance and repairs and were
$9,803 and $9,125 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. The Company capitalizes these costs and amortizes
the cost on a straight-line basis over the life of the
turnaround assets. These amounts are net of accumulated
amortization of $11,694 and $8,035 at December 31, 2010 and
2009, respectively.
Earnings
per Unit
The Company calculates earnings per unit under
ASC 260-10,
Earnings per Share (formerly EITF Issue
No. 07-4,
Application of the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement
No. 128 to Master Limited Partnerships). The Company
treats incentive distribution rights (IDRs) as participating
securities for the purposes of computing earnings per unit in
the period that the general partner becomes contractually
obligated to pay IDRs. Also, the undistributed earnings are
allocated to the partnership interests based on the allocation
of earnings to the Companys partners capital
accounts as specified in the Companys partnership
agreement. When distributions exceed earnings, net income is
reduced by the actual distributions with the resulting net loss
being allocated to capital accounts as specified in its
partnership agreement.
Shipping
and Handling Costs
The Company complies with
ASC 605-45,
Revenue Recognition Principal Agent
Considerations (formerly
EITF 00-10,
Accounting for Shipping and Handling Fees and Costs). ASC
605-45
requires the classification of shipping and handling costs
billed to customers in sales and the classification of shipping
and handling costs incurred in cost of sales, or to be disclosed
if classified elsewhere. The Company has reflected $85,471,
$67,967 and $84,702, respectively, for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, in transportation
expense in the consolidated statements of operations, the
majority of which is billed to customers.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2008, the FASB issued pronouncements under
ASC 715-20,
Compensation-Retirement Benefits-Defined Benefit Plans
(formerly FSP
FAS 132R-1,
Employers Disclosures about Postretirement Benefit Plan
Assets).
ASC 715-20
replaces the requirement to disclose the percentage of the fair
value of total plan assets with a requirement to disclose the
fair value of each major asset category.
ASC 715-20
also requires additional disclosure regarding the level of the
plan assets within the fair value hierarchy according to
ASC 820-10,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (formerly
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements), and a
reconciliation of activity for any plan assets being measured
using unobservable inputs as defined in
ASC 715-20.
ASC 715-20
is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15,
2009. The adoption of
ASC 715-20
did not have a material impact on the Companys financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-06,
Disclosures About Fair Value Measurements (ASU
2010-06),
which amends ASC No. 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures to add new requirements for disclosures about
transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 and separate
disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements
relating to Level 3 measurements. ASU
2010-06 also
clarifies existing fair value disclosures about the level of
disaggregation and about inputs and valuation techniques used to
measure fair value. ASU
2010-06 is
effective for the first reporting period (including interim
periods) beginning after December 15, 2009. The
79
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Company has adopted ASU
2010-06
standard effective January 1, 2010; however, the
Companys adoption of ASU
2010-06 did
not have a material effect on the Companys financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-28,
When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for
Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts
(ASU
2010-28),
which amends ASC No. 830, Intangibles
Goodwill and Other to modify Step 1 of the evaluation of
goodwill impairment for reporting units with zero or negative
carrying amounts to require that Step 2 of the impairment test
be performed to measure the amount of any impairment loss when
it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exits. ASU
2010-28 is
effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those
years, beginning after December 15, 2010, with early
adoption not permitted. The Company does not expect the adoption
of ASU
2010-28 to
have a material impact on the Companys financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-29,
Disclosures of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for
Business Combinations (ASU
2010-29),
which amends ASC No. 805, Business Combinations, to
expand the requirements for supplemental pro forma disclosures
to include a description of the nature and amount of material,
nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the
business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue
and earnings. ASU
2010-29 is
effective for business combinations for which the acquisition
date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting
period beginning on or after December 15, 2010, and should
be applied prospectively. The Company will apply the provisions
of ASU
2010-29 for
all future business combinations.
|
|
3.
|
LyondellBasell
Agreements
|
Effective November 4, 2009, the Company entered into
agreements (the LyondellBasell Agreements) with
Houston Refining LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LyondellBasell
(Houston Refining), to form a long-term specialty
products affiliation. The initial term of the LyondellBasell
Agreements expires on October 31, 2014 after which it is
automatically extended for additional one-year terms until
either party terminates with 24 months notice. Under the
terms of the LyondellBasell Agreements, (i) the Company is
required to purchase at least a minimum volume of 3,100 bpd
of naphthenic lubricating oils produced at Houston
Refinings Houston, Texas refinery, and have a right of
first refusal to purchase any additional napthentic lubricating
oils produced at the refinery, and (ii) Houston Refining is
required to process a minimum of approximately 800 bpd of
white mineral oil for the Company at Houston Refinings
Houston, Texas refinery, which supplements the white mineral oil
production at the Companys Karns City and Dickinson
facilities. LyondellBasell has also granted the Company rights
to use certain registered trademarks and tradenames, including
Tufflo, Duoprime, Duotreat, Crystex, Ideal and Aquamarine.
|
|
4.
|
Sale of
Mineral Rights
|
In June 2008, the Company received $6,065 associated with the
lease of mineral rights on the real property at the Shreveport
and Princeton refineries to an unaffiliated third party which
were accounted for as a sale. The Company has retained a royalty
interest in any future production associated with these mineral
rights. As a result of these transactions, the Company recorded
a gain of $5,770 in other income (expense) in the consolidated
statements of operations. Under the term loan agreement, cash
proceeds resulting from this disposition of property, plant and
equipment were used as a mandatory prepayment of the term loan.
|
|
5.
|
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
|
The Company has recorded $48,335 of goodwill as a result of the
acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008, all of which is
recorded within the Companys specialty products segment.
80
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Other intangible assets consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Customer relationships
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
28,482
|
|
|
$
|
(10,130
|
)
|
|
$
|
28,482
|
|
|
$
|
(7,465
|
)
|
Supplier agreements
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
21,519
|
|
|
|
(18,001
|
)
|
|
|
21,519
|
|
|
|
(13,555
|
)
|
Patents
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
(788
|
)
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
(573
|
)
|
Non-competition agreements
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
|
(2,323
|
)
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
|
(1,615
|
)
|
Distributor agreements
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
(2,019
|
)
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
(1,447
|
)
|
Royalty agreements
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
4,499
|
|
|
|
(897
|
)
|
|
|
4,116
|
|
|
|
(693
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
63,824
|
|
|
$
|
(34,158
|
)
|
|
$
|
63,441
|
|
|
$
|
(25,348
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets associated with supplier agreements,
non-competition agreements, patents and distributor agreements
are being amortized to properly match expense with the estimated
future cash flows over the term of the related agreements.
Contracts with terms to allow for the potential extension of the
agreement are being amortized based on the initial term only.
Intangible assets associated with customer relationships of
Penreco are being amortized using the discounted estimated
future cash flows based upon an assumed rate of annual customer
attrition. For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008, the Company recorded amortization expense of intangible
assets of $8,810, $11,409 and $13,721, respectively. The Company
estimates that amortization of intangible assets will be $6,991,
$5,747, $3,114, $2,531 and $2,066 for the years ended
December 31, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.
|
|
6.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Operating
Leases
The Company has various operating leases for the use of land,
storage tanks, compressor stations, railcars, equipment,
precious metals, operating unit catalyst used in refining
processes and office facilities that extend through August 2015.
Renewal options are available on certain of these leases in
which the Company is the lessee. Rent expense for the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was $17,104,
$15,675 and $16,003, respectively.
As of December 31, 2010, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under leases which, at
inception, had a noncancelable term of more than one year, as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
12,572
|
|
2012
|
|
|
9,541
|
|
2013
|
|
|
6,814
|
|
2014
|
|
|
4,703
|
|
2015
|
|
|
1,941
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
768
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
36,339
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
The Company is currently purchasing all of its crude oil under
evergreen contracts or on a spot basis. As of December 31,
2010, the estimated minimum purchase requirements under our
crude oil and other feedstock contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
560,015
|
|
2012
|
|
|
157,632
|
|
2013
|
|
|
157,632
|
|
2014
|
|
|
130,835
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,006,114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In connection with the Companys acquisition of Penreco on
January 3, 2008, the Company entered into a feedstock
purchase agreement with ConocoPhillips related to the LVT unit
at its Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery (the LVT Feedstock
Agreement). Pursuant to the LVT Feedstock Agreement,
ConocoPhillips is obligated to supply a minimum quantity (the
Base Volume) of feedstock for the LVT unit for a
term of ten years. Based upon this minimum supply quantity, the
Company is obligated to purchase approximately $64,910 of
feedstock for the LVT unit in each fiscal year of the term of
the contract, expiring January 1, 2018, based on pricing
estimates as of December 31, 2010. If the Base Volume is
not supplied at any point during the first five years of the ten
year term, a penalty for each gallon of shortfall must be paid
to the Company as liquidated damages.
Labor
Matters
The Company has approximately 370 employees out of a total
of approximately 650 covered by various collective bargaining
agreements. These agreements have expiration dates of
October 31, 2011, January 31, 2012, March 31,
2013 and April 30, 2013. The Company does not expect any
work stoppages.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to certain claims and
litigation incidental to its business, including claims made by
various taxation and regulatory authorities, such as the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Internal Revenue Service and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), as the result of audits or reviews of the
Companys business. In addition, the Company has property,
business interruption, general liability and various other
insurance policies that may result in certain losses or
expenditures being reimbursed to the Company. The Company is
currently pursuing an insurance claim related to property damage
and business interruption at its Shreveport refinery related to
the failure of an environmental operating unit in the first
quarter of 2010. The outcome of this claim is uncertain at this
time. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution
of any known claims, either individually or in the aggregate,
will not have a material adverse impact on the Companys
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Environmental
The Company operates crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon
refining and terminal operations, which are subject to stringent
and complex federal, state, and local laws and regulations
governing the discharge of materials into the environment or
otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and
regulations can impair the Companys operations that affect
the environment in many ways, such as requiring the acquisition
of permits to conduct regulated activities, restricting the
manner in which the Company can release materials into the
82
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
environment, requiring remedial activities or capital
expenditures to mitigate pollution from former or current
operations, and imposing substantial liabilities for pollution
resulting from its operations. Certain environmental laws impose
joint and several, strict liability for costs required to
remediate and restore sites where petroleum hydrocarbons,
wastes, or other materials have been released or disposed.
Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may
result in the triggering of administrative, civil and criminal
measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the
imposition of remedial obligations, and the issuance of
injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of the
Companys operations. On occasion, the Company receives
notices of violation, enforcement and other complaints from
regulatory agencies alleging non-compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations. For example, the LDEQ
initiated enforcement actions in prior years for the following
alleged violations: (i) a May 2001 notification received by
the Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding several
alleged violations of various air emission regulations, as
identified in the course of the Companys Leak Detection
and Repair program, and also for failure to submit various
reports related to the facilitys air emissions;
(ii) a December 2002 notification received by the
Companys Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding
alleged violations for excess emissions, as identified in the
LDEQs file review of the Cotton Valley refinery;
(iii) a December 2004 notification received by the Cotton
Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding alleged violations for
the construction of a multi-tower pad and associated pump pads
without a permit issued by the agency; and (iv) an August
2005 notification received by the Princeton refinery from the
LDEQ regarding alleged violations of air emissions regulations,
as identified by the LDEQ following performance of a compliance
review, due to excess emissions and failures to continuously
monitor and record air emissions levels. On December 23,
2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
LDEQ that consolidated the terms of its settlement of the
aforementioned violations with the Companys agreement to
voluntarily participate in the LDEQs Small Refinery
and Single Site Refinery Initiative described below.
On December 23, 2010, we entered into a settlement
agreement with the LDEQ regarding the Companys voluntary
participation in the LDEQs Small Refinery and Single
Site Refinery Initiative. This state initiative is
patterned after the EPAs National Petroleum Refinery
Initiative, which is a coordinated, integrated compliance
and enforcement strategy to address federal Clean Air Act
compliance issues at the nations largest petroleum
refineries. The agreement requires the Company to make a $1,000
payment to the LDEQ, resulting in an additional $600 expense
recorded during the fourth quarter of 2010, and complete
beneficial environmental programs and implement emissions
reduction projects at our Shreveport, Cotton Valley and
Princeton refineries. We estimate implementation of these
requirements will result in approximately $11,000 to $15,000 of
capital expenditures and expenditures related to additional
personnel and environmental studies. This agreement also fully
settles the aforementioned alleged environmental and permit
violations at our Shreveport, Cotton Valley and Princeton
refineries and stipulates that no further civil penalties over
alleged past violations will be pursued by the LDEQ. The
required investments are expected to include i) nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide emission reductions from heaters and
boilers and New Source Performance Standards applicability of,
and compliance for, sulfur recovery plants and flaring devices,
iii) control of incidents related to acid gas flaring, tail
gas and hydrocarbon flaring, iv) electrical reliability
improvements to reduce flaring, v) flare refurbishment at
the Shreveport refinery, vi) enhance the Benzene Waste
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
programs and the Leak Detection and Repair programs at the
Companys three Louisiana refineries, and
vii) Title V audits and targeted audits of certain
regulatory compliance programs. During these negotiations with
the LDEQ, the Company voluntarily initiated projects for certain
of these requirements prior to the settlement with the LDEQ, and
currently anticipate completion of these projects over the next
five years. These capital investment requirements will be
incorporated into our annual capital expenditures budget and
management does not expect any additional capital expenditures
as a result of the required audits or required operational
changes included in the settlement to have a material adverse
effect on our financial results or operations. Management
estimates that the total additional expenditures above already
planned levels will be approximately $1,000 to $3,000. Before
the terms of this settlement agreement are
83
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
deemed final, the terms remain subject to public comment and the
concurrence of the Louisiana Attorney General until the end of
the first quarter of 2011.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of the Companys refinery sites. The remedial
projects are being overseen by the appropriate state agencies.
Based on current investigative and remedial activities, the
Company believes that the groundwater contamination at these
refineries can be controlled or remedied without having a
material adverse effect on the Companys financial
condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs will
not become material. The Company incurred approximately $541 of
capital expenditures at its Cotton Valley refinery during 2010
and estimates that it will incur another $750 of capital
expenditures at its Cotton Valley refinery during 2011 in
connection with these activities.
The Company is indemnified by Shell Oil Company, as successor to
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Atlas Processing Company, for
specified environmental liabilities arising from the operations
of the Shreveport refinery prior to the Companys
acquisition of the facility. The indemnity is unlimited in
amount and duration, but requires the Company to contribute up
to $1,000 of the first $5,000 of indemnified costs for certain
of the specified environmental liabilities.
Health,
Safety and Maintenance
The Company is subject to various laws and regulations relating
to occupational health and safety, including OSHA and comparable
state laws. These laws and the implementing regulations strictly
govern the protection of the health and safety of employees. In
addition, OSHAs hazard communication standard requires
that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or
produced in the Companys operations and that this
information be provided to employees, contractors, state and
local government authorities and customers. The Company
maintains safety, training, and maintenance programs as part of
its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with applicable laws
and regulations. The Companys compliance with applicable
health and safety laws and regulations has required, and
continues to require, substantial expenditures. The Company has
implemented an internal program of inspection designed to
monitor and enforce compliance with worker safety requirements
as well as a quality system that meets the requirements of the
ISO-9001-2008 Standard. The integrity of the Companys
ISO-9001-2008 Standard certification is maintained through
surveillance audits by its registrar at regular intervals
designed to ensure adherence to the standards.
The Company has completed studies to assess the adequacy of its
process safety management practices at its Shreveport refinery
with respect to certain consensus codes and standards. The
Company expects to incur between $5,000 and $8,000 of capital
expenditures in total during 2011, 2012 and 2013 to address OSHA
compliance issues identified in these studies. The Company
expects these capital expenditures will enhance its equipment to
maintain compliance with applicable consensus codes and
standards. The Company believes that its operations are in
substantial compliance with OSHA and similar state laws.
Beginning in February 2010, OSHA conducted an inspection of the
Shreveport refinerys process safety management program
under OSHAs National Emphasis Program which is targeting
all U.S. refineries for review. On August 19, 2010,
OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (the
Citation) to the Company as a result of this
inspection which included a proposed civil penalty amount of
$173. The Company contested the Citation and associated penalty
amount and agreed to a final penalty amount of $119 that was
paid in January 2011. The Cotton Valley refinerys process
safety management program is currently undergoing inspection
under OSHAs National Emphasis Program.
84
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Standby
Letters of Credit
The Company has agreements with various financial institutions
for standby letters of credit which have been issued to domestic
vendors. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company had
outstanding standby letters of credit of $90,725 and $46,859,
respectively, under its senior secured revolving credit
facility. The maximum amount of letters of credit the Company
can issue is limited to its borrowing capacity under its
revolving credit facility or $300,000, whichever is lower. As of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company had availability to
issue letters of credit of $145,454 and $107,285, respectively,
under its revolving credit facility. As discussed in
Note 7, as of December 31, 2010 the Company also had a
$50,000 letter of credit outstanding under its senior secured
first lien letter of credit facility for its fuels hedging
program.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured first lien term loan with
third-party lenders, interest at rate of three-month LIBOR plus
4.00% (4.29% and 4.27% at December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively), interest and principal
payments quarterly with remaining borrowings due January 2015,
effective interest rate of 5.45% and 6.00% as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively
|
|
$
|
367,385
|
|
|
$
|
371,235
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured revolving credit agreement with
third-party lenders, interest at prime plus 0.50% (3.75% at
December 31, 2010 and 2009), interest payments monthly,
borrowings due January 2013
|
|
|
10,832
|
|
|
|
39,900
|
|
Capital lease obligations, interest at 8.25%, interest and
principal payments quarterly through January 2012
|
|
|
1,781
|
|
|
|
2,938
|
|
Less unamortized discount on new senior secured first lien term
loan with third-party lenders
|
|
|
(10,723
|
)
|
|
|
(13,015
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
369,275
|
|
|
|
401,058
|
|
Less current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,844
|
|
|
|
5,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
364,431
|
|
|
$
|
396,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys $435,000 senior secured first lien term loan
facility includes a $385,000 term loan and a $50,000 prefunded
letter of credit facility to support crack spread hedging, which
bears interest at 4.0%. In the event the counterparty holding
this letter of credit has exposure to the Company in excess of
$100,000, the Company would be required to post additional
credit support with the counterparty to enter into additional
crack spread hedges. The term loan bears interest at a rate
equal to (i) with respect to a LIBOR Loan, the LIBOR Rate
plus 400 basis points (the Applicable Rate defined in the
term loan credit agreement) and (ii) with respect to a Base
Rate Loan, the Base Rate plus 300 basis points (as defined
in the term loan credit agreement).
Lenders under the term loan facility have a first priority lien
on the Companys fixed assets and a second priority lien on
its cash, accounts receivable, inventory and other personal
property. The term loan facility requires quarterly principal
payments of $963 until maturity on September 30, 2014, with
the remaining balance due at maturity on January 3, 2015.
The Companys senior secured revolving credit facility has
a maximum availability of up to $375,000, subject to borrowing
base limitations. The revolving credit facility, which is the
Companys primary source of liquidity for cash needs in
excess of cash generated from operations, currently bears
interest at a rate equal to prime plus a basis points margin or
LIBOR plus a basis points margin, at the Companys option.
As of December 31, 2010, the margin
85
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
is 50 basis points for prime and 200 basis points for
LIBOR; however, the margin fluctuates based on quarterly
measurement of the Companys Consolidated Leverage Ratio
(as defined in the credit agreement). The senior secured
revolving credit facility matures on January 3, 2013.
The borrowing capacity at December 31, 2010 under the
revolving credit facility was $247,012, with $145,454 available
for additional borrowings based on collateral and specified
availability limitations. Lenders under the revolving credit
facility have a first priority lien on the Companys cash,
accounts receivable, inventory and other personal property and a
second priority lien on the Companys fixed assets.
Compliance with the financial covenants pursuant to the
Companys credit agreements is tested quarterly based upon
performance over the most recent four fiscal quarters, and as of
December 31, 2010, the Company was in compliance with all
financial covenants under its credit agreements. Even though its
liquidity and leverage improved during 2010, the Company is
continuing to take steps to ensure that it meets the
requirements of its credit agreements and currently forecasts
that it will be in compliance at future measurement dates,
although assurances cannot be made regarding the Companys
future compliance with these covenants.
Failure to achieve the Companys anticipated results may
result in a breach of certain of the financial covenants
contained in its credit agreements. If this occurs, the Company
will enter into discussions with its lenders to either modify
the terms of the existing credit facilities or obtain waivers of
non-compliance with such covenants. There can be no assurances
of the timing of the receipt of any such modification or waiver,
the term or costs associated therewith or our ultimate ability
to obtain the relief sought. The Companys failure to
obtain a waiver of non-compliance with certain of the financial
covenants or otherwise amend the credit facilities would
constitute an event of default under its credit facilities and
would permit the lenders to pursue remedies. These remedies
could include acceleration of maturity under the credit
facilities and limitations or the elimination of the
Companys ability to make distributions to its unitholders.
If the Companys lenders accelerate maturity under its
credit facilities, a significant portion of its indebtedness may
become due and payable immediately. The Company might not have,
or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated
payments. If the Company is unable to make these accelerated
payments, its lenders could seek to foreclose on its assets.
As of December 31, 2010, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
4,844
|
|
2012
|
|
|
4,401
|
|
2013
|
|
|
14,918
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2,888
|
|
2015
|
|
|
352,947
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
379,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2007, the Company entered into a capital lease for catalyst
used in refining processes which will expire in 2012. In 2009,
the Company entered into a capital lease for catalyst which will
expire in 2013 to replace a portion of the catalyst under an
existing capital lease that was disposed. Assets recorded under
these capital lease obligations are included in property, plant
and equipment and consist of $4,201 and $4,198 as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company had recorded
$2,171 and $1,120, respectively, in accumulated amortization for
these capital lease assets.
86
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
As of December 31, 2010, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of total rentals under capital
leases as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
1,069
|
|
2012
|
|
|
571
|
|
2013
|
|
|
240
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
1,880
|
|
Less amount representing interest
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
1,781
|
|
Less obligations due within one year
|
|
|
994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term capital lease obligations
|
|
$
|
787
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company utilizes derivative instruments to minimize its
price risk and volatility of cash flows associated with the
purchase of crude oil and natural gas, the sale of fuel products
and interest payments. The Company employs various hedging
strategies, which are further discussed below. The Company does
not hold or issue derivative instruments for trading purposes.
The Company recognizes all derivative instruments at their fair
values (see Note 9) as either assets or liabilities on
the consolidated balance sheets. Fair value includes any
premiums paid or received and unrealized gains and losses. Fair
value does not include any amounts receivable from or payable to
counterparties, or collateral provided to counterparties.
Derivative asset and liability amounts with the same
counterparty are netted against each other for
87
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
financial reporting purposes. The Company recorded the following
derivative assets and liabilities at their fair values as of
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets
|
|
|
Derivative Liabilities
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
Derivative instruments designated as hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
134,587
|
|
|
$
|
134,916
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,147
|
)
|
|
|
(14,149
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(67,731
|
)
|
|
|
(53,744
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,926
|
)
|
|
|
(96,556
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil collars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,681
|
)
|
|
|
(2,752
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivative instruments designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,783
|
|
|
|
(32,214
|
)
|
|
|
(2,752
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative instruments not designated as hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,165
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel crack spread collars (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil collars (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
662
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps: (4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,282
|
)
|
|
|
(2,014
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivative instruments not designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,879
|
)
|
|
|
(600
|
)
|
|
|
(2,014
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivative instruments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
30,904
|
|
|
$
|
(32,814
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4,766
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Company entered into derivative instruments, which do not
qualify for hedge accounting, to economically lock in a gain on
a portion of the Companys gasoline and crude oil swap
contracts that are designated as hedges. |
|
(2) |
|
The Company entered into jet fuel crack spread collars, which do
not qualify for hedge accounting, to economically hedge its
exposure to changes in the jet fuel crack spread. |
|
(3) |
|
The Company enters into combinations of crude oil options and
swaps and natural gas swaps to economically hedge its exposures
to price risk related to these commodities in its specialty
products segment. The Company has not designated these
derivative instruments as hedges. |
88
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
|
|
|
(4) |
|
The Company refinanced its long-term debt in January 2008 and,
as a result, the interest rate swap that was designated as a
hedge of the interest payments under the previous debt agreement
no longer qualified for hedge accounting. To offset the effect
of this interest rate swap, the Company entered into another
interest rate swap. These two derivative instruments are netted
on this line item and the Company is settling this net position
over the term of the derivative instruments. |
To the extent a derivative instrument is determined to be
effective as a cash flow hedge of an exposure to changes in the
fair value of a future transaction, the change in fair value of
the derivative is deferred in accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss), a component of partners capital in the
consolidated balance sheets, until the underlying transaction
hedged is recognized in the consolidated statements of
operations. The Company accounts for certain derivatives hedging
purchases of crude oil and natural gas, sales of gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel and the payment of interest as cash flow
hedges. The derivatives hedging sales and purchases are recorded
to sales and cost of sales, respectively, in the consolidated
statements of operations upon recording the related hedged
transaction in sales or cost of sales. The derivatives hedging
payments of interest are recorded in interest expense in the
consolidated statements of operations upon payment of interest.
The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an
ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging
transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash
flows of hedged items.
For derivative instruments not designated as cash flow hedges
and the portion of any cash flow hedge that is determined to be
ineffective, the change in fair value of the asset or liability
for the period is recorded to unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations. Upon the settlement of a derivative not designated
as a cash flow hedge, the gain or loss at settlement is recorded
to realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company recorded the following amounts in its consolidated
balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations and its
consolidated statements of partners capital as of, and for
the years ended, December 31, 2010 and 2009 related to its
derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in
|
|
Amount of (Gain) Loss Reclassified from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in Net
|
|
|
Comprehensive Income
|
|
Income into Net Income
|
|
Income on Derivatives
|
|
|
on Derivatives (Effective
|
|
(Effective Portion)
|
|
(Ineffective Portion)
|
|
|
Portion)
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Location of
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Location of
|
|
December 31,
|
Type of Derivative
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
(Gain) Loss
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Gain (Loss)
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Fuel products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
73,661
|
|
|
$
|
231,177
|
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
$
|
(81,647
|
)
|
|
$
|
55,974
|
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
$
|
(10,077
|
)
|
|
$
|
26,202
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
(1,329
|
)
|
|
|
(141,347
|
)
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
23,973
|
|
|
|
(19,859
|
)
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
|
(4,034
|
)
|
|
|
1,125
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
(31,839
|
)
|
|
|
(89,763
|
)
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
43,685
|
|
|
|
(54,729
|
)
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
|
(2,430
|
)
|
|
|
(17,778
|
)
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
(66,693
|
)
|
|
|
(26,926
|
)
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
|
(2,936
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil collars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(101
|
)
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
307
|
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps:
|
|
|
(2,815
|
)
|
|
|
(2,411
|
)
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
2,885
|
|
|
|
3,239
|
|
|
Unrealized/Realized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(29,015
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29,371
|
)
|
|
|
|
$
|
(11,104
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15,068
|
)
|
|
|
|
$
|
(19,477
|
)
|
|
$
|
9,549
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
The Company recorded the following gains (losses) in its
consolidated statements of operations for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009 related to its derivative
instruments not designated as cash flow hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in
|
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) on Derivatives
|
|
|
in Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Derivatives
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
Type of Derivative
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Fuel products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
(9,508
|
)
|
|
$
|
12,362
|
|
|
$
|
10,907
|
|
|
$
|
(38,371
|
)
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
14,318
|
|
|
|
10,107
|
|
|
|
(14,864
|
)
|
|
|
36,763
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
(1,301
|
)
|
|
|
(6,655
|
)
|
|
|
1,301
|
|
|
|
6,655
|
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel collars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(355
|
)
|
|
|
(371
|
)
|
Specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil collars
|
|
|
(3,698
|
)
|
|
|
(9,148
|
)
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
12,194
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
(1,086
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
661
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
(515
|
)
|
|
|
(1,578
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,222
|
|
Interest rate swaps:
|
|
|
(814
|
)
|
|
|
(824
|
)
|
|
|
731
|
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(2,604
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,264
|
|
|
$
|
(1,466
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,265
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance by its counterparties on these derivative
transactions. The Company does not expect nonperformance on any
derivative instruments, however, no assurances can be provided.
The Companys credit exposure related to these derivative
instruments is represented by the fair value of contracts
reported as derivative assets. To manage credit risk, the
Company selects and periodically reviews counterparties based on
credit ratings. The Company executes all of its derivative
instruments with large financial institutions that have ratings
of at least A2 and A by Moodys and S&P, respectively.
In the event of default, the Company would potentially be
subject to losses on derivative instruments with mark to market
gains. The Company requires collateral from its counterparties
when the fair value of the derivatives exceeds agreed upon
thresholds in its contracts with these counterparties. The
Companys contracts with these counterparties allow for
netting of derivative instrument positions executed under each
contract. Collateral received from counterparties is reported in
other current liabilities, and collateral held by counterparties
is reported in deposits on the Companys consolidated
balance sheets and not netted against derivative assets or
liabilities. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had
provided its counterparties with no cash collateral or letters
of credit above the $50,000 prefunded letter of credit provided
to one counterparty to support crack spread hedging. For
financial reporting purposes, the Company does not offset the
collateral provided to a counterparty against the fair value of
its obligation to that counterparty. Any outstanding collateral
is released to the Company upon settlement of the related
derivative instrument liability.
Certain of the Companys outstanding derivative instruments
are subject to credit support agreements with the applicable
counterparties which contain provisions setting certain credit
thresholds above which the Company may be required to post
agreed-upon
collateral, such as cash or letters of credit, with the
counterparty to the extent that the Companys
mark-to-market
net liability, if any, on all outstanding derivatives exceeds
the credit threshold amount per such credit support agreement.
In certain cases, the Companys credit threshold is
dependent upon the Companys maintenance of certain
corporate credit ratings with Moodys and S&P. In the
event that the Companys corporate credit rating was
lowered below its current level by either Moodys or
S&P, such counterparties would have the right to reduce the
applicable threshold to zero and demand full collateralization
of the Companys net liability position on outstanding
derivative instruments. As of December 31, 2010, there is a
liability of $388
90
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
associated with the Companys outstanding derivative
instruments subject to such requirements. In addition, the
majority of the credit support agreements covering the
Companys outstanding derivative instruments also contain a
general provision stating that if the Company experiences a
material adverse change in its business, in the reasonable
discretion of the counterparty, the Companys credit
threshold could be lowered by such counterparty. The Company
does not expect that it will experience a material adverse
change in its business. The effective portion of the hedges
classified in accumulated other comprehensive loss is $22,765 as
of December 31, 2010 and, absent a change in the fair
market value of the underlying transactions, will be
reclassified to earnings by December 31, 2012 with balances
being recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
(5,736
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
(17,029
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(22,765
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude
Oil Swap and Collar Contracts Specialty Products
Segment
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, its principal raw material. The Company utilizes
combinations of options and swaps to manage crude oil price risk
and volatility of cash flows in its specialty products segment.
These derivatives may be designated as cash flow hedges of the
future purchase of crude oil if they meet the hedge criteria.
The Companys general policy is to enter into crude oil
derivative contracts that mitigate the Companys exposure
to price risk associated with crude oil purchases related to
specialty products production (for up to 70% of expected
purchases). As of December 31, 2010, the Company has hedged
less than 5% of its expected specialty products crude purchases
for the three months ended March 31, 2011. While the
Companys policy generally requires that these positions be
short term in nature and expire within three to nine months from
execution, the Company may execute derivative contracts for up
to two years forward, if a change in the risks supports
lengthening the Companys position. As of December 31,
2010, the Company had the following crude oil derivatives
related to crude oil purchases and forecasted changes in crude
oil inventory levels in its specialty products segment, none of
which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
February 2011
|
|
|
33,600
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
$
|
83.10
|
|
March 2011
|
|
|
37,200
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
83.55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
70,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
83.34
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, the Company had the following
crude oil derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its
specialty products segment, none of which are designated as
hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bought Put
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
Sold Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Swap/Call Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2010
|
|
|
186,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
$
|
68.32
|
|
|
$
|
80.43
|
|
|
$
|
90.43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
186,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
68.32
|
|
|
$
|
80.43
|
|
|
$
|
90.43
|
|
91
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Crude
Oil Swap Contracts Fuel Products
Segment
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, its principal raw material. The Company utilizes swap
contracts to manage crude oil price risk and volatility of cash
flows in its fuel products segment. The Companys policy is
generally to enter into crude oil swap contracts for a period no
greater than five years forward and for no more than 75% of
crude oil purchases used in fuels production. At
December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,215,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
$
|
75.32
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,729,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
76.62
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,610,000
|
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
77.38
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,334,000
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
77.71
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
5,535,000
|
|
|
|
15,123
|
|
|
|
86.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
11,423,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.41
|
|
At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,800,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
67.29
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,820,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
67.29
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,840,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
67.29
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,840,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
67.29
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
5,614,000
|
|
|
|
15,381
|
|
|
|
76.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
12,914,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
71.31
|
|
At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil sales in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2010
|
|
|
135,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
$
|
58.25
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
136,500
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
58.25
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
58.25
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
58.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
547,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
58.25
|
|
92
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Fuel
Products Swap Contracts
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the prices of
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The Company utilizes swap
contracts to manage diesel, gasoline and jet fuel price risk and
volatility of cash flows in its fuel products segment. The
Companys policy is generally to enter into diesel, jet
fuel and gasoline swap contracts for a period no longer than
five years forward and for no more than 75% of forecasted fuel
sales.
Diesel
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
89.57
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
637,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
89.57
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
552,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
91.74
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
552,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
91.74
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
1,560,000
|
|
|
|
4,262
|
|
|
|
99.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
3,931,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
94.03
|
|
At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,170,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
$
|
80.41
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,183,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.41
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.41
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.41
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
2,371,000
|
|
|
|
6,496
|
|
|
|
90.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
7,116,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
83.80
|
|
93
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Jet
Fuel Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Jet Fuel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
405,000
|
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
$
|
86.12
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
819,000
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
89.58
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
920,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
89.86
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
644,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
89.21
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
3,838,500
|
|
|
|
10,488
|
|
|
|
99.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
6,626,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
95.28
|
|
At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Jet Fuel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
2,514,000
|
|
|
|
6,888
|
|
|
$
|
88.51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
2,514,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
88.51
|
|
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
180,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
$
|
81.84
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
82.66
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
85.50
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
85.50
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
136,500
|
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
89.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
865,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
84.40
|
|
At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
94
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2010
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
75.28
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
637,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
75.28
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
644,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
75.28
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
644,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
75.28
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
729,000
|
|
|
|
1,997
|
|
|
|
83.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
3,284,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
77.11
|
|
At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline purchases in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2010
|
|
|
135,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
$
|
58.42
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
136,500
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
58.42
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
58.42
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
58.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
547,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
58.42
|
|
Jet
Fuel Put Spread Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following jet
fuel put options related to jet fuel crack spreads in its fuel
products segment, none of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold Put
|
|
|
Bought Put
|
|
Jet Fuel Put Option Crack Spread Contracts by Expiration
Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
6.00
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
184,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
4.75
|
|
|
|
7.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
814,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.17
|
|
|
$
|
6.23
|
|
At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following jet
fuel put options related to jet fuel crack spreads in its fuel
products segment, none of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold Put
|
|
|
Bought Put
|
|
Jet Fuel Put Option Crack Spread Contracts by Expiration
Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
6.00
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
184,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
4.75
|
|
|
|
7.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
814,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.17
|
|
|
$
|
6.23
|
|
95
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Natural
Gas Swap Contracts
Natural gas purchases comprise a significant component of the
Companys cost of sales, therefore, changes in the price of
natural gas also significantly affect its profitability and cash
flows. The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage natural gas
price risk and volatility of cash flows. The Companys
policy is generally to enter into natural gas derivative
contracts to hedge approximately 50% or more of its upcoming
fall and winter months anticipated natural gas requirement
for a period no greater than three years forward. At
December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company did not have any
derivatives outstanding related to natural gas purchases.
Interest
Rate Swap Contracts
The Companys profitability and cash flows are affected by
changes in interest rates, specifically LIBOR and prime rates.
The primary purpose of the Companys interest rate risk
management activities is to hedge its exposure to changes in
interest rates. The Companys policy is generally to enter
into interest rate swap agreements to hedge up to 75% of its
interest rate risk under its term loan agreement.
During 2010, the Company entered into forward swap contracts to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its current
variable rate senior secured first lien term loan. The Company
hedged the future interest payments related to $100,000 of the
total outstanding term loan indebtedness for the period from
February 15, 2011 to February 15, 2012 pursuant to
these forward swap contracts. These swap contracts are
designated as cash flow hedges of the future payments of
interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at an average rate during
the hedge period of 2.03%.
In 2009, the Company hedged the future interest payments related
to $200,000 of the total outstanding term loan indebtedness for
the period from February 15, 2010 to February 15,
2011. This swap contract is designated as a cash flow hedge of
the future payment of interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at
an average rate during the hedge period of 0.94%.
In 2008, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its current
variable rate senior secured first lien term loan which closed
January 3, 2008. The Company hedged the future interest
payments related to $150,000 and $50,000 of the total
outstanding term loan indebtedness in 2009 and 2010,
respectively, pursuant to this forward swap contract. This swap
contract is designated as a cash flow hedge of the future
payment of interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at 3.09% and
3.66% per annum in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
In 2006, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its then
existing variable rate senior secured first lien term loan. Due
to the repayment of $19,000 of the outstanding balance of the
Companys then existing term loan facility in August 2007
and subsequent refinancing of the remaining term loan balance,
this swap contract was not designated as a cash flow hedge of
the future payment of interest. The entire change in the fair
value of this interest rate swap is recorded to unrealized gain
(loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements
of operations. In the first quarter of 2008, the Company fixed
its unrealized loss on this interest rate swap derivative
instrument by entering into an offsetting interest rate swap
expiring December 2012 which is not designated as a cash flow
hedge.
|
|
9.
|
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
|
The Companys financial instruments which require fair
value disclosure consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents,
accounts receivable, financial derivatives, accounts payable and
indebtedness. The carrying values of cash and cash equivalents,
accounts receivable and accounts payable are considered to be
representative of their respective fair values, due to the short
maturity of these instruments. Derivative instruments are
reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
at fair value. The fair value of the Companys term loan
was $355,445 and $328,543 at December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively. The carrying values of
96
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
borrowings under the Companys senior secured revolving
credit facility were $10,832 and $39,900 at December 31,
2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, and approximate
their fair values. In addition, based upon fees charged for
similar agreements, the face values of outstanding standby
letters of credit approximated their fair values at
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009.
|
|
10.
|
Fair
Value Measurements
|
The Company uses a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which
prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value. These tiers
include: Level 1, defined as observable inputs such as
quoted prices in active markets; Level 2, defined as inputs
other than quoted prices in active markets that are either
directly or indirectly observable; and Level 3, defined as
unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exists,
therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions. In
determining fair value, the Company uses various valuation
techniques and prioritizes the use of observable inputs. The
availability of observable inputs varies from instrument to
instrument and depends on a variety of factors including the
type of instrument, whether the instrument is actively traded,
and other characteristics particular to the instrument. For many
financial instruments, pricing inputs are readily observable in
the market, the valuation methodology used is widely accepted by
market participants, and the valuation does not require
significant management judgment. For other financial
instruments, pricing inputs are less observable in the
marketplace and may require management judgment.
As of December 31, 2010, the Company held certain assets
and liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value
on a recurring basis. These included the Companys
derivative instruments related to crude oil, gasoline, diesel,
jet fuel and interest rates, and investments associated with the
Companys non-contributory defined benefit plan
(Pension Plan).
The Companys derivative instruments consist of
over-the-counter
(OTC) contracts, which are not traded on a public
exchange. Substantially all of the Companys derivative
instruments are with counterparties that have long-term credit
ratings of at least A2 and A by Moodys and S&P,
respectively. To estimate the fair values of the Companys
derivative instruments, the entity uses the market approach.
Under this approach, the fair values of the Companys
derivative instruments for crude oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel
and interest rates are determined primarily based on inputs that
are readily available in public markets or can be derived from
information available in publicly quoted markets. Generally, the
Company obtains this data through surveying its counterparties
and performing various analytical tests to validate the data.
The Company determines the fair value of its crude oil option
contracts utilizing a standard option pricing model based on
inputs that can be derived from information available in
publicly quoted markets, or are quoted by counterparties to
these contracts. In situations where the Company obtains inputs
via quotes from its counterparties, it verifies the
reasonableness of these quotes via similar quotes from another
counterparty as of each date for which financial statements are
prepared. The Company also includes an adjustment for
non-performance risk in the recognized measure of fair value of
all of the Companys derivative instruments. The adjustment
reflects the full credit default spread (CDS)
applied to a net exposure by counterparty. When the Company is
in a net asset position, it uses its counterpartys CDS, or
a peer groups estimated CDS when a CDS for the
counterparty is not available. The Company uses its own peer
groups estimated CDS when it is in a net liability
position. As a result of applying the applicable CDS, at
December 31, 2010, the Companys liability was reduced
by approximately $687. Based on the use of various unobservable
inputs, principally non-performance risk and unobservable inputs
in forward years for gasoline, jet fuel and diesel, the Company
has categorized these derivative instruments as Level 3.
The Company has consistently applied these valuation techniques
in all periods presented and believes it has obtained the most
accurate information available for the types of derivative
instruments it holds.
The Companys investments associated with its Pension Plan
consist of mutual funds that are publicly traded and for which
market prices are readily available, thus these investments are
categorized as Level 1.
97
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
The Companys assets and liabilities measured at fair value
at December 31, 2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,578
|
|
|
|
135,578
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
16,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
16,076
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
135,598
|
|
|
$
|
151,674
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,149
|
)
|
|
|
(14,149
|
)
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53,744
|
)
|
|
|
(53,744
|
)
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96,556
|
)
|
|
|
(96,556
|
)
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,963
|
)
|
|
|
(3,963
|
)
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(168,412
|
)
|
|
$
|
(168,412
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
The Companys assets and liabilities measured at fair value
at December 31, 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147,649
|
|
|
|
147,649
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
13,730
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,730
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
13,779
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
148,024
|
|
|
$
|
161,803
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,312
|
)
|
|
|
(22,312
|
)
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(67,731
|
)
|
|
|
(67,731
|
)
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,926
|
)
|
|
|
(26,926
|
)
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151
|
)
|
|
|
(151
|
)
|
Jet fuel options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,766
|
)
|
|
|
(4,766
|
)
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(121,886
|
)
|
|
$
|
(121,886
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table below sets forth a summary of net changes in fair
value of the Companys Level 3 financial assets and
liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Instruments, Net
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Fair value at January 1, 2010
|
|
$
|
26,138
|
|
|
$
|
55,372
|
|
Realized losses (gains)
|
|
|
7,704
|
|
|
|
(8,342
|
)
|
Unrealized (losses) gains
|
|
|
(15,843
|
)
|
|
|
23,736
|
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
(29,015
|
)
|
|
|
(29,371
|
)
|
Purchases, issuances and settlements
|
|
|
(21,798
|
)
|
|
|
(15,257
|
)
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
(32,814
|
)
|
|
$
|
26,138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (losses) gains included in net income attributable to
changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to financial
assets and liabilities held as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
(15,843
|
)
|
|
$
|
23,736
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All settlements from derivative instruments that are deemed
effective and were designated as cash flow hedges
are included in sales for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel
derivatives, cost of sales for crude oil and natural gas
99
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
derivatives, and interest expense for interest rate derivatives
in the consolidated financial statements of operations in the
period that the hedged cash flow occurs. Any
ineffectiveness associated with these derivative
instruments are recorded in earnings immediately in unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations. All settlements from derivative
instruments not designated as cash flow hedges are recorded in
realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations. See Note 8 for
further information on derivative instruments.
On December 14, 2009, the Company completed a public equity
offering of its common units in which it sold 3,000,000 common
units to the underwriters of the offering at a price to the
public of $18.00 per common unit. This issuance was made
pursuant to the Companys Registration Statement on
Form S-3
(File
No. 333-145657)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2007. In addition, on January 7, 2010 we
sold an additional 47,778 common units to the underwriters at a
price to the public of $18.00 per common unit pursuant to the
underwriters over-allotment option. The proceeds received
by the Company (net of underwriting discounts, commissions and
expenses but before its general partners capital
contribution) from this offering were $51,225 and used to repay
borrowings under its revolving credit facility. Underwriting
discounts totaled $2,295. The Companys general partner
contributed $1,102 to retain its 2% general partner interest.
Of the 22,213,778 common units outstanding at December 31,
2010, 16,019,463 common units were held by the public, with the
remaining 6,194,315 common units held by the Companys
affiliates. At the time of conversion, all of the 13,066,000
subordinated units were held by affiliates of the Company. Upon
expiration of the subordination period on February 16,
2011, each outstanding subordinated unit automatically converted
into one common unit and participates pro rata with the other
common units in distributions of available cash as defined in
the Companys partnership agreement.
Significant information regarding rights of the limited partners
includes the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Rights to receive distributions of available cash within
45 days after the end of each quarter, to the extent the
Company has sufficient cash from operations after the
establishment of cash reserves.
|
|
|
|
Limited partners have limited voting rights on matters affecting
the Companys business. The general partner may consider
only the interests and factors that it desires, and has no duty
or obligation to give any consideration of any interests of, the
Companys limited partners. Limited partners have no right
to elect the board of directors of the Companys general
partner.
|
|
|
|
The vote of the holders of at least
662/3%
of all outstanding units voting together as a single class is
required to remove the general partner. Any holder, other than
the general partner or the general partners affiliates,
that owns 20% or more of any class of units outstanding, cannot
vote on any matter.
|
|
|
|
The Company may issue an unlimited number of limited partner
interests without the approval of the limited partners.
|
|
|
|
Limited partners may be required to sell their units to the
general partner if at any time the general partner owns more
than 80% of the issued and outstanding common units.
|
100
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
The Companys general partner is entitled to incentive
distributions if the amount it distribute to unitholders with
respect to any quarter exceeds specified target levels shown
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage
|
|
|
Total Quarterly
|
|
Interest in
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
Distributions
|
|
|
Target Amount
|
|
Unitholders
|
|
General Partner
|
|
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
|
|
$0.45
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
First Target Distribution
|
|
up to $0.495
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Second Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.495 up to $0.563
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Third Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.563 up to $0.675
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Thereafter
|
|
above $0.675
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
The Companys ability to make distributions is limited by
its credit agreements. The credit agreements permit the Company
to make distributions to its unitholders as long as it is not in
default and would not be in default following the distribution.
Under the credit facilities, the Company is obligated to comply
with certain financial covenants requiring it to maintain a
Consolidated Leverage Ratio of no more than 3.75 to 1 and a
Consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio of no less than 2.75 to 1
(as of the end of each fiscal quarter and after giving effect to
a proposed distribution or other restricted payments as defined
in the credit agreement) and available liquidity of at least
$35.0 million (after giving effect to a proposed
distribution or other restricted payments as defined in the
credit agreements).
The Companys distribution policy is as defined in its
partnership agreement. For the years ended December 31,
2010, 2009 and 2008, the Company made distributions of $65,739,
$59,258 and $66,140, respectively, to its partners.
|
|
12.
|
Unit-Based
Compensation
|
The Companys general partner originally adopted a
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the Plan) on
January 24, 2006, which was amended and restated effective
January 22, 2009, for its employees, consultants and
directors and its affiliates who perform services for the
Company. The Plan provides for the grant of restricted units,
phantom units, unit options and substitute awards and, with
respect to unit options and phantom units, the grant of
distribution equivalent rights (DERs). Subject to
adjustment for certain events, an aggregate of 783,960 common
units may be delivered pursuant to awards under the Plan. Units
withheld to satisfy the Companys general partners
tax withholding obligations are available for delivery pursuant
to other awards. The Plan is administered by the compensation
committee of the Companys general partners board of
directors.
Non-employee directors of our general partner have been granted
phantom units under the terms of the Plan as part of their
director compensation package related to fiscal years 2008, 2009
and 2010. These phantom units have a four year service period
with one-quarter of the phantom units vesting annually on each
December 31 of the vesting period. Although ownership of common
units related to the vesting of such phantom units does not
transfer to the recipients until the phantom units vest, the
recipients have DERs on these phantom units from the date of
grant.
For the year ended December 31, 2010, named executive
officers and certain employees were awarded phantom units under
the terms of the Plan, as part of the Companys achievement
of specified levels of financial performance in fiscal year
2010. These phantom units are subject to time-vesting
requirements whereby 25% of the units vest in the first quarter
of 2011, and the remainder will vest ratably over the next three
years on each December 31. Although ownership of common
units related to the vesting of such phantom units does not
transfer to the recipients until the phantom units vest, the
recipients will have DERs beginning in the first quarter of 2011.
101
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
On January 22, 2009, the board of directors of the
Companys general partner approved discretionary
contributions to participant accounts for certain directors and
employees in the form of phantom units under the Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan. The phantom unit awards vest in one-quarter
increments over a four year service period, subject to early
vesting on a change in control, upon termination without cause,
or due to death, disability or normal retirement. These phantom
units also carry DERs from the date of grant.
The Company uses the market price of its common units on the
grant date to calculate the fair value and related compensation
cost of the phantom units. The Company amortizes this
compensation cost to partners capital and selling, general
and administrative expense in the consolidated statements of
operations using the straight-line method over the four year
vesting period, as it expects these units to fully vest.
A summary of the Companys nonvested phantom units as of
December 31, 2010, and the changes during the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
Phantom
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested at January 1, 2008
|
|
|
8,508
|
|
|
$
|
35.56
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
30,192
|
|
|
|
7.79
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(10,992
|
)
|
|
|
16.38
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
27,708
|
|
|
$
|
12.91
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
47,121
|
|
|
|
13.29
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(17,336
|
)
|
|
|
15.56
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
57,493
|
|
|
$
|
12.42
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
138,490
|
|
|
|
20.11
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(90,491
|
)
|
|
|
18.05
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
105,492
|
|
|
$
|
17.68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
compensation expense of $784, $367 and $179, respectively, was
recognized in the consolidated statements of operations related
to vested phantom unit grants. As of December 31, 2010 and
2009, there was a total of $1,865 and $714, respectively of
unrecognized compensation costs related to nonvested phantom
unit grants. These costs are expected to be recognized over a
weighted-average period of three years. The total fair value of
phantom units vested during the years ended December 31,
2010 and 2009, was $1,927 and $318, respectively.
|
|
13.
|
Employee
Benefit Plans
|
The Company has a defined contribution plan administered by its
general partner. All full-time employees who have completed at
least one hour of service are eligible to participate in the
plan. Participants are allowed to contribute 0% to 100% of their
pre-tax earnings to the plan, subject to government imposed
limitations. The Company matches 100% of each 1% contribution by
the participant up to 4% and 50% of each additional 1%
contribution up to 6% for a maximum contribution by the Company
of 5% per participant. The Companys matching contribution
was $1,948, $2,040, and $1,782 for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The plan
also includes a profit-sharing component. Contributions under
the profit-sharing component
102
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
are determined by the board of directors of the Companys
general partner and are discretionary. The Companys profit
sharing contribution was $1,331, $1,308, and $1,123 for the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
The Company has a noncontributory defined benefit plan
(Pension Plan) for both those salaried employees as
well as those employees represented by either the United
Steelworkers (USW) or the International Union of
Operating Engineers (IUOE) who were formerly
employees of Penreco and who became employees of the Company as
a result of the acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008.
The Company also has a contributory defined benefit
postretirement medical plan for both those salaried employees as
well as those employees represented by either the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), USW or IUOE who were
formerly employees of Penreco and who became employees of the
Company as a result of the acquisition of Penreco on
January 3, 2008, as well as a non-contributory disability
plan for those salaried employees who were formerly employees of
Penreco (collectively, Other Plans). The pension
benefits are based primarily on years of service for USW and
IUOE represented employees and both years of service and the
employees final 60 months average compensation
for salaried employees. The funding policy is consistent with
funding requirements of applicable laws and regulations. The
assets of these plans consist of corporate equity securities,
municipal and government bonds, and cash equivalents. In 2009,
the Company amended the Pension Plan. The amendments removed
employees from accumulating additional benefits subsequent to
December 31, 2009. All information presented below has been
adjusted for this curtailment.
The components of net periodic pension and other post retirement
benefits cost for the years ended December 31, 2010 and
2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
84
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
250
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,336
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
1,327
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Expected return on assets
|
|
|
(1,034
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(748
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net (gain) loss
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
381
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtailment loss recognized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension cost
|
|
$
|
660
|
|
|
$
|
(15
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,212
|
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company made
contributions to its Pension Plan and Other Plans of $1,055 and
expects to make contributions in 2011 of approximately $1,763.
103
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
The benefit obligations, plan assets, funded status, and amounts
recognized in the consolidated balance sheets were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Change in projected benefit obligation (PBO):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
22,382
|
|
|
$
|
781
|
|
|
$
|
20,896
|
|
|
$
|
839
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,336
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
1,327
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(861
|
)
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
|
|
(807
|
)
|
|
|
(104
|
)
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
1,917
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
798
|
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(84
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(345
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
$
|
24,761
|
|
|
$
|
446
|
|
|
$
|
22,382
|
|
|
$
|
781
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
13,730
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,018
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Benefit payments
|
|
|
(861
|
)
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
|
|
(807
|
)
|
|
|
(104
|
)
|
Actual return on assets
|
|
|
2,256
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(84
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
Employer contribution
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at end of year
|
|
$
|
16,039
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,730
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status benefit obligation in excess of plan
assets
|
|
$
|
(8,722
|
)
|
|
$
|
(446
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,652
|
)
|
|
$
|
(781
|
)
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized net actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
|
5,236
|
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
4,814
|
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at end of year
|
|
$
|
(3,486
|
)
|
|
$
|
(830
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,836
|
)
|
|
$
|
(889
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets consisted
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
(8,722
|
)
|
|
$
|
(446
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,652
|
)
|
|
$
|
(781
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss
|
|
|
5,236
|
|
|
|
(384
|
)
|
|
|
4,816
|
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at end of year
|
|
$
|
(3,486
|
)
|
|
$
|
(830
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,836
|
)
|
|
$
|
(889
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accumulated benefit obligation for the Pension Plan was
$24,761 and $22,382 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. The accumulated benefit obligation is equal to the
projected benefit obligation due to the curtailment that
occurred in 2008. The accumulated benefit obligation for the
Pension Plan was less than plan assets
104
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
by $8,722 and $8,652 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had no
transition gains (losses) but recorded a prior service credit of
$311 and actuarial (gains) losses of $455 in accumulated other
comprehensive loss in the consolidated balance sheets.
The portion relating to the Pension Plan and Other Plans
classified in accumulated other comprehensive loss is $4,852 as
of December 31, 2010 and the portion classified in
accumulated other comprehensive loss is $4,708 as of
December 31, 2009. In 2011, the Company will recognize
$(277) and $37, respectively, of (gains) losses from accumulated
other comprehensive loss for the Companys Pension Plan and
Other Plans.
The significant weighted average assumptions used for the years
ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
Retirement
|
|
Pension
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
Benefits
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
Discount rate for benefit obligations
|
|
|
5.50
|
%
|
|
|
4.54
|
%
|
|
|
6.04
|
%
|
|
|
5.55
|
%
|
Discount rate for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
6.04
|
%
|
|
|
5.55
|
%
|
|
|
6.18
|
%
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
7.50
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
7.50
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase for benefit obligations
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
For measurement purposes, a 8.2% annual rate of increase in the
per capita cost of covered health care benefits was assumed for
2011. The rate was assumed to decrease by 0.20% per year for an
ultimate rate of 4.5% for 2029 and remain at that level
thereafter. An increase or decrease by one percentage point in
the assumed healthcare cost trend rates would not have a
material effect on the benefit obligation and service and
interest cost components of benefit costs for the Other Plans as
of December 31, 2010. The Company considered the historical
returns and the future expectation for returns for each asset
class, as well as the target asset allocation of the Pension
Plan portfolio, to develop the expected long-term rate of return
on plan assets.
The Companys Pension Plan asset allocations, as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009 by asset category, are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Equity
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
66
|
%
|
Foreign equities
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
37
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Capital Preservation Portfolio
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
Policy
Our Pension Plan investment policy is set with specific
consideration of return and risk requirements in relationship to
the respective liabilities. Given the long term nature of our
liabilities, the Pension Plan has the flexibility to manage a
moderate level of risk. At the investment policy level, there
are no specifically prohibited
105
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
investments. However, within individual investment manager
mandates, restrictions and limitations are contractually set to
align with our investment objectives, ensure risk control, and
limit concentrations.
We manage our portfolio to minimize any concentration of risk by
allocating funds within asset categories. In addition, within a
category we use different managers with various management
objectives to eliminate any significant concentration of risk.
Management believes there are no significant concentrations of
risks associated with the investment assets.
The Pension Plans asset allocation strategy is currently
comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Range of
|
|
|
Asset Class
|
|
Asset Allocations
|
|
Target Allocation
|
|
Equities
|
|
|
25 35
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
45 55
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Capital Preservation Portfolio
|
|
|
15 25
|
%
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
During 2010, we began the process to better align our
investments with our liability as a result of the Pension
Plans curtailed status. We will complete this reallocation
in 2011 as our investment consultant completes their evaluations
and recommendations. Prior to 2010, our allocation strategy was
comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
Range of
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Class
|
|
Asset Allocations
|
|
|
Target Allocation
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
0 5
|
%
|
|
|
Minimal
|
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
20 50
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
Equities
|
|
|
50 80
|
%
|
|
|
65
|
%
|
Trust assets will be invested in accordance with prudent expert
standards as mandated by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA). In the event market environments create
asset exposures outside of the policy guidelines, reallocations
will be made in an orderly manner to rebalance the investments
and maximize the effectiveness of the Pension Plan asset
allocation strategy. The Companys investment consultant
will assist in the continual assessment of assets and the
potential reallocation of certain investments and will evaluate
the selection of investment managers for the Pension Plan based
on such factors as organizational stability, depth of resources,
experience, investment strategy and process, performance
expectations and fees.
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid in the years
indicated as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Other Post Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
912
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
2012
|
|
|
961
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,018
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,090
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
2015
|
|
|
1,190
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
2016 to 2020
|
|
|
7,281
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
12,452
|
|
|
$
|
432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company participated in two multi-employer plans as a result
of the acquisition of Penreco. The Company elected to withdraw
from these plans in 2009 and made a final contribution of
approximately $183 to the Penreco
106
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
Local 710 Health, Welfare and Pension Funds plan and has agreed
to the final settlement of approximately $1,863 for the Western
Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund to be paid
over 30 years.
The Companys investments associated with its Pension Plan
consist of investments that are publicly traded and for which
market prices are readily available, thus these investments are
categorized as Level 1. The Companys Pension Plan
assets measured at fair value at December 31, 2010 and 2009
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets
|
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
$
|
347
|
|
|
$
|
326
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
7,784
|
|
|
|
8,326
|
|
Foreign equities
|
|
|
1,890
|
|
|
|
2,736
|
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
6,018
|
|
|
|
2,342
|
|
Capital Preservation Portfolio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
16,039
|
|
|
$
|
13,730
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
the Company had sales to related parties owned by a limited
partner of $4,727, $3,208 and $7,973, respectively. Trade
accounts and other receivables from related parties at
December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $422 and $248,
respectively. The Company also had purchases from related
parties owned by a limited partner, excluding crude purchases
related to the Legacy Resources Co., L.P. (Legacy
Resources) agreements and directors and
officers liability insurance premiums discussed below,
during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 of
$1,480, $1,718 and $615, respectively. Accounts payable to
related parties, excluding accounts payable related to the
Legacy Resources agreements discussed below, at
December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $1,246 and $1,015,
respectively.
In May 2008, the Company began purchasing all of its crude oil
requirements for its Princeton refinery on a just in time basis
utilizing a market-based pricing mechanism from Legacy
Resources. In addition, in January 2009, the Company entered
into an agreement with Legacy Resources to begin purchasing
certain of its crude oil requirements for its Shreveport
refinery utilizing a market-based pricing mechanism from Legacy.
In September 2009, the Company entered into a Crude Oil Supply
Agreement with Legacy Resources (the Legacy Shreveport
Agreement). Under the Legacy Shreveport Agreement, Legacy
Resources supplies the Companys Shreveport refinery with a
portion of its crude oil requirements on a just in time basis
utilizing a market-based pricing mechanism. Legacy Resources is
owned in part by one of the Companys limited partners, an
affiliate of the Companys general partner, the
Companys chief executive officer and vice chairman of the
board of our general partner, F. William Grube, and Jennifer G.
Straumins, the Companys president and chief operating
officer. The volume of crude oil purchased under the Legacy
Shreveport Agreement fluctuates based on the volume of crude oil
needed by the Shreveport refinery and can be up to
20,000 barrels per day. During the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009 and 2008, the Company had crude
oil purchases of $591,777, $390,231 and $140,180, respectively,
from Legacy Resources. Accounts payable to Legacy Resources at
December 31, 2010 and 2009 related to these agreements were
$26,739 and $16,851, respectively.
Nicholas J. Rutigliano, a member of the board of directors of
our general partner, founded and is the president of Tobias
Insurance Group, Inc. (Tobias), a commercial
insurance brokerage business, that has historically placed
107
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
a portion of our insurance underwriting requirements, including
our directors and officers liability insurance. The
total premiums paid to Tobias by the Company for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 were $638, $672 and $634,
respectively. With the exception of its directors and
officers liability insurance which were placed with this
commercial insurance brokerage company, the Company placed its
insurance requirements with third parties during the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
15.
|
Segments
and Related Information
|
The Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Products and
Fuel Products. The Specialty Products segment, which includes
Penreco from its date of acquisition, produces a variety of
lubricating oils, solvents and waxes. These products are sold to
customers who purchase these products primarily as raw material
components for basic automotive, industrial and consumer goods.
The Fuel Products segment produces a variety of fuel and
fuel-related products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
Because of the similar economic characteristics, certain
operations have been aggregated for segment reporting purposes.
The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those
described in the summary of significant accounting policies
except that the Company evaluates segment performance based on
income from operations. The Company accounts for intersegment
sales and transfers at cost plus a specified
mark-up.
Reportable segment information is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
1,408,872
|
|
|
$
|
781,880
|
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
775,366
|
|
|
|
39,410
|
|
|
|
814,776
|
|
|
|
(814,776
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
2,184,238
|
|
|
$
|
821,290
|
|
|
$
|
3,005,528
|
|
|
$
|
(814,776
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
74,157
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74,157
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74,157
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
73,194
|
|
|
|
(1,704
|
)
|
|
|
71,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,490
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,497
|
)
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,547
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(147
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(598
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,701
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
35,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
35,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
35,001
|
|
108
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
971,220
|
|
|
$
|
875,380
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
724,062
|
|
|
|
25,023
|
|
|
|
749,085
|
|
|
|
(749,085
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,695,282
|
|
|
$
|
900,403
|
|
|
$
|
2,595,685
|
|
|
$
|
(749,085
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
72,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,663
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
48,161
|
|
|
|
19,199
|
|
|
|
67,360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,360
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33,573
|
)
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,078
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,929
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,785
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
23,521
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23,521
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23,521
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
1,578,035
|
|
|
$
|
910,959
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
1,113,342
|
|
|
|
27,925
|
|
|
|
1,141,267
|
|
|
|
(1,141,267
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
2,691,377
|
|
|
$
|
938,884
|
|
|
$
|
3,630,261
|
|
|
$
|
(1,141,267
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
61,729
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,729
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,729
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
72,709
|
|
|
|
56,031
|
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33,938
|
)
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(898
|
)
|
Loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55,379
|
)
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,770
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
399
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(257
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
167,702
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
167,702
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
167,702
|
|
109
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Segment assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
3,617,937
|
|
|
$
|
3,072,815
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
|
2,908,760
|
|
|
|
2,371,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined segments
|
|
|
6,526,697
|
|
|
|
5,444,565
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
(5,510,025
|
)
|
|
|
(4,412,709
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,016,672
|
|
|
$
|
1,031,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.
|
Geographic
Information
|
International sales accounted for less than 10% of consolidated
sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008. All of the Companys long-lived assets are
domestically located.
The Company offers products primarily in five general categories
consisting of lubricating oils, solvents, waxes, fuels and
asphalt and by-products. Fuel products primarily consist of
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The following table sets forth
the major product category sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
759,701
|
|
|
$
|
500,938
|
|
|
$
|
841,225
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
396,894
|
|
|
|
260,185
|
|
|
|
419,831
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
124,964
|
|
|
|
97,658
|
|
|
|
142,525
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
5,507
|
|
|
|
8,951
|
|
|
|
30,389
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
121,806
|
|
|
|
103,488
|
|
|
|
144,065
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,408,872
|
|
|
|
971,220
|
|
|
|
1,578,035
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
304,544
|
|
|
|
317,435
|
|
|
|
332,669
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
330,756
|
|
|
|
372,359
|
|
|
|
379,739
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
135,796
|
|
|
|
167,638
|
|
|
|
186,675
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
10,784
|
|
|
|
17,948
|
|
|
|
11,876
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
781,880
|
|
|
|
875,380
|
|
|
|
910,959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had
one customer, Murphy Oil U.S.A., which represented approximately
10.5% of consolidated sales. No other customer represented 10%
or greater of consolidated sales in each of the three years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.
110
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(dollars
in thousands)
|
|
16.
|
Quarterly
Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
Second
|
|
Third
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Total(1)
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
484,616
|
|
|
$
|
514,652
|
|
|
$
|
595,273
|
|
|
$
|
596,210
|
|
|
$
|
2,190,752
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
31,675
|
|
|
|
49,619
|
|
|
|
62,106
|
|
|
|
55,348
|
|
|
|
198,749
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(13,067
|
)
|
|
|
(907
|
)
|
|
|
21,221
|
|
|
|
9,454
|
|
|
|
16,701
|
|
Common and subordinated unitholders basic and diluted net
income (loss) per unit
|
|
$
|
(0.36
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
|
$
|
0.26
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
Weighted average limited partner units outstanding
basic
|
|
|
35,351,000
|
|
|
|
35,359,000
|
|
|
|
35,337,000
|
|
|
|
35,341,939
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner units outstanding
diluted
|
|
|
35,351,000
|
|
|
|
35,359,000
|
|
|
|
35,352,000
|
|
|
|
35,361,456
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
Second
|
|
Third
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Quarter
|
|
Total(1)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
414,264
|
|
|
$
|
444,039
|
|
|
$
|
492,431
|
|
|
$
|
495,865
|
|
|
$
|
1,846,600
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
78,971
|
|
|
|
18,368
|
|
|
|
41,156
|
|
|
|
34,608
|
|
|
|
173,102
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
75,638
|
|
|
|
(25,987
|
)
|
|
|
3,967
|
|
|
|
8,167
|
|
|
|
61,785
|
|
Common and subordinated unitholders basic and diluted net
income (loss) per unit
|
|
$
|
2.30
|
|
|
$
|
(0.79
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.24
|
|
|
$
|
1.87
|
|
Weighted average limited partner units outstanding
basic
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
32,786,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner units outstanding
diluted
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
32,232,000
|
|
|
|
32,786,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The sum of the four quarters may not equal the total year due to
rounding. |
On January 14, 2011, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.47 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$16,937, for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. The
distribution was paid on February 14, 2011 to unitholders
of record as of the close of business on February 4, 2011.
This quarterly distribution of $0.47 per unit equates to $1.88
per unit, or $67,748 on an annualized basis.
The fair value of the Companys derivatives decreased by
approximately $100,000 subsequent to December 31, 2010 to a
liability of approximately $130,000. The fair value of the
Companys long-term debt, excluding capital leases, has
increased by approximately $10,000 subsequent to
December 31, 2010.
In February 2011, the Company satisfied the last of the earnings
and distributions tests contained in our partnership agreement
for the automatic conversion of all 13,066,000 outstanding
subordinated units into common units on a
one-for-one
basis. The last of these requirements was met upon payment of
the quarterly distribution paid on February 14, 2011. Two
days following this quarterly distribution to unitholders, or
February 16, 2011, all of the outstanding subordinated
units automatically converted to common units.
111
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Members of
Calumet GP, LLC
We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Calumet GP,
LLC as of December 31, 2010. This balance sheet is the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on this balance sheet
based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the balance sheet is free of material
misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the
Calumet GP, LLCs internal control over financial
reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control
over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the Calumet GP, LLCs internal control over financial
reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit
also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the balance sheet, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and evaluating the overall balance sheet
presentation. We believe that our audit of the balance sheet
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the balance sheet referred to above presents
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Calumet GP, LLC at December 31, 2010, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 18, 2011
112
CALUMET
GP, LLC
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $633
|
|
|
157,401
|
|
Other
|
|
|
776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157,921
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
147,110
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
1,909
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
2,094
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
309,327
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
612,433
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
48,335
|
|
Other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
29,666
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
17,127
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,016,888
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
146,730
|
|
Accounts payable related party
|
|
|
27,985
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
7,559
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
7,174
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
16,605
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,844
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
32,814
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
243,711
|
|
Pension and post-retirement benefit obligations
|
|
|
9,168
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,083
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
364,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
618,393
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members capital
|
|
|
199,023
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(27,619
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members capital
|
|
|
171,671
|
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
227,091
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital
|
|
|
398,495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and capital
|
|
$
|
1,016,888
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated balance sheet.
113
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Calumet GP, LLC (the GP) is a Delaware limited
liability company formed on September 27, 2005 and is the
general partner of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(the Partnership). Its sole purpose is to operate the
Partnership. The GP is owned by The Heritage Group as well as
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. family trusts and an F. William
Grube family trust. The GP owns a two percent general partner
interest in the Partnership and manages and operates all of the
assets of the Partnership. However, due to the substantive
control granted to the GP by the partnership agreement, the GP
consolidates its interest in the Partnership (collectively
Calumet or the Company).
Calumet is engaged in the production and marketing of crude
oil-based specialty lubricating oils, white mineral oils,
solvents, petrolatums, waxes and fuels. Calumet Calumet owns
facilities located in Shreveport, Louisiana
(Shreveport), Princeton, Louisiana
(Princeton), Cotton Valley, Louisiana (Cotton
Valley), Karns City, Pennsylvania (Karns
City), and Dickinson, Texas (Dickinson), and a
terminal located in Burnham, Illinois (Burnham).
During the year ended December 31, 2010, the GP received
cash distributions of $1,314 from the Partnership and
distributed $1,314 to the GPs members.
|
|
3.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements of the GP include the
accounts of the GP, the Partnership and its wholly-owned
operating subsidiaries, Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, Calumet Sales Company Incorporated, Calumet
Penreco, LLC and Calumet Shreveport, LLC. Calumet Shreveport,
LLCs wholly-owned operating subsidiaries are Calumet
Shreveport Fuels, LLC and Calumet Shreveport
Lubricants & Waxes, LLC. All intercompany transactions
and accounts have been eliminated. Hereafter, the consolidated
companies are referred to as the Company.
Use of
Estimates
The Companys financial statements are prepared in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles which require management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents includes all highly liquid investments
with a maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase.
Inventories
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method. Costs include crude oil and other
feedstocks, labor, processing costs and refining overhead costs.
Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market value.
114
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
12,885
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
49,006
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
85,219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
147,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $55,855 higher as of
December 31, 2010.
Accounts
Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. Accounts receivable are generally due within
30 to 45 days for the specialty products segment and
10 days for the fuel products segment. The Company
maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated
losses in the collection of accounts receivable. The Company
makes estimates regarding the future ability of its customers to
make required payments based on historical credit experience and
expected future trends. The activity in the allowance for
doubtful accounts was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
801
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
Recoveries
|
|
|
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
633
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are stated on the basis of cost.
Depreciation is calculated generally on composite groups, using
the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the
respective groups. Assets under capital leases are amortized
over the lesser of the useful life of the asset or the term of
the lease.
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
3,249
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to 40 years)
|
|
|
6,848
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to 20 years)
|
|
|
770,973
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to 10 years)
|
|
|
3,646
|
|
Assets under capital leases (1 to 4 years)
|
|
|
4,201
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
7,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
796,590
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(184,157
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
612,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Under the composite depreciation method, the cost of partial
retirements of a group is charged to accumulated depreciation.
However, when there are dispositions of complete groups or
significant portions of groups, the cost and related accumulated
depreciation are retired, and any gain or loss is reflected in
earnings.
During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company
incurred $30,886 of interest expense of which $389 was
capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.
The Company has not recorded an asset retirement obligation as
of December 31, 2010 because such potential obligations
cannot be measured since it is not possible to estimate the
settlement dates.
Accumulated depreciation above includes $1,050 of depreciation
expense for the year ended December 31, 2010 related to the
Companys capital lease assets.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of purchase price over fair value
of the net assets acquired in the acquisition of Penreco on
January 3, 2008. In accordance with ASC 350,
Intangibles Goodwill and Other (formerly
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets), goodwill and other intangible assets are not
amortized, but are tested for impairment at least annually and
when indicators dictate, such as adverse changes in business
climate, market value of long-lived assets or a change in the
structure of the Company. The Company performs its annual
impairment review in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year,
unless circumstances dictate more frequent assessments. No
impairments were noted in 2010.
Other
Intangible Assets
Other intangible assets primarily consist of supply agreements,
customer relationships, non-compete agreements and patents
acquired in the acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008.
The majority of these assets are being amortized using the
discounted estimated future cash flows method over the term of
the related agreements. Intangible assets associated with
customer relationships of Penreco are being amortized using the
discounted estimated future cash flows method based upon an
assumed rate of annual customer attrition. For more information,
refer to Note 5.
Impairment
of Long-Lived Assets
The Company periodically evaluates the carrying value of
long-lived assets to be held and used, including definite-lived
intangible assets, when events or circumstances warrant such a
review. The carrying value of a long-lived asset to be held and
used is considered impaired when the anticipated separately
identifiable undiscounted cash flows from such an asset are less
than the carrying value of the asset. In such an event, a
write-down of the asset would be recorded through a charge to
operations, based on the amount by which the carrying value
exceeds the fair value of the long-lived asset. Fair value is
determined primarily using anticipated cash flows assumed by a
market participant discounted at a rate commensurate with the
risk involved. Long-lived assets to be disposed of other than by
sale are considered held and used until disposal.
Revenue
Recognition
The Company recognizes revenue on orders received from its
customers when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement
with the customer that is supportive of revenue recognition, the
customer has made a fixed commitment to purchase the product for
a fixed or determinable sales price, collection is reasonably
assured under the Companys normal billing and credit
terms, all of the Companys obligations related to product
have been fulfilled and ownership and all risks of loss have
been transferred to the buyer, which is primarily upon shipment
to the customer or, in certain cases, upon receipt by the
customer in accordance with contractual terms.
116
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Concentrations
of Credit Risk
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of its
customers financial condition and in some instances
requires cash in advance or letters of credit prior to shipment
for domestic orders. For international orders, letters of credit
are generally required. The Company maintains allowances for
doubtful customer accounts for estimated losses resulting from
the inability of its customers to make required payments. The
allowance for doubtful accounts is developed based on several
factors including customers credit quality, historical
write-off experience, age of accounts receivable, average
default rates provided by a third party and any known specific
issues or disputes which exist as of the balance sheet dates. If
the financial condition of the Companys customers were to
deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make
payments, additional allowances may be required. In addition,
from time to time the Company has significant derivative assets
with a limited number of counterparties. The evaluation of these
counterparties is performed quarterly in connection with the
Companys
ASC 820-10,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (formerly
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements),
valuations to determine the impact of counterparty credit risk
on the valuation of its derivative instruments.
Income
Taxes
The Partnership, as a partnership, is not liable for income
taxes on its earnings and its the earnings of wholly-owned
subsidiaries Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and
Calumet Shreveport, LLC. However, Calumet Sales Company
Incorporated (Calumet Sales Company), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Partnership, is a corporation and as a result,
is liable for income taxes on its earnings. Income taxes on the
earnings of the Partnership, with the exception of Calumet Sales
Company, are the responsibility of the partners, with earnings
of the Company included in partners earnings.
The GP, as a limited liability company, is not liable for income
taxes on its earnings and the earnings of the Partnership and
its wholly-owned subsidiaries Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, Calumet Penreco, LLC and Calumet Shreveport, LLC.
However, Calumet Sales Company, as a corporation, is liable for
income taxes on its earnings. Income taxes on the earnings of
the GP, with the exception of Calumet Sales Company, are the
responsibility of the members, with earnings of the GP included
in GPs members earnings.
In the event that the Partnerships taxable income did not
meet certain qualification requirements, it would be taxed as a
corporation. Interest and penalties related to income taxes, if
any, would be recorded in income tax expense. The Company had no
unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31, 2010. The
Companys income taxes generally remain subject to
examination by major tax jurisdictions for a period of three
years.
Derivatives
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, its principal raw material, as well as the sales prices of
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Given the historical volatility
of crude oil, gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices, these
fluctuations can significantly impact sales, gross profit and
net income. Therefore, the Company utilizes derivative
instruments to minimize its price risk and volatility of cash
flows associated with the purchase of crude oil and natural gas,
the sale of fuel products and interest payments. The Company
employs various hedging strategies, and does not hold or issue
derivative instruments for trading purposes. For further
information, please refer to Note 8.
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets consist of deferred debt issuance costs
and turnaround costs. Deferred debt issuance costs were $5,812
as of December 31, 2010 and are being amortized on a
straight-line basis over the lives of the related debt
instruments. This amount is net of accumulated amortization of
$5,246 at December 31, 2010.
117
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Turnaround costs represent capitalized costs associated with the
Companys periodic major maintenance and repairs and was
$9,803 as of December 31, 2010. The Company capitalizes
these costs and amortizes the cost on a straight-line basis over
the life of the turnaround assets. This amount is net of
accumulated amortization of $11,694 at December 31, 2010.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2008, the FASB issued pronouncements under
ASC 715-20,
Compensation-Retirement Benefits-Defined Benefit Plans
(formerly FSP
FAS 132R-1,
Employers Disclosures about Postretirement Benefit Plan
Assets).
ASC 715-20
replaces the requirement to disclose the percentage of the fair
value of total plan assets with a requirement to disclose the
fair value of each major asset category.
ASC 715-20
also requires additional disclosure regarding the level of the
plan assets within the fair value hierarchy according to
ASC 820-10,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (formerly
SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements), and a
reconciliation of activity for any plan assets being measured
using unobservable inputs as defined in
ASC 715-20.
ASC 715-20
is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15,
2009. The adoption of
ASC 715-20
did not have a material impact on the Companys financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-06,
Disclosures About Fair Value Measurements (ASU
2010-06),
which amends ASC No. 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures to add new requirements for disclosures about
transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 and separate
disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements
relating to Level 3 measurements. ASU
2010-06 also
clarifies existing fair value disclosures about the level of
disaggregation and about inputs and valuation techniques used to
measure fair value. ASU
2010-06 is
effective for the first reporting period (including interim
periods) beginning after December 15, 2009. The Company has
adopted ASU
2010-06
standard effective January 1, 2010; however, the
Companys adoption of ASU
2010-06 did
not have a material effect on the Companys financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-28,
When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for
Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts
(ASU
2010-28),
which amends ASC No. 830, Intangibles
Goodwill and Other to modify Step 1 of the evaluation of
goodwill impairment for reporting units with zero or negative
carrying amounts to require that Step 2 of the impairment test
be performed to measure the amount of any impairment loss when
it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exits. ASU
2010-28 is
effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those
years, beginning after December 15, 2010, with early
adoption not permitted. The Company does not expect the adoption
of ASU
2010-28 to
have a material impact on the Companys financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2010-29,
Disclosures of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for
Business Combinations (ASU
2010-29),
which amends ASC No. 805, Business Combinations, to
expand the requirements for supplemental pro forma disclosures
to include a description of the nature and amount of material,
nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the
business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue
and earnings. ASU
2010-29 is
effective for business combinations for which the acquisition
date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting
period beginning on or after December 15, 2010, and should
be applied prospectively. The Company will apply the provisions
of ASU
2010-29 for
all future business combinations.
|
|
4.
|
LyondellBasell
Agreements
|
Effective November 4, 2009, the Company entered into
agreements (the LyondellBasell Agreements) with
Houston Refining LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LyondellBasell
(Houston Refining), to form a long-term specialty
products affiliation. The initial term of the LyondellBasell
Agreements expires on October 31, 2014 after which it is
automatically extended for additional one-year terms until
either party terminates with 24 months notice. Under the
terms of the LyondellBasell Agreements, (i) the Company is
required to purchase at least a minimum
118
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
volume of 3,100 bpd of naphthenic lubricating oils produced
at Houston Refinings Houston, Texas refinery, and have a
right of first refusal to purchase any additional napthentic
lubricating oils produced at the refinery, and (ii) Houston
Refining is required to process a minimum of approximately
800 bpd of white mineral oil for the Company at Houston
Refinings Houston, Texas refinery, which supplements the
white mineral oil production at the Companys Karns City
and Dickinson facilities. LyondellBasell has also granted the
Company rights to use certain registered trademarks and
tradenames, including Tufflo, Duoprime, Duotreat, Crystex, Ideal
and Aquamarine.
|
|
5.
|
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
|
The Company has recorded $48,335 of goodwill as a result of the
acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008, all of which is
recorded within the Companys specialty products segment.
Other intangible assets consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
Average Life
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Customer relationships
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
28,482
|
|
|
$
|
(10,130
|
)
|
Supplier agreements
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
21,519
|
|
|
|
(18,001
|
)
|
Patents
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
(788
|
)
|
Non-competition agreements
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
|
(2,323
|
)
|
Distributor agreements
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
(2,019
|
)
|
Royalty agreements
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
4,499
|
|
|
|
(897
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
63,824
|
|
|
$
|
(34,158
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets associated with supplier agreements,
non-competition agreements, patents and distributor agreements
are being amortized to properly match expense with the estimated
future cash flows over the term of the related agreements.
Contracts with terms to allow for the potential extension of the
agreement are being amortized based on the initial term only.
Intangible assets associated with customer relationships of
Penreco are being amortized using the discounted estimated
future cash flows based upon an assumed rate of annual customer
attrition.
|
|
6.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Operating
Leases
The Company has various operating leases for the use of land,
storage tanks, compressor stations, railcars, equipment,
precious metals, operating unit catalyst used in refining
processes and office facilities that extend through August 2015.
Renewal options are available on certain of these leases in
which the Company is the lessee.
119
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
As of December 31, 2010, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under leases which, at
inception, had a noncancelable term of more than one year, as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
12,572
|
|
2012
|
|
|
9,541
|
|
2013
|
|
|
6,814
|
|
2014
|
|
|
4,703
|
|
2015
|
|
|
1,941
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
768
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
36,339
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company is currently purchasing all of its crude oil under
evergreen contracts or on a spot basis. As of December 31,
2010, the estimated minimum purchase requirements under our
crude oil and other feedstock contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
560,015
|
|
2012
|
|
|
157,632
|
|
2013
|
|
|
157,632
|
|
2014
|
|
|
130,835
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,006,114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In connection with the closing of the acquisition of Penreco on
January 3, 2008, the Company entered into a feedstock
purchase agreement with ConocoPhillips related to the LVT unit
at its Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery (the LVT Feedstock
Agreement). Pursuant to the LVT Feedstock Agreement,
ConocoPhillips is obligated to supply a minimum quantity (the
Base Volume) of feedstock for the LVT unit for a
term of ten years. Based upon this minimum supply quantity, the
Company is obligated to purchase approximately $64,910 of
feedstock for the LVT unit in each fiscal year of the term of
the contract, expiring January 1, 2018, based on pricing
estimates as of December 31, 2010. If the Base Volume is
not supplied at any point during the first five years of the ten
year term, a penalty for each gallon of shortfall must be paid
to the Company as liquidated damages.
Labor
Matters
The Company has approximately 370 employees out of a total
of approximately 650 covered by various collective bargaining
agreements. These agreements have expiration dates of
October 31, 2011, January 31, 2012, March 31,
2013 and April 30, 2013. The Company does not expect any
work stoppages.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to certain claims and
litigation incidental to its business, including claims made by
various taxation and regulatory authorities, such as the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Internal Revenue Service and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), as the result of audits or reviews of the
Companys business. In addition, the Company has property,
business interruption, general liability and various other
insurance
120
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
policies that may result in certain losses or expenditures being
reimbursed to the Company. The Company is currently pursuing an
insurance claim related to property damage and business
interruption at its Shreveport refinery related to the failure
of an environmental operating unit in the first quarter of 2010.
The outcome of this claim is uncertain at this time. Management
is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of any known
claims, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse impact on the Companys financial
position, results of operations or cash flow.
Environmental
The Company operates crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon
refining and terminal operations, which are subject to stringent
and complex federal, state, and local laws and regulations
governing the discharge of materials into the environment or
otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and
regulations can impair the Companys operations that affect
the environment in many ways, such as requiring the acquisition
of permits to conduct regulated activities, restricting the
manner in which the Company can release materials into the
environment, requiring remedial activities or capital
expenditures to mitigate pollution from former or current
operations, and imposing substantial liabilities for pollution
resulting from its operations. Certain environmental laws impose
joint and several, strict liability for costs required to
remediate and restore sites where petroleum hydrocarbons,
wastes, or other materials have been released or disposed.
Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may
result in the triggering of administrative, civil and criminal
measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the
imposition of remedial obligations, and the issuance of
injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of the
Companys operations. On occasion, the Company receives
notices of violation, enforcement and other complaints from
regulatory agencies alleging non-compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations. For example, the LDEQ
initiated enforcement actions in prior years for the following
alleged violations: (i) a May 2001 notification received by
the Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding several
alleged violations of various air emission regulations, as
identified in the course of the Companys Leak Detection
and Repair program, and also for failure to submit various
reports related to the facilitys air emissions;
(ii) a December 2002 notification received by the
Companys Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding
alleged violations for excess emissions, as identified in the
LDEQs file review of the Cotton Valley refinery;
(iii) a December 2004 notification received by the Cotton
Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding alleged violations for
the construction of a multi-tower pad and associated pump pads
without a permit issued by the agency; and (iv) an August
2005 notification received by the Princeton refinery from the
LDEQ regarding alleged violations of air emissions regulations,
as identified by the LDEQ following performance of a compliance
review, due to excess emissions and failures to continuously
monitor and record air emissions levels. On December 23,
2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
LDEQ that consolidated the terms of its settlement of the
aforementioned violations with the Companys agreement to
voluntarily participate in the LDEQs Small Refinery
and Single Site Refinery Initiative described below.
On December 23, 2010, we entered into a settlement
agreement with the LDEQ regarding the Companys voluntary
participation in the LDEQs Small Refinery and Single
Site Refinery Initiative. This state initiative is
patterned after the EPAs National Petroleum Refinery
Initiative, which is a coordinated, integrated compliance
and enforcement strategy to address federal Clean Air Act
compliance issues at the nations largest petroleum
refineries. The agreement requires the Company to make a $1,000
payment to the LDEQ, resulting in an additional $600 expense
recorded during the fourth quarter of 2010, and complete
beneficial environmental programs and implement emissions
reduction projects at our Shreveport, Cotton Valley and
Princeton refineries. We estimate implementation of these
requirements will result in approximately $11,000 to $15,000 of
capital expenditures and expenditures related to additional
personnel and environmental studies. This agreement also fully
settles the aforementioned alleged environmental and permit
violations at our Shreveport, Cotton Valley and Princeton
refineries and stipulates that no further civil penalties over
alleged past violations will be pursued by the LDEQ. The
required investments are expected to include i) nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide emission reductions from heaters
121
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
and boilers and New Source Performance Standards applicability
of, and compliance for, sulfur recovery plants and flaring
devices, iii) control of incidents related to acid gas
flaring, tail gas and hydrocarbon flaring, iv) electrical
reliability improvements to reduce flaring, v) flare
refurbishment at the Shreveport refinery, vi) enhance the
Benzene Waste National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants programs and the Leak Detection and Repair programs
at the Companys three Louisiana refineries, and
vii) Title V audits and targeted audits of certain
regulatory compliance programs. During these negotiations with
the LDEQ, the Company voluntarily initiated projects for certain
of these requirements prior to the settlement with the LDEQ, and
currently anticipate completion of these projects over the next
five years. These capital investment requirements will be
incorporated into our annual capital expenditures budget and
management does not expect any additional capital expenditures
as a result of the required audits or required operational
changes included in the settlement to have a material adverse
effect on our financial results or operations. Management
estimates that the total additional expenditures above already
planned levels will be approximately $1,000 to $3,000. Before
the terms of this settlement agreement are deemed final, the
terms remain subject to public comment and the concurrence of
the Louisiana Attorney General until the end of the first
quarter of 2011.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of the Companys refinery sites. The remedial
projects are being overseen by the appropriate state agencies.
Based on current investigative and remedial activities, the
Company believes that the groundwater contamination at these
refineries can be controlled or remedied without having a
material adverse effect on the Companys financial
condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs will
not become material. The Company incurred approximately $541 of
capital expenditures at its Cotton Valley refinery during 2010
and estimates that it will incur another $750 of capital
expenditures at its Cotton Valley refinery during 2011 in
connection with these activities.
The Company is indemnified by Shell Oil Company, as successor to
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Atlas Processing Company, for
specified environmental liabilities arising from the operations
of the Shreveport refinery prior to the Companys
acquisition of the facility. The indemnity is unlimited in
amount and duration, but requires the Company to contribute up
to $1,000 of the first $5,000 of indemnified costs for certain
of the specified environmental liabilities.
Health,
Safety and Maintenance
The Company is subject to various laws and regulations relating
to occupational health and safety, including OSHA and comparable
state laws. These laws and the implementing regulations strictly
govern the protection of the health and safety of employees. In
addition, OSHAs hazard communication standard requires
that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or
produced in the Companys operations and that this
information be provided to employees, contractors, state and
local government authorities and customers. The Company
maintains safety, training, and maintenance programs as part of
its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with applicable laws
and regulations. The Companys compliance with applicable
health and safety laws and regulations has required, and
continues to require, substantial expenditures. The Company has
implemented an internal program of inspection designed to
monitor and enforce compliance with worker safety requirements
as well as a quality system that meets the requirements of the
ISO-9001-2008 Standard. The integrity of the Companys
ISO-9001-2008 Standard certification is maintained through
surveillance audits by its registrar at regular intervals
designed to ensure adherence to the standards.
The Company has completed studies to assess the adequacy of its
process safety management practices at its Shreveport refinery
with respect to certain consensus codes and standards. The
Company expects to incur between $5,000 and $8,000 of capital
expenditures in total during 2011, 2012 and 2013 to address OSHA
compliance issues identified in these studies. The Company
expects these capital expenditures will enhance its equipment to
maintain
122
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
compliance with applicable consensus codes and standards. The
Company believes that its operations are in substantial
compliance with OSHA and similar state laws.
Beginning in February 2010, OSHA conducted an inspection of the
Shreveport refinerys process safety management program
under OSHAs National Emphasis Program which is targeting
all U.S. refineries for review. On August 19, 2010,
OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (the
Citation) to the Company as a result of this
inspection which included a proposed civil penalty amount of
$173. The Company contested the Citation and associated penalty
amount and agreed to a final penalty amount of $119 that was
paid in January 2011. The Cotton Valley refinerys process
safety management program is currently undergoing inspection
under OSHAs National Emphasis Program.
Standby
Letters of Credit
The Company has agreements with various financial institutions
for standby letters of credit which have been issued to domestic
vendors. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had
outstanding standby letters of credit of $90,725, under its
senior secured revolving credit facility. The maximum amount of
letters of credit the Company can issue is limited to its
borrowing capacity under its revolving credit facility or
$300,000, whichever is lower. As of December 31, 2010, the
Company had availability to issue letters of credit of $145,454
under its revolving credit facility. As discussed in
Note 7, as of December 31, 2010 the Company also had a
$50,000 letter of credit outstanding under its senior secured
first lien letter of credit facility for its fuels hedging
program.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured first lien term loan with
third-party lenders, interest at rate of three-month LIBOR plus
4.00% (4.29% at December 31, 2010), interest and principal
payments quarterly with remaining borrowings due January 2015,
effective interest rate of 5.45% as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
367,385
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured revolving credit agreement with
third-party lenders, interest at prime plus 0.50% (3.75% at
December 31, 2010), interest payments monthly, borrowings
due January 2013
|
|
|
10,832
|
|
Capital lease obligations, interest at 8.25%, interest and
principal payments quarterly through January 2012
|
|
|
1,781
|
|
Less unamortized discount on new senior secured first lien term
loan with third-party lenders
|
|
|
(10,723
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
369,275
|
|
Less current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,844
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
364,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys $435,000 senior secured first lien term loan
facility includes a $385,000 term loan and a $50,000 prefunded
letter of credit facility to support crack spread hedging, which
bears interest at 4.0%. The term loan bears interest at a rate
equal (i) with respect to a LIBOR Loan, the LIBOR Rate
plus 400 basis points (the Applicable Rate defined in the
term loan credit agreement) and (ii) with respect to a Base
Rate Loan, the Base Rate plus 300 basis points (as defined
in the term loan credit agreement).
Lenders under the term loan facility have a first priority lien
on the Companys fixed assets and a second priority lien on
its cash, accounts receivable, inventory and other personal
property. The term loan facility requires
123
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
quarterly principal payments of $963 until maturity on
September 30, 2014, with the remaining balance due at
maturity on January 3, 2015.
The Companys senior secured revolving credit facility has
a maximum availability of up to $375,000, subject to borrowing
base limitations. The revolving credit facility, which is the
Companys primary source of liquidity for cash needs in
excess of cash generated from operations, currently bears
interest at a rate equal to prime plus a basis points margin or
LIBOR plus a basis points margin, at the Companys option.
As of December 31, 2010, the margin is 50 basis points
for prime and 200 basis points for LIBOR; however, the
margin fluctuates based on quarterly measurement of the
Companys Consolidated Leverage Ratio (as defined in the
credit agreement). The senior secured revolving credit facility
matures on January 3, 2013.
The borrowing capacity at December 31, 2010 under the
revolving credit facility was $247,012 with $145,454 available
for additional borrowings based on collateral and specified
availability limitations. Lenders under the revolving credit
facility have a first priority lien on the Companys cash,
accounts receivable, inventory and other personal property and a
second priority lien on the Companys fixed assets.
Compliance with the financial covenants pursuant to the
Companys credit agreements is tested quarterly based upon
performance over the most recent four fiscal quarters, and as of
December 31, 2010, the Company was in compliance with all
financial covenants under its credit agreements. Even though its
liquidity and leverage improved during 2010, the Company is
continuing to take steps to ensure that it meets the
requirements of its credit agreements and currently forecasts
that it will be in compliance at future measurement dates,
although assurances cannot be made regarding the Companys
future compliance with these covenants.
Failure to achieve the Companys anticipated results may
result in a breach of certain of the financial covenants
contained in its credit agreements. If this occurs, the Company
will enter into discussions with its lenders to either modify
the terms of the existing credit facilities or obtain waivers of
non-compliance with such covenants. There can be no assurances
of the timing of the receipt of any such modification or waiver,
the term or costs associated therewith or our ultimate ability
to obtain the relief sought. The Companys failure to
obtain a waiver of non-compliance with certain of the financial
covenants or otherwise amend the credit facilities would
constitute an event of default under its credit facilities and
would permit the lenders to pursue remedies. These remedies
could include acceleration of maturity under the credit
facilities and limitations or the elimination of the
Companys ability to make distributions to its unitholders.
If the Companys lenders accelerate maturity under its
credit facilities, a significant portion of its indebtedness may
become due and payable immediately. The Company might not have,
or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated
payments. If the Company is unable to make these accelerated
payments, its lenders could seek to foreclose on its assets.
As of December 31, 2010, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
4,844
|
|
2012
|
|
|
4,401
|
|
2013
|
|
|
14,918
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2,888
|
|
2015
|
|
|
352,947
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
379,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2007, the Company entered into a capital lease for catalyst
used in refining processes which will expire in 2012. In 2009,
the Company entered into a capital lease for catalyst which will
expire in 2013 to replace a portion of
124
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
the catalyst under an existing capital lease that was disposed.
Assets recorded under these capital lease obligations are
included in property, plant and equipment and consist of $4,201
as of December 31, 2010.
As of December 31, 2010, the Company had recorded $2,171 in
accumulated amortization for these capital lease assets.
As of December 31, 2010, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of total rentals under capital
leases as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
1,069
|
|
2012
|
|
|
571
|
|
2013
|
|
|
240
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
1,880
|
|
Less amount representing interest
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
1,781
|
|
Less obligations due within one year
|
|
|
994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term capital lease obligation
|
|
$
|
787
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company utilizes derivative instruments to minimize its
price risk and volatility of cash flows associated with the
purchase of crude oil and natural gas, the sale of fuel products
and interest payments. The Company employs various hedging
strategies, which are further discussed below. The Company does
not hold or issue derivative instruments for trading purposes.
The Company recognizes all derivative instruments at their fair
values (see Note 10) as either assets or liabilities
on the consolidated balance sheets. Fair value includes any
premiums paid or received and unrealized gains and losses. Fair
value does not include any amounts receivable from or payable to
counterparties, or collateral provided to counterparties.
Derivative asset and liability amounts with the same
counterparty are netted against each
125
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
other for financial reporting purposes. The Company had recorded
the following derivative assets and liabilities at fair value as
of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets
|
|
|
Derivative Liabilities
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Derivative instruments designated as hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
134,916
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,149
|
)
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53,744
|
)
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96,556
|
)
|
Specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil collars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,681
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivative instruments designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32,214
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative instruments not designated as hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel crack spread collars (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil collars (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
662
|
|
Natural gas swaps (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps: (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,282
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivative instruments not designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(600
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivative instruments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(32,814
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Company entered into jet fuel crack spread collars, which do
not qualify for hedge accounting, to economically hedge its
exposure to changes in the jet fuel crack spread. |
|
(2) |
|
The Company enters into combinations of crude oil options and
swaps and natural gas swaps to economically hedge its exposure
to price risk related to these commodities in its specialty
products segment. The Company has not designated these
derivative instruments as hedges. |
|
(3) |
|
The Company refinanced its long-term debt in January 2008 and,
as a result, the interest rate swap that was designated as a
hedge of the interest payments under the previous debt agreement
no longer qualified for hedge accounting. To offset the effect
of this interest rate swap, the Company entered into another
interest rate swap. These two derivative instruments are netted
on this line item and the Company is settling this net position
over the term of the derivative instruments. |
To the extent a derivative instrument is determined to be
effective as a cash flow hedge of an exposure to changes in the
fair value of a future transaction, the change in fair value of
the derivative is deferred in accumulated
126
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
other comprehensive loss, a component of partners capital
in the consolidated balance sheets, until the underlying
transaction hedged is recognized in the consolidated statements
of operations. The Company accounts for certain derivatives
hedging purchases of crude oil and natural gas, sales of
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel and the payment of interest as
cash flow hedges. The derivatives hedging sales and purchases
are recorded to sales and cost of sales, respectively, in the
consolidated statements of operations upon recording the related
hedged transaction in sales or cost of sales. The derivatives
hedging payments of interest are recorded in interest expense in
the consolidated statements of operations upon the payment of
interest. The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge
and on an ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used
in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting
changes in cash flows of hedged items.
For derivative instruments not designated as cash flow hedges
and the portion of any cash flow hedge that is determined to be
ineffective, the change in fair value of the asset or liability
for the period is recorded to unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations. Upon the settlement of a derivative not designated
as a cash flow hedge, the gain or loss at settlement is recorded
to realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company recorded the following amounts in its consolidated
balance sheets as of December 31, 2010 related to its
derivative instruments that were designated as cash flow hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized
|
|
|
|
in Accumulated Other Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
Income on Derivatives
|
|
|
|
(Effective Portion)
|
|
Type of Derivative
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
Fuel products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
73,661
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
(1,329
|
)
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
(31,839
|
)
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
(66,693
|
)
|
Specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil collars
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps:
|
|
|
(2,815
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(29,015
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance by its counterparties on these derivative
transactions. The Company does not expect nonperformance on any
derivative instruments, however, no assurances can be provided.
The Companys credit exposure related to these derivative
instruments is represented by the fair value of contracts
reported as derivative assets. To manage credit risk, the
Company selects and periodically reviews counterparties based on
credit ratings. The Company executes all of its derivative
instruments with a small number of counterparties, the majority
of which are large financial institutions and all have ratings
of at least A2 and A by Moodys and S&P, respectively.
In the event of default, the Company would potentially be
subject to losses on derivative instruments with mark to market
gains. The Company requires collateral from its counterparties
when the fair value of the derivatives exceeds agreed upon
thresholds in its contracts with these counterparties. The
Companys contracts with these counterparties allow for
netting of derivative instrument positions executed under each
contract. Collateral received from or held by counterparties is
reported in deposits and other current liabilities on the
Companys consolidated balance sheets and not netted
against derivative assets or liabilities. The Company
127
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
provides its counterparties with collateral when the fair value
of its obligation exceeds specified amounts for each
counterparty. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had
provided the counterparties with no cash collateral or letters
of credit above the $50,000 prefunded letter of credit provided
to one counterparty to support crack spread hedging. For
financial reporting purposes, the Company does not offset the
collateral provided to a counterparty against the fair value of
its obligation to that counterparty. Any outstanding collateral
is released to the Company upon settlement of the related
derivative instrument liability.
Certain of the Companys outstanding derivative instruments
are subject to credit support agreements with the applicable
counterparties which contain provisions setting certain credit
thresholds above which the Company may be required to post
agreed-upon
collateral, such as cash or letters of credit, with the
counterparty to the extent that the Companys
mark-to-market
net liability, if any, on all outstanding derivatives exceeds
the credit threshold amount per such credit support agreement.
In certain cases, the Companys credit threshold is
dependent upon the Companys maintenance of certain
corporate credit ratings with Moodys and S&P. In the
event that the Companys corporate credit rating was
lowered below its current level by either Moodys or
S&P, such counterparties would have the right to reduce the
applicable threshold to zero and demand full collateralization
of the Companys net liability position on outstanding
derivative instruments. As of December 31, 2010, there is a
liability of $388 associated with the Companys outstanding
derivative instruments subject to such requirements. In
addition, the majority of the credit support agreements covering
the Companys outstanding derivative instruments also
contain a general provision stating that if the Company
experiences a material adverse change in its business, in the
reasonable discretion of the counterparty, the Companys
credit threshold could be lowered by such counterparty. The
Company does not expect that it will experience a material
adverse change in its business.
The effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated
other comprehensive income is $22,765 as of December 31,
2010 and, absent a change in the fair market value of the
underlying transactions, will be reclassified to earnings by
December 31, 2012 with balances being recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
(5,736
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
(17,029
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(22,765
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude
Oil Collar Contracts Specialty Products
Segment
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, its principal raw material. The Company utilizes
combinations of options and swaps to manage crude oil price risk
and volatility of cash flows in its specialty products segment.
These derivatives may be designated as cash flow hedges of the
future purchase of crude oil if they meet the hedge criteria.
The Companys general policy is to enter into crude oil
derivative contracts that mitigate the Companys exposure
to price risk associated with crude oil purchases related to
specialty products production (for up to 70% of expected
purchases). As of December 31, 2010, the Company has hedged
less than 5% of its expected specialty products crude purchases
for the three months ended March 31, 2011. While the
Companys policy generally requires that these positions be
short term in nature and expire within three to nine months from
execution, the Company may execute derivative contracts for up
to two years forward, if a change in the risks supports
lengthening the Companys position. As of December 31,
2010, the Company had the following crude oil derivatives
related to crude oil purchases and forecasted changes in crude
oil inventory levels in its specialty products segment, none of
which are designated as hedges.
128
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
February 2011
|
|
|
33,600
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
$
|
83.10
|
|
March 2011
|
|
|
37,200
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
83.55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
70,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
83.34
|
|
Crude
Oil Swap Contracts- Fuel Products Segment
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, its principal raw material. The Company utilizes swap
contracts to manage crude oil price risk and volatility of cash
flows in its fuel products segment. The Companys policy is
generally to enter into crude oil swap contracts for a period no
greater than five years forward and for no more than 75% of
crude purchases used in fuels production.
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,215,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
$
|
75.32
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,729,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
76.62
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,610,000
|
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
77.38
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
1,334,000
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
77.71
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
5,535,000
|
|
|
|
15,123
|
|
|
|
86.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
11,423,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.41
|
|
Fuel
Products Swap Contracts
The Company is exposed to fluctuations in the prices of
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The Company utilizes swap
contracts to manage diesel, gasoline and jet fuel price risk and
volatility of cash flows in its fuel products segment. The
Companys policy is generally to enter into diesel, jet
fuel and gasoline swap contracts for a period no longer than
five years forward and for no more than 75% of forecasted fuels
sales.
Diesel
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
129
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
89.57
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
637,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
89.57
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
552,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
91.74
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
552,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
91.74
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
1,560,000
|
|
|
|
4,262
|
|
|
|
99.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
3,931,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
94.03
|
|
Jet
Fuel Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Jet Fuel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
405,000
|
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
$
|
86.12
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
819,000
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
89.58
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
920,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
89.86
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
644,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
89.21
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
3,838,500
|
|
|
|
10,488
|
|
|
|
99.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
6,626,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
95.28
|
|
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
180,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
$
|
81.84
|
|
Second Quarter 2011
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
82.66
|
|
Third Quarter 2011
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
85.50
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
85.50
|
|
Calendar Year 2012
|
|
|
136,500
|
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
89.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
865,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
84.40
|
|
Jet
Fuel Put Spread Contracts
At December 31, 2010, the Company had the following jet
fuel put options related to jet fuel crack spreads in its fuel
products segment, none of which are designated as hedges.
130
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold Put
|
|
|
Bought Put
|
|
Jet Fuel Put Option Crack Spread Contracts by Expiration
Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
6.00
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2011
|
|
|
184,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
4.75
|
|
|
|
7.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
814,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.17
|
|
|
$
|
6.23
|
|
Natural
Gas Swap Contracts
Natural gas purchases comprise a significant component of the
Companys cost of sales, therefore, changes in the price of
natural gas also significantly affect its profitability and cash
flows. The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage natural gas
price risk and volatility of cash flows. The Companys
policy is generally to enter into natural gas derivative
contracts to hedge approximately 50% or more of its upcoming
fall and winter months anticipated natural gas requirement
for a period no greater than three years forward. At
December 31, 2010, the Company did not have any derivatives
outstanding related to natural gas purchases.
Interest
Rate Swap Contracts
The Companys profitability and cash flows are affected by
changes in interest rates, specifically LIBOR and prime rates.
The primary purpose of the Companys interest rate risk
management activities is to hedge its exposure to changes in
interest rates. The Companys policy is generally to enter
into interest rate swap agreements to hedge up to 75% of its
interest rate risk under its term loan agreement.
During 2010, the Company entered into forward swap contracts to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its current
variable rate senior secured first lien term loan. The Company
hedged the future interest payments related to $100,000 of the
total outstanding term loan indebtedness for the period from
February 15, 2011 to February 15, 2012 pursuant to
these forward swap contracts. These swap contracts are
designated as cash flow hedges of the future payments of
interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at an average rate during
the hedge period of 2.03%.
In 2009, the Company hedged the future interest payments related
to $200,000 of the total outstanding term loan indebtedness for
the period from February 15, 2010 to February 15,
2011. This swap contract is designated as a cash flow hedge of
the future payment of interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at
an average rate during the hedge period of 0.94%.
In 2008, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its current
variable rate senior secured first lien term loan which closed
January 3, 2008. The Company hedged the future interest
payments related to $150,000 and $50,000 of the total
outstanding term loan indebtedness in 2009 and 2010,
respectively, pursuant to this forward swap contract. This swap
contract is designated as a cash flow hedge of the future
payment of interest with three-month LIBOR fixed at 3.09% and
3.66% per annum in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
In 2006, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to a portion of its then
existing variable rate senior secured first lien term loan. Due
to the repayment of $19,000 of the outstanding balance of the
Companys then existing term loan facility in August 2007
and subsequent refinancing of the remaining term loan balance,
this swap contract was not designated as a cash flow hedge of
the future payment of interest. The entire change in the fair
value of this interest rate swap is recorded to unrealized gain
(loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements
of operations. In the first quarter of 2008, the Company fixed
its unrealized loss on this interest rate swap derivative
instrument by entering into an offsetting interest rate swap
expiring December 2012 which is not designated as a cash flow
hedge.
131
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
9.
|
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
|
The Companys financial instruments, which require fair
value disclosure, consist primarily of cash and cash
equivalents, accounts receivable, financial derivatives,
accounts payable and indebtedness. The carrying value of cash
and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable
are considered to be representative of their respective fair
values, due to the short maturity of these instruments.
Derivative instruments are reported in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements at fair value. The fair value
of the Companys term loan was $355,445 at
December 31, 2010. Refer to Note 7 for the carrying
value of the Companys term loan. The carrying value of
borrowings under the Companys senior secured revolving
credit facility was $10,832 at December 31, 2010 and
approximates its fair value. In addition, based upon fees
charged for similar agreements, the face values of outstanding
standby letters of credit approximated their fair value at
December 31, 2010.
|
|
10.
|
Fair
Value Measurements
|
The Company uses a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which
prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value. These tiers
include: Level 1, defined as observable inputs such as
quoted prices in active markets; Level 2, defined as inputs
other than quoted prices in active markets that are either
directly or indirectly observable; and Level 3, defined as
unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exists,
therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions. In
determining fair value, the Company uses various valuation
techniques and prioritizes the use of observable inputs. The
availability of observable inputs varies from instrument to
instrument and depends on a variety of factors including the
type of instrument, whether the instrument is actively traded,
and other characteristics particular to the instrument. For many
financial instruments, pricing inputs are readily observable in
the market, the valuation methodology used is widely accepted by
market participants, and the valuation does not require
significant management judgment. For other financial
instruments, pricing inputs are less observable in the
marketplace and may require management judgment.
As of December 31, 2010, the Company held certain assets
and liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value
on a recurring basis. These included the Companys
derivative instruments related to crude oil, gasoline, diesel,
jet fuel, and interest rates, and investments associated with
the Companys non-contributory defined benefit plan
(Pension Plan).
The Companys derivative instruments consist of
over-the-counter
(OTC) contracts, which are not traded on a public
exchange. Substantially all of the Companys derivative
instruments are with counterparties that have long-term credit
ratings of at least A2 and A by Moodys and S&P,
respectively. To estimate the fair values of the Companys
derivative instruments, the entity uses the market approach.
Under this approach, the fair values of the Companys
derivative instruments for crude oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel
and interest rates are determined primarily based on inputs that
are readily available in public markets or can be derived from
information available in publicly quoted markets. Generally, the
Company obtains this data through surveying its counterparties
and performing various analytical tests to validate the data.
The Company determines the fair value of its crude oil option
contracts utilizing a standard option pricing model based on
inputs that can be derived from information available in
publicly quoted markets, or are quoted by counterparties to
these contracts. In situations where the Company obtains inputs
via quotes from its counterparties, it verifies the
reasonableness of these quotes via similar quotes from another
counterparty as of each date for which financial statements are
prepared. The Company also includes an adjustment for
non-performance risk in the recognized measure of fair value of
all of the Companys derivative instruments. The adjustment
reflects the full credit default spread (CDS)
applied to a net exposure by counterparty. When the Company is
in a net asset position, it uses its counterpartys CDS, or
a peer groups estimated CDS when a CDS for the
counterparty is not available. The Company uses its own peer
groups estimated CDS when it is in a net liability
position. As a result of applying the applicable CDS, at
December 31, 2010, the Companys liability was reduced
by approximately $687. Based on the use of various unobservable
inputs, principally non-performance risk and unobservable inputs
in forward years for gasoline, jet fuel and diesel, the Company
has categorized these derivative
132
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
instruments as Level 3. The Company has consistently
applied these valuation techniques in all periods presented and
believes it has obtained the most accurate information available
for the types of derivative instruments it holds.
The Companys investments associated with its Pension Plan
consist of mutual funds that are publicly traded and for which
market prices are readily available, thus these investments are
categorized as Level 1.
The Companys assets and liabilities measured at fair value
at December 31, 2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,578
|
|
|
|
135,578
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
16,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
16,076
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
135,598
|
|
|
$
|
151,674
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,149
|
)
|
|
|
(14,149
|
)
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53,744
|
)
|
|
|
(53,744
|
)
|
Jet fuel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96,556
|
)
|
|
|
(96,556
|
)
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet fuel options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,963
|
)
|
|
|
(3,963
|
)
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(168,412
|
)
|
|
$
|
(168,412
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The table below sets forth a summary of net changes in fair
value of the Companys Level 3 financial assets and
liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative
|
|
|
|
Instruments, Net
|
|
|
Fair value at January 1, 2010
|
|
$
|
26,138
|
|
Realized losses
|
|
|
7,704
|
|
Unrealized losses
|
|
|
(15,843
|
)
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
(29,015
|
)
|
Purchases, issuances and settlements
|
|
|
(21,798
|
)
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
(32,814
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gains (losses) included in net income attributable to
changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to financial
assets and liabilities held as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
(15,843
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All settlements from derivative instruments that are deemed
effective and were designated as cash flow hedges
are included in sales for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel
derivatives, cost of sales for crude oil and natural gas
derivatives, and interest expense for interest rate derivatives
in the consolidated financial statements of operations in the
period that the hedged cash flow occurs. Any
ineffectiveness associated with these derivative
instruments are recorded in earnings immediately in unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations. All settlements from derivative
instruments not designated as cash flow hedges are recorded in
realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statement of operations. See Note 8 for
further information on hedging.
|
|
11.
|
Noncontrolling
Interests
|
On January 1, 2009 the Company adopted ASC 810,
Consolidations (formerly FASB 160, Noncontrolling
Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements), which
establishes accounting and reporting standards for the
noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the
deconsolidation of a subsidiary. It clarifies that a
noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary is an ownership interest
in the consolidated entity that should be reported as equity in
the consolidated financial statements. Retroactive adoption of
the presentation and disclosure requirements for existing
minority interests is required. As required by ASC 810, the
Company reclassified $227,091 of minority interest in subsidiary
company to total capital on the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2010.
|
|
12.
|
Unit-Based
Compensation
|
The Companys general partner originally adopted a
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the Plan) on
January 24, 2006, which was amended and restated effective
January 22, 2009, for its employees, consultants and
directors and its affiliates who perform services for the
Company. The Plan provides for the grant of restricted units,
phantom units, unit options and substitute awards and, with
respect to unit options and phantom units, the grant of
distribution equivalent rights (DERs). Subject to
adjustment for certain events, an aggregate of 783,960 common
units may be delivered pursuant to awards under the Plan. Units
withheld to satisfy the Companys general partners
tax withholding obligations are available for delivery pursuant
to other awards. The Plan is administered by the compensation
committee of the Companys general partners board of
directors.
Non-employee directors of our general partner have been granted
phantom units under the terms of the Plan as part of their
director compensation package related to fiscal years 2008,
2009, and 2010. These phantom units have a four year service
period with one quarter of the phantom units vesting annually on
each December 31 of the
134
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
vesting period. Although ownership of common units related to
the vesting of such phantom units does not transfer to the
recipients until the phantom units vest, the recipients have
DERs on these phantom units from the date of grant.
For the year ended December 31, 2010, named executive
officers and certain employees were awarded phantom units under
the terms of the Plan, as part of the Companys achievement
of specified levels of financial performance in fiscal year
2010. These phantom units are subject to time-vesting
requirements whereby 25% of the units vest in the first quarter
of 2011, and the remainder will vest ratably over the next three
years on each December 31. Although ownership of common
units related to the vesting of such phantom units does not
transfer to the recipients until the phantom units vest, the
recipients will have DERs beginning in the first quarter of 2011.
On January 22, 2009, the board of directors of the
Companys general partner approved discretionary
contributions to participant accounts for certain directors and
employees in the form of phantom units under the Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan. The phantom unit awards vest in one-quarter
increments over a four year service period, subject to early
vesting on a change in control or upon termination without cause
or due to death, disability or normal retirement. These phantom
units also carry DERs from the date of grant.
The Company uses the market price of its common units on the
grant date to calculate the fair value and related compensation
cost of the phantom units. The Company amortizes this
compensation cost to partners capital and selling, general
and administrative expense in the consolidated statements of
operations using the straight-line method over the four year
vesting period, as it expects these units to fully vest.
A summary of the Companys nonvested phantom units as of
December 31, 2010, and the changes during the year ended
December 31, 2010 are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
of
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
57,493
|
|
|
$
|
12.42
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
138,490
|
|
|
|
20.11
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(90,491
|
)
|
|
|
18.05
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
105,492
|
|
|
$
|
17.68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2010 compensation expense
of $784 was recognized in the consolidated statements of
operations related to vested unit grants. As of
December 31, 2010, there was a total of $1,865 of
unrecognized compensation costs related to nonvested unit
grants. These costs are expected to be recognized over a
weighted-average period of three years. The total fair value of
phantom units vested during the years ended December 31,
2010 was $1,927.
|
|
13.
|
Employee
Benefit Plan
|
The Company has a defined contribution plan administered by its
general partner. All full-time employees who have completed at
least one hour of service are eligible to participate in the
plan. Participants are allowed to contribute 0% to 100% of their
pre-tax earnings to the plan, subject to government imposed
limitations. The Company matches 100% of each 1% contribution by
the participant up to 4% and 50% of each additional 1%
contribution up to 6% for a maximum contribution by the Company
of 5% per participant. The Companys matching contribution
was $1,948 for the year ended December 31, 2010. The plan
also includes a profit-sharing component. Contributions under
the profit-sharing component are determined by the board of
directors of the
135
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Companys general partner and are discretionary. The
Companys profit sharing contribution was $1,331 for the
year ended December 31, 2010.
The Company has a noncontributory defined benefit plan
(Pension Plan) for both those salaried employees as
well as those employees represented by either the United
Steelworkers (USW) or the International Union of
Operating Engineers (IUOE) who were formerly
employees of Penreco and who became employees of the Company as
a result of the Penreco acquisition on January 3, 2008. The
Company also has a contributory defined benefit postretirement
medical plan for both those salaried employees as well as those
employees represented by either the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters (IBT), USW or IUOE who were formerly
employees of Penreco and who became employees of the Company as
a result of the Penreco acquisition, as well as a
non-contributory disability plan for those salaried employees
who were formerly employees of Penreco (collectively,
Other Plans). The pension benefits are based
primarily on years of service for USW and IUOE represented
employees and both years of service and the employees
final 60 months average compensation for salaried
employees. The funding policy is consistent with funding
requirements of applicable laws and regulations. The assets of
these plans consist of corporate equity securities, municipal
and government bonds, and cash equivalents. In 2009, the Company
amended the Pension Plan. The amendments removed employees from
accumulating additional benefits subsequent to December 31,
2009. All information presented below has been adjusted for this
curtailment.
The components of net periodic pension and other postretirement
benefits cost for the year ended December 31, 2010 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
84
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,336
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Expected return on assets
|
|
|
(1,034
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net (gain) loss
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35
|
)
|
Curtailment loss recognized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension cost
|
|
$
|
660
|
|
|
$
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company made
contributions of $1,055 to its Pension Plan and Other Plans and
expects to make contributions in 2011 of approximately $1,763.
136
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The benefit obligations, plan assets, funded status, and amounts
recognized in the consolidated balance sheets were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Change in projected benefit obligation (PBO):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
22,382
|
|
|
$
|
781
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,336
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(861
|
)
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
1,917
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Amendments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(345
|
)
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
$
|
24,761
|
|
|
$
|
446
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
13,730
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Benefit payments
|
|
|
(861
|
)
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
Actual return on assets
|
|
|
2,256
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(97
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
Employer contribution
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at end of year
|
|
$
|
16,039
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status benefit obligation in excess of plan
assets
|
|
$
|
(8,722
|
)
|
|
$
|
(446
|
)
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(311
|
)
|
Unrecognized net actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
|
5,236
|
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at end of year
|
|
$
|
(3,486
|
)
|
|
$
|
(830
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets consisted
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
(8,722
|
)
|
|
$
|
(446
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss
|
|
|
5,236
|
|
|
|
(384
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at end of year
|
|
$
|
(3,486
|
)
|
|
$
|
(830
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accumulated benefit obligation for the Pension Plan was
$24,761 as of December 31, 2010. The accumulated benefit
obligation is equal to the projected benefit obligation due to
the curtailment that occurred in 2008. The accumulated benefit
obligation for the Pension Plan was less than plan assets by
$8,722 as of December 31, 2010. As of December 31,
2010, the Company had no transition gains (losses) but recorded
a prior service credit of $311 and actuarial (gains) losses of
$455 in accumulated other comprehensive income in the
consolidated balance sheets.
137
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The portion relating to the Penreco Pension Plan classified in
accumulated other comprehensive gain is $4,852 as of
December 31, 2010. In 2011, the Company will recognize
$(277) and $37, respectively, of (gains) losses from accumulated
other comprehensive loss for the Companys Pension Plan and
Other Plans.
The significant weighted average assumptions used for the year
ended December 31, 2010 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Discount rate for benefit obligations
|
|
|
5.50
|
%
|
|
|
4.54
|
%
|
Discount rate for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
6.04
|
%
|
|
|
5.55
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
7.50
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase for benefit obligations
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
For measurement purposes, a 8.2% annual rate of increase in the
per capita cost of covered health care benefits was assumed for
2011. The rate was assumed to decrease by 0.20% per year for an
ultimate rate of 4.5% for 2029 and remain at that level
thereafter. An increase or decrease by one percentage point in
the assumed healthcare cost trend rates would not have a
material effect on the benefit obligation and service and
interest cost components of benefit costs for the Other Plans as
of December 31, 2010. The Company considered the historical
returns and the future expectation for returns for each asset
class, as well as the target asset allocation of the Pension
Plan portfolio, to develop the expected long-term rate of return
on plan assets.
The Companys Pension Plan asset allocations, as of
December 31, 2010 by asset category, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Equity
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
Foreign equities
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
37
|
%
|
Capital Preservation Portfolio
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
Policy
Our Pension Plan investment policy is set with specific
consideration of return and risk requirements in relationship to
the respective liabilities. Given the long term nature of our
liabilities, the Pension Plan has the flexibility to manage a
moderate level of risk. At the investment policy level, there
are no specifically prohibited investments. However, within
individual investment manager mandates, restrictions and
limitations are contractually set to align with our investment
objectives, ensure risk control, and limit concentrations.
We manage our portfolio to minimize any concentration of risk by
allocating funds within asset categories. In addition, within a
category we use different managers with various management
objectives to eliminate any significant concentration of risk.
Management believes there are no significant concentrations of
risks associated with the investment assets.
138
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The Pension Plans asset allocation strategy is currently
comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Range of
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Class
|
|
Asset Allocations
|
|
|
Target Allocation
|
|
|
Equities
|
|
|
25 35
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
45 55
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Capital Preservation Portfolio
|
|
|
15 25
|
%
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
During 2010, we began the process to better align our
investments with our liability as a result of the Pension
Plans curtailed status. We will complete this reallocation
in 2011 as our investment consultant completes their evaluations
and recommendations.
Trust assets will be invested in accordance with prudent expert
standards as mandated by Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). In the event market environments create
asset exposures outside of the policy guidelines, reallocations
will be made in an orderly manner to rebalance the investments
and maximize the effectiveness of the Pension Plan asset
allocation strategy. The Companys investment consultant
will assist in the continual assessment of assets and the
potential reallocation of certain investments and will evaluate
the selection of investment managers for the Pension Plan based
on such factors as organizational stability, depth of resources,
experience, investment strategy and process, performance
expectations and fees.
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid in the years
indicated as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Other Post Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
912
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
2012
|
|
|
961
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,018
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,090
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
2015
|
|
|
1,190
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
2016 to 2020
|
|
|
7,281
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
12,452
|
|
|
$
|
432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company participated in two multi-employer plans as a result
of the acquisition of Penreco. The Company elected to withdraw
from these plans in 2009 and made a final contribution of
approximately $183 to the Penreco Local 710 Health, Welfare and
Pension Funds plan and has agreed to the final settlement of
approximately $1,863 for the Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and
Employers Pension Fund to be paid over 30 years.
139
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The Companys investments associated with its Pension Plan
consist of mutual funds that are publicly traded and for which
market prices are readily available, thus these investments are
categorized as Level 1. The Companys Pension Plan
assets measured at fair value at December 31, 2010 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets
|
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
$
|
347
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
7,784
|
|
Foreign equities
|
|
|
1,890
|
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
6,018
|
|
Capital Preservation Portfolio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
16,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010 the Company had
sales to related parties owned by a limited partner of $4,727.
Trade accounts and other receivables from related parties at
December 31, 2010 was $422. The Company also had purchases
from related parties owned by a limited partner, excluding crude
purchases related to the Legacy Resources Co., L.P.
(Legacy Resources) agreements and directors
and officers liability insurance premiums discussed below,
during the year ended December 31, 2010 of $1,480. Accounts
payable to related parties, excluding accounts payable related
to the Legacy Resources crude oil purchasing agreement discussed
below, at December 31, 2010 was $1,246.
In May 2008, the Company began purchasing all of its crude oil
requirements for its Princeton refinery on a just in time basis
utilizing a market-based pricing mechanism from Legacy
Resources. In addition, in January 2009, the Company entered
into an agreement with Legacy Resources to begin purchasing
certain of its crude oil requirements for its Shreveport
refinery utilizing a market-based pricing mechanism from Legacy
Resources. In September 2009, the Company entered into a Crude
Oil Supply Agreement with Legacy Resources (the Legacy
Shreveport Agreement). Under the Legacy Shreveport
Agreement, Legacy Resources supplies the Companys
Shreveport refinery with a portion of its crude oil requirements
on a just in time basis utilizing a market-based pricing
mechanism. Legacy Resources is owned in part by one of the
Companys limited partners, an affiliate of the
Companys general partner, the Companys chief
executive officer and vice chairman of the board of our general
partner, F. William Grube, and Jennifer G. Straumins, the
Companys president and chief operating officer. The volume
of crude oil purchased under the Legacy Shreveport Agreement
fluctuates based on the volume of crude oil needed by the
Shreveport refinery and can be up to 20,000 barrels per
day. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company
had crude oil purchases of $591,777 from Legacy Resources.
Accounts payable to Legacy Resources at December 31, 2010
related to these agreements were $26,739.
Nicholas J. Rutigliano, a member of the board of directors of
our general partner, founded and is the president of Tobias
Insurance Group, Inc. (Tobias), a commercial
insurance brokerage business, that has historically placed a
portion of our insurance underwriting requirements, including
directors and officers liability insurance. The
total premiums paid to Tobias by the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2010 was $638. With the exception of its
directors and officers liability insurance which
were placed with this commercial insurance brokerage company,
the Company placed its insurance requirements with third parties
during the year ended December 31, 2010.
140
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
(in thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
On January 14, 2011, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.47 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$16,937, for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. The
distribution was paid on February 14, 2011 to unitholders
of record as of the close of business on February 4, 2011.
This quarterly distribution of $0.47 per unit equates to $1.88
per unit, or $67,748 on an annualized basis.
The fair value of the Companys derivatives decreased by
approximately $100,000 subsequent to December 31, 2010 to a
liability of approximately $130,000. The fair value of the
Companys long-term debt, excluding capital leases, has
increased by approximately $10,000 subsequent to
December 31, 2010.
In February 2011, the Company satisfied the last of the earnings
and distributions tests contained in our partnership agreement
for the automatic conversion of all 13,066,000 outstanding
subordinated units into common units on a
one-for-one
basis. The last of these requirements was met upon payment of
the quarterly distribution paid on February 14, 2011. Two
days following this quarterly distribution to unitholders, or
February 16, 2011, all of the outstanding subordinated
units automatically converted to common units.
141
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As required by
Rule 13a-15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act), as amended, we have evaluated, under the supervision
and with the participation of our management, including our
principal executive officer and principal financial officer, the
effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by
this Annual Report. Our disclosure controls and procedures are
designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information
required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file under the
Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management,
including our principal executive officer and principal
financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure and is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the
rules and forms of the SEC. Based upon the evaluation, our
principal executive officer and principal financial officer have
concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were
effective as of December 31, 2010 at the reasonable
assurance level.
142
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The management of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the
Company) is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting.
The Companys internal control over financial reporting is
a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Internal
control over financial reporting includes those policies and
procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records
that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;
(2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of the financial
statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the
Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the Company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the
Companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on criteria for effective internal
control over financial reporting described in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO). Based on this assessment, we have concluded
that internal control over financial reporting was effective as
of December 31, 2010.
Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, has audited the Companys consolidated
financial statements and has issued an attestation report on the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which
appears on the following page.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There was no change in our system of internal control over
financial reporting during the fourth fiscal quarter of 2010
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
F. William Grube
Chief Executive Officer, Director and
Vice Chairman of the Board of Calumet GP, LLC
February 18, 2011
/s/ R.
Patrick Murray, II
R. Patrick Murray, II
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Calumet GP, LLC
February 18, 2011
143
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of Calumet GP, LLC
General Partner of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
We have audited Calumet Specialty Product Partners L.P.s
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(the COSO criteria). Calumet Specialty Product Partners,
L.P.s management is responsible for maintaining effective
internal control over financial reporting, and for its
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting included in the accompanying
Managements Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the
companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. A
companys internal control over financial reporting
includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to
the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail,
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable
assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and that
receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in
accordance with authorizations of management and directors of
the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding
prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use
or disposition of the companys assets that could have a
material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on
the COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, partners
capital and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2010 of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. and our report dated February 18, 2011
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 18, 2011
144
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers of Our General Partner and Corporate
Governance
|
Management
of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and Director
Independence
Our general partner, Calumet GP, LLC, manages our operations and
activities. Unitholders are not entitled to elect the directors
of our general partner or directly or indirectly participate in
our management or operations. Our general partner owes a
fiduciary duty to our unitholders, as limited by the various
provisions of our partnership agreement modifying and
restricting the fiduciary duties that might otherwise be owed by
our general partner to our unitholders.
The directors of our general partner oversee our operations. The
owners of our general partner have appointed seven members to
our general partners board of directors. The directors of
our general partner are generally elected by a majority vote of
the owners of our general partner on an annual basis. However,
as long as our chief executive officer and vice chairman of our
general partner, F. William Grube, or trusts established for the
benefit of his family members, continue to own at least 30% of
the membership interests in our general partner, Mr. Grube
(or in certain specified instances, his designee or transferee)
has the right to serve as a director of our general partner. The
directors of our general partner hold office until the earlier
of their death, resignation, removal or disqualification or
until their successors have been elected and qualified.
Pursuant to Section 4360 of the NASDAQ Stock Market
(NASDAQ) Marketplace Rules, NASDAQ does not require
a listed limited partnership like us to have a majority of
independent directors on the board of directors of our general
partner or to establish a compensation committee or a
nominating/governance committee. However, three of our general
partners seven directors are independent as
that term is defined in the applicable NASDAQ rules and
Rule 10A-3
of the Exchange Act. In determining the independence of each
director, our general partner has adopted standards that
incorporate the NASDAQ and Exchange Act standards. Our general
partners independent directors as determined in accordance
with those standards are: James S. Carter, Robert E. Funk and
George C. Morris III.
The officers of our general partner manage the
day-to-day
affairs of our business. Officers serve at the discretion of the
board of directors.
145
Directors
and Executive Officers
The following table shows information regarding the directors
and executive officers of Calumet GP, LLC as of
February 22, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position with Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
Vice President Operations
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
Vice President Sales and Marketing
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
Vice President Crude Oil Supply
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
Vice President Planning and Economics
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
Director
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Director
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
Director
|
George C. Morris III
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Director
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
Director
|
All members of the board of directors are elected for one-year
terms and until their successors have been elected and
qualified. Each directors biographical information set
forth below includes the particular experience and
qualifications that led the board of directors to conclude that
the director is qualified to serve in such capacity.
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. has served as the chairman
of the board of our general partner since September 2005.
Mr. Fehsenfeld also served as the vice chairman of the
board of our Predecessor from 1990 until our initial public
offering. Mr. Fehsenfeld has worked for The Heritage Group
in various capacities since 1977 and has served as its managing
trustee since 1980. Mr. Fehsenfeld received his B.S. in
Mechanical Engineering from Duke University and his M.S. in
Management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan
School.
As co-founder of our Predecessor, Mr. Fehsenfeld has an
extensive knowledge base regarding the Companys operations
and has participated in all major strategic decision making for
the Company and our Predecessor since their inception. In his
role as managing trustee of The Heritage Group,
Mr. Fehsenfeld serves in lead executive roles, including
the role of chairman and chief executive officer, for a
multitude of different companies within The Heritage Group,
providing breadth of experience in leadership and management
across a wide variety of industries, including energy. Since
2008, Mr. Fehsenfeld has served as chairman of the board of
directors of Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc., a publicly-traded
environmental services company which is owned in part by The
Heritage Group.
F. William Grube has served as the chief executive
officer and vice chairman of the board of our general partner
since January 2011. From September 2005 through December 2010,
Mr. Grube served as chief executive officer, president and
director of our general partner. Mr. Grube has also served
as president and chief executive officer of our Predecessor from
1990 until our initial public offering. From 1973 to 1989,
Mr. Grube served as executive vice president of Rock Island
Refining Corporation. Mr. Grube received his B.S. in
Chemical Engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
and his M.B.A. from Harvard University. Mr. Grube is the
father of Jennifer G. Straumins, president and chief operating
officer of our general partner.
As co-founder of our Predecessor and through his role as the
chief executive officer since inception, Mr. Grube
possesses unique experience relative to the management of the
Company on a
day-to-day
basis over a significant time period and across all functional
areas of the Company. Mr. Grube has significant technical
expertise in refining developed over the course of his career,
with both the Company and our Predecessor, as well as another
refining company which specialized in the production of fuel
products.
Jennifer G. Straumins has served as president and chief
operating officer of our general partner since January 2011.
From December 2009 through December 2010, Ms. Straumins
served as executive vice president and chief
146
operating officer of our general partner. From February 2007
through December 2009, Ms. Straumins served as senior vice
president of our general partner. From January 2006 through
February 2007, Ms. Straumins served as vice
president investor relations of our general partner.
Ms. Straumins served in various capacities in financial
planning and economics for our Predecessor from 2002 until our
initial public offering. Prior to joining our Predecessor,
Ms. Straumins held financial planning positions with Great
Lakes Chemical Company and Exxon Chemical Company.
Ms. Straumins received a B.E. in Chemical Engineering from
Vanderbilt University and her M.B.A. from the University of
Kansas. Ms. Straumins is the daughter of F. William Grube,
the chief executive officer and vice chairman of the board of
our general partner.
R. Patrick Murray, II has served as vice president,
chief financial officer and secretary of our general partner
since September 2005. Mr. Murray served as the vice
president and chief financial officer of our Predecessor from
1999 until our initial public offering and served as its
controller from 1998 to 1999. From 1993 to 1998, Mr. Murray
was a senior auditor with Arthur Andersen LLP. Mr. Murray
received his B.B.A. in Accountancy from the University of Notre
Dame.
Timothy R. Barnhart has served as vice
president operations of our general partner since
December 2009. Mr. Barnhart served as the plant manager of
our Karns City facility from January 2008 to December 2009.
Prior to joining Calumet in 2008 upon our acquisition of
Penreco, Mr. Barnhart held various engineering, supervisory
and management positions at Penreco and Pennzoil Products
Company. Mr. Barnhart received his B.S. in Engineering from
Grove City College.
William A. Anderson has served as vice
president sales and marketing of our general partner
since September 2005. Mr. Anderson served as vice
president sales and marketing of our Predecessor
from 2000 until our initial public offering and served in
various other capacities from 1993 to 2000. Mr. Anderson
received his B.A. in Communications from DePauw University.
Robert M. Mills has served as vice president
crude oil supply of our general partner since September 2005.
Mr. Mills served as the vice president crude
oil supply of our Predecessor from 1995 until our initial public
offering and served as its manager of supply and distribution
from 1993 to 1995. Mr. Mills received his B.S. in Business
Administration from Louisiana State University.
Jeffrey D. Smith has served as vice president
planning and economics of our general partner since September
2005. He served as vice president planning and
economics of our Predecessor from 2002 until our initial public
offering. Mr. Smith joined our Predecessor in 1994 and
served in various capacities prior to becoming vice president.
Mr. Smith received his B.S. in Geology from Louisiana Tech
University.
James S. Carter has served as a member of the board of
directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Carter served as U.S. regional director of Exxon
Mobil Fuels Company, the fuels subsidiary of Exxon Mobil
Corporation, from 1999 until his retirement in 2003.
Mr. Carter received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from
Clemson University and his M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting from
Tulane University.
Mr. Carter brings extensive marketing and managerial
experience with one of the largest integrated energy companies
in the world. He possesses a broad background in petroleum
products marketing, with specific experience in the marketing of
fuel products.
William S. Fehsenfeld has served as a member of the board
of directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Fehsenfeld is chairman of the board and has served as
an officer of Schuler Books, Inc., the independent bookstore
company he founded with his wife, since 1982. He has also served
as a trustee of The Heritage Group from 2003 to the present.
Mr. Fehsenfeld received his B.G.S. from the University of
Michigan and his M.B.A. from Grand Valley State University. He
is also a first cousin of the chairman of the board of our
general partner, Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
In his role as a trustee of The Heritage Group, which held the
controlling interest in our Predecessor, Mr. Fehsenfeld has
extensive knowledge of the Company and its operations over time
and has been involved in strategic decision making for the
Company during his tenure. His role as a trustee of The Heritage
Group provides significant breadth of oversight experience of a
multitude of companies across various industry sectors,
including
147
energy. As a founder and owner of a successful independent
bookselling business, Mr. Fehsenfeld also brings executive
management and entrepreneurial skills to the board of directors.
Robert E. Funk has served as a member of the board of
directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Funk previously served as vice president-corporate
planning and economics of Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a refiner
and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants,
petrochemicals, refined waxes, asphalt and other industrial
products, from 1997 until his retirement in December 2004.
Mr. Funk previously served Citgo or its predecessor, Cities
Services Company, as general manager-facilities planning from
1988 to 1997, general manager-lubricants operations from 1983 to
1988 and manager-refinery east, Lake Charles refinery from 1982
to 1983. Mr. Funk received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering
from the University of Kansas.
Mr. Funk has extensive refining industry experience
including planning, operations and managerial roles for a large
multinational refining company. His broad background of
experience provides helpful insight to the Company in its
implementation of strategic initiatives and its refinery
operations in general.
George C. Morris III has served as a member of the
board of directors of our general partner since May 2009.
Mr. Morris is the president of Morris Energy Advisors, Inc.
and most recently served as a managing director at Merrill
Lynch & Co. until his retirement in March 2009.
Mr. Morris served as a managing director of investment
banking at Petrie Parkman & Co. until its acquisition
by Merrill Lynch in December 2006 and also served as a managing
director of investment banking at Simmons & Company
International and as a director of investment banking at First
Boston Corporation. Mr. Morris holds B.B.A. and M.B.A.
degrees from the University of Texas and a J.D. from Southern
Methodist University.
Mr. Morris long tenure in the investment banking
industry with a focus on the energy sector provides unique
breadth of experience to the board of directors in areas of
finance and capital markets. In his role as a financial advisor
to the Company prior to joining the board of directors,
Mr. Morris gained significant insight into the
Companys operations and strategy.
Nicholas J. Rutigliano has served as a member of the
board of directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Rutigliano has served as president of Tobias Insurance
Group, Inc., a commercial insurance brokerage business he
founded, since 1973. He has also served as a trustee of The
Heritage Group from 1980 to the present and as a trustee of the
University of Evansville. Mr. Rutigliano received his B.S.
in Business from the University of Evansville. He is also the
brother-in-law
of the chairman of the board of our general partner, Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr.
In his role as a trustee of The Heritage Group, which held the
controlling interest in our Predecessor, Mr. Rutigliano has
extensive knowledge of the Company and its operations over time
and has been involved in strategic decisionmaking for the
Company from the inception of the Companys Predecessor.
His role as a trustee of The Heritage Group provides significant
breadth of oversight experience of a multitude of companies
across various industry sectors, including energy. As the
founder and chief executive officer of a successful commercial
insurance brokerage business, Mr. Rutigliano brings unique
risk management, executive management and entrepreneurial skills
to the board of directors.
Board of
Directors Committees
Conflicts
Committee
Two members of the board of directors of our general partner
serve on a conflicts committee to review specific matters that
the board believes may involve conflicts of interest. The
conflicts committee determines if the resolution of the conflict
of interest is fair and reasonable to us. The members of the
conflicts committee may not be owners, officers or employees of
our general partner or directors, officers, or employees of its
affiliates, and must meet the independence and experience
standards established by NASDAQ and the Exchange Act to serve on
an audit committee of a board of directors, and certain other
requirements. Any matters approved by the conflicts committee
will be conclusively deemed to be fair and reasonable to us,
approved by all of our partners, and not a breach by our general
partner of any duties it may owe us or our unitholders. The two
independent board members who serve on the conflicts committee
are Messrs. James S. Carter and Robert E. Funk.
Mr. Carter serves as the chairman of the conflicts
committee.
148
Compensation
Committee
The board of directors of our general partner also has a
compensation committee which, among other responsibilities,
oversees the compensation plans awarded to directors, officers
and key employees described in Item 11 Executive and
Director Compensation. NASDAQ does not require a limited
partnership like us to have a compensation committee comprised
entirely of independent directors. Accordingly,
Messrs. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. and F. William Grube
serve as members of our compensation committee.
Mr. Fehsenfeld serves as the chairman of the compensation
committee.
The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the
compensation committee which defines the scope of the
committees authority. The committee may form and delegate
some or all of its authority to subcommittees comprised of
committee members when it deems appropriate. The committee is
responsible for reviewing and recommending to the board of
directors for its approval the annual salary and other
compensation components for the chief executive officer. The
committee reviews and makes recommendations to the board of
directors for its approval any of the Companys equity
compensation-based plans, including the Long-Term Incentive
Plan, or any cash bonus or incentive compensation plans or
programs. Also, the committee reviews and approves all annual
salary and other compensation arrangements and components for
the senior executives of the Company. Further, the compensation
committee periodically reviews and makes a recommendation to the
board of directors for changes in the compensation of all
directors. The committee has the authority to retain and
terminate any compensation consultant to assist it in the
evaluation of director and senior executive compensation and to
obtain independent advice and assistance from internal and
external legal, accounting and other advisors.
See Item 11 Executive and Director
Compensation Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Peer Group and Compensation Targets
for additional discussion regarding the results of this
executive compensation review.
Audit
Committee
The board of directors of our general partner has an audit
committee comprised of three directors, Messrs. James S.
Carter, Robert E. Funk and George C. Morris III, each of whom
the board of directors of our general partner has determined
meets the independence and experience standards established by
NASDAQ and the SEC. In addition, the board of directors of our
general partner has determined that Mr. Morris is an
audit committee financial expert as defined by the
SEC. Mr. Morris serves as the chairman of the audit
committee.
The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the
audit committee. The audit committee assists the board of
directors in its oversight of the integrity of our financial
statements and our compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements and corporate policies and controls. The audit
committee has the sole authority to retain and terminate our
independent registered public accounting firm, approves all
auditing services and related fees and the terms thereof and
pre-approves any non-audit services to be rendered by our
independent registered public accounting firm. The audit
committee is also responsible for confirming the independence
and objectivity of our independent registered public accounting
firm. Our independent registered public accounting firm is given
unrestricted access to the audit committee.
Code
of Ethics
We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that
applies to all officers, directors and employees.
Available on our website at www.calumetspecialty.com are copies
of our board of directors committee charters and Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics, all of which also will be provided
to unitholders without charge upon their written request to:
Investor Relations, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.,
2780 Waterfront Parkway E. Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis,
IN 46214.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, requires Calumets directors and certain executive
officers, as well as beneficial owners of ten percent or more of
Calumets common units, to report their holdings and
transactions in Calumets securities. Based on information
furnished to Calumet and contained in reports provided pursuant
to Section 16(a), as well as written representations that
no other reports were required for
149
2010, Calumets directors and executive officers filed all
reports required by Section 16(a), with the exception of
one late filing relating to common unit purchases on
May 17, 2010 by George C. Morris III.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
and Director Compensation
|
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
Overview
The compensation committee of the board of directors of our
general partner oversees our compensation programs. Our general
partner maintains compensation and benefits programs designed to
allow us to attract, motivate and retain the best possible
employees to manage the Company, including executive
compensation programs designed to reward the achievement of both
short-term and long-term goals necessary to promote growth and
generate positive unitholder returns. Our general partners
executive compensation programs are based on a
pay-for-performance
philosophy, including measurement of the Companys
performance against a specified financial target, namely
distributable cash flow. The Companys executive
compensation programs include both long-term and short-term
compensation elements which, together with base salary and
employee benefits, constitute a total compensation package
intended to be competitive with similar companies.
Under their collective authority, the compensation committee and
the board of directors maintain the right to develop and modify
compensation programs and policies as they deem appropriate.
Factors they may consider in making decisions to materially
increase or decrease compensation include overall Company
financial performance, growth of the Company over time, changes
in complexity of the Company as well as individual executive job
scope complexity, individual executive job performance, and
changes in competitive compensation practices in our defined
labor markets. In determining any forms of compensation other
than the base salary for the senior executives, or in the case
of the chief executive officer the recommendation to the board
of directors of the forms of compensation for the chief
executive officer, the compensation committee considers the
Companys financial performance and relative unitholder
return, the value of similar incentive awards to senior
executives at comparable companies and the awards given to
senior executives in past years.
Financial
Performance Metric Used in Compensation Programs
Our primary business objective is to generate cash flows to make
distributions to our unitholders. The Companys
distributable cash flow is the primary measurement of
performance taken into account in setting policies and making
compensation decisions, as we believe this represents the most
comprehensive measurement of our ability to generate cash flows.
Both short-term and long-term forms of executive compensation
are specifically structured on the Companys achievement
relative to annual distributable cash flow goals and, as such,
determination of related awards, as well as their grant or
payment, occurs subsequent to the end of each fiscal year upon
final determination of distributable cash flow. We believe that
including this financial objective as the primary performance
measurement to determine compensation awards for all of our
executive officers recognizes the integrated and collaborative
effort required by the full executive team to maximize
performance. Distributable cash flow is a non-GAAP measure that
we define, consistent with our credit agreements, as our
Adjusted EBITDA less replacement capital expenditures, cash
interest expense and income tax expense. Please refer to
Item 6 Selected Financial Data
Non-GAAP Financial Measures for our definition of
Adjusted EBITDA.
Peer
Group and Compensation Targets
To evaluate all areas of executive compensation, the
compensation committee seeks the additional input of outside
compensation consultants and available comparative information
to validate that the compensation programs established for our
executives are consistent with the philosophy of compensating
our executives at ranges that approximate within 15% of the
median of market for companies of similar size to us. In 2010,
the compensation committee retained Buck Consultants, LLC
(Buck Consultants) as an independent consultant to
review our general partners executive compensation
programs. Buck Consultants reported directly to the
150
compensation committee and did not provide any additional
services to our general partner. The scope of this engagement
included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
review of Calumets existing peer group of publicly-traded
master limited partnerships for executive compensation
benchmarking;
|
|
|
|
analysis of market pay levels and trends for our named executive
officers, other officers and key employees from peer companies
including base salary, annual incentives and long-term
incentives; and
|
|
|
|
assessment of Calumets executive pay levels relative to
overall market levels.
|
The following master limited partnerships were included by Buck
Consultants in the peer group for the compensation review: Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., Buckeye Partners, L.P., Copano Energy,
L.L.C., Crosstex Energy, L.P., DCP Midstream Partners, LP,
Genesis Energy, L.P., Inergy Holdings, L.P., Magellan Midstream
Partners, L.P., MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., Penn Virginia
Resource Partners, L.P., Regency Energy Partners LP and Suburban
Propane Partners, L.P. Peer group companies were validated and
selected based on their comparability of EBITDA (a non-GAAP
measurement), sales and market capitalization to those of
Calumet. Market data compiled from public disclosures of the
peer group companies were used in the review to benchmark our
compensation of the key executive group against the market. Buck
Consultants provided a presentation of its findings to the
compensation committee in October 2010.
The compensation committee used the findings of the Buck
Consultants executive compensation review to validate the total
competitiveness of compensation for Calumets key
executives, including each named executive officer (but
excluding Mr. Moyes due to his pending resignation).
Specifically, the Buck Consultants review indicated that
Calumets aggregate target total direct compensation of its
key executives, which includes all the major elements of its
executive compensation program, including base salary,
short-term incentives and long-term compensation, was above the
median of market by less than 15%. While the Buck Consultants
review indicated that aggregate base salaries for key executives
fall at the median of the peer group, aggregate short-term
incentives for the key executives, assuming the target levels of
such incentives are achieved, fall below the
75th percentile of the market by less than 10%. As a result
of higher short-term incentives, total cash compensation of our
key executives, in aggregate, falls above the median of the peer
group by approximately 10%. Long-term incentives for the key
executives fall above the median of the peer group by less than
15%.
Review
of Named Executive Officer Performance
The compensation committee reviews, on an annual basis, each
compensation element of a named executive officer. In each case,
the compensation committee takes into account the scope of
responsibilities and experience and balances these against
competitive salary levels. The compensation committee has the
opportunity to meet with the named executive officers at various
times during the year, which allows the compensation committee
to form its own assessment of each individuals performance.
Objectives
of Compensation Programs
The Companys executive compensation programs are designed
with the following primary objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
reward strong individual performance that drives positive
Company financial results;
|
|
|
|
make incentive compensation a significant portion of an
executives total compensation, designed to balance
short-term and long-term performance;
|
|
|
|
align the interests of our executives with those of our
unitholders; and
|
|
|
|
attract, develop and retain executives with a compensation
structure that is competitive with other publicly-traded
partnerships of similar size.
|
151
Elements
of Executive Compensation
The compensation committee believes the total compensation and
benefits program for the Companys named executive officers
should consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
base salary;
|
|
|
|
annual incentive plan which includes short-term cash awards and
also includes an optional deferred compensation element;
|
|
|
|
long-term incentive compensation, including unit-based awards;
|
|
|
|
retirement, health and welfare benefits; and
|
|
|
|
perquisites.
|
These elements are designed to constitute an integrated
executive compensation structure meant to incentivize a high
level of individual executive officer performance in line with
the Companys financial and operating goals.
Base
Salary
Salaries provide executives with a base level of monthly income
as consideration for fulfillment of certain roles and
responsibilities. The salary program assists us in achieving our
objective of attracting and retaining the services of quality
individuals who are essential for the growth and profitability
of Calumet. Generally, changes in the base salary levels for our
named executive officers are determined on an annual basis by
the compensation committee of the board of directors and are
effective at the beginning of the following fiscal year. This
determination is based on the following criteria to determine
incremental adjustments to base salary:
|
|
|
|
|
an assessment of the individual executives sustained
performance against his or her individual job responsibilities
and overall job complexity;
|
|
|
|
general cost of living increases;
|
|
|
|
current salary relative to that of other Calumet
executives; and
|
|
|
|
a review by the compensation committee of the range of executive
salaries for our peer group of publicly traded partnerships of
similar size in the energy industry to ensure that base
salaries, when combined with other compensation components, fall
within 10% of the market median of our peer group.
|
Increases to annual salary reflect a reward and recognition for
successfully fulfilling the positions roles and
responsibilities. The compensation committee reviews annual
inflation indexes to determine a general level of cost of living
increase that is used consistently in determining annual cost of
living increases for all of our employees. The compensation
committee, in its discretion, may make base salary adjustments
at an interim date during the fiscal year for executives deemed
warranted due to changes in job complexity or after a comparison
of executive compensation levels of publicly-traded partnerships
similar in size to us.
Mr. Grubes initial base salary was established under
his employment agreement, which provides that the amount of his
annual salary increase must be at least equal to the average of
the percentage increases of all salaried employees of
Calumets general partner. Mr. Grubes salary
increases for 2010 and 2011 were 4.0% and 3.1%, respectively,
which was equivalent to the average of the percentage increases
of all salaried employees for each of those fiscal years. Please
read Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table
and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Description of
Employment Agreement with F. William Grube for additional
terms of Mr. Grubes employment agreement.
For fiscal year 2010, the more significant increases in base
salaries for Ms. Straumins, Mr. Murray and
Mr. Barnhart were based on increased job complexity due to
the growth of our business and in the case of
Ms. Straumins, increased job responsibilities resulting
from her promotion to executive vice president and chief
operating officer effective December 31, 2009. In addition,
these increases to base salary were the result of benchmarking
against our peer group of publicly traded partnerships in an
effort to ensure that base salaries were closer to the market
median of our peer group.
152
Mr. Moyes base salary for 2010 was $296,400 and was
unchanged from 2009 pursuant to the terms of his professional
services and transition agreement he entered into with Calumet
on November 2, 2009. Please read Professional
Services and Transition Agreement with Allan A. Moyes III
for additional terms of this agreement. Pursuant to this
agreement, Mr. Moyes employment terminated on
December 31, 2010.
The compensation committee approved increased salaries for all
of the other named executive officers for 2011 as part of its
annual salary review process in consideration of the above
factors. Effective January 1, 2011, the base salaries for
Ms. Straumins, Mr. Murray and Mr. Barnhart are
$288,500, $283,500, and $263,000, respectively. The levels of
increases in the base salaries for these executives were
approximately 3.0%, which was equivalent to the average of the
percentage increase in base salary for all salaried employees.
Short-Term
Cash Awards
Under the Cash Incentive Compensation Plan (the Cash
Incentive Plan), short-term cash awards are designed to
aid Calumet in retaining and motivating executives to assist the
Company in meeting its financial performance objectives on an
annual basis. Short-term cash awards are granted to named
executive officers and certain other management employees based
on Calumets achievement of performance targets on its
distributable cash flow, thereby establishing a direct link
between executive compensation and the Companys financial
performance.
The compensation committee establishes minimum, target and
stretch incentive opportunities for each executive officer and
other key employees expressed as a percentage of base salary.
The amount that is paid out is based on Calumets
achievement of a minimum, target or stretch level of
distributable cash flow for the fiscal year. Generally, no
awards are paid under the Cash Incentive Plan unless the Company
achieves at least the minimum distributable cash flow goal. The
compensation committee can recommend to the full board of
directors, however, that cash awards be given notwithstanding
the fact that the Company failed to achieve at least the minimum
distributable cash flow goal. If the minimum, target or stretch
level distributable cash flow goal is achieved, participants in
the plan will receive their minimum, target or stretch cash
award opportunity, respectively. If the Companys
distributable cash flow is between specified goal levels,
participants are eligible to receive a prorated percentage of
their cash award opportunity based on where the actual
distributable cash flow amount falls between the levels. For
fiscal year 2010, the minimum distributable cash flow goal was
$79.4 million, the target goal was $89.6 million and
the stretch goal was $110.0 million.
The following table summarizes the levels of cash award
opportunity for each named executive officer and the actual
percentage earned by them in 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Incentive Award Opportunity as a
|
|
|
Percentage of Base Salary
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Target
|
|
Stretch
|
|
Actual Payout
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
|
|
60
|
% (1)
|
Jennifer G. Straumins, R. Patrick Murray, II, Allan A.
Moyes III and Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Grubes employment agreement guarantees him a
potential award that is at least 150% of the amount of the next
highest potential award by any other executive officer of our
general partner, which would be the maximum potential award for
Mr. Moyes of $592,800. |
The compensation committee determined these percentages of base
salary at levels, when combined with both base salary and
potential long-term, unit-based awards, to develop a total
direct compensation structure for the named executive officers
which is intended to be within 15% of the median of our peer
group, while placing significant emphasis on the achievement of
the Companys distributable cash flow goals.
At the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors approves distributable cash flow targets for each
fiscal year based on budgets prepared by management. When making
the annual determination of the minimum goal, target goal and
stretch goal levels of distributable cash flow, the compensation
committee and the board of directors consider the specific
circumstances facing us during the relevant year. Generally, the
compensation committee seeks to set the minimum goal, target
goal and stretch goal levels such that the relative
153
challenge of achieving each level is consistent from year to
year. The expectation that management will achieve the minimum
goal level is very high, while meaningful additional effort
would be required to achieve the target goal and considerable
additional effort would be required to achieve the stretch goal.
For 2010, the target goal for distributable cash flow was set at
the budgeted amount, a level that the board of directors
believed reflected the reasonable expectations management had
for the financial performance of the Company during the fiscal
year and likely to be achieved given actual distributable cash
flow achieved for the 2009 fiscal year. The board of directors
set the stretch cash flow goal at 22% above the budgeted amount,
a level which they believed would be attained only with higher
levels of performance relative to the reasonable expectations
management had for the financial performance of the Company and
therefore not likely to be achieved. The minimum goal was set at
approximately 11% below the budgeted amount.
For the 2010 fiscal year, the Companys distributable cash
flow was below the minimum goal. As described in greater detail
in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations 2010
Update, the primary drivers of the Company not meeting its
distributable cash flow targets were lower feedstock runs at our
Shreveport refinery and lower gross profit per barrel of fuel
products sold.
However, when assessing our performance with respect to its
distributable cash flow targets, the compensation committee
determined it was appropriate to include an interim payment of
certain insurance proceeds. The compensation committee also
considered our executive officers continued leadership in
guiding the Company through the economic recovery, as reflected
by our improved cash flow from operations and increased cash
distributions to our unitholders. Accordingly, for purposes of
determining payout amounts under the Cash Incentive Plan, our
adjusted distributable cash flow was above the minimum goal as
reflected in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributable Cash Flow (In millions)
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Actual
|
|
Minimum Goal
|
|
Target Goal
|
|
Stretch Goal
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
79.8
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
79.4
|
|
|
$
|
89.6
|
|
|
$
|
110.0
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
101.7
|
|
|
$
|
101.2
|
|
|
$
|
126.6
|
|
|
$
|
157.2
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
94.5
|
|
|
$
|
90.0
|
|
|
$
|
110.0
|
|
|
$
|
125.0
|
|
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors has approved new distributable cash flow targets
for the 2011 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by
management. We do not disclose our confidential 2011 targets,
which, if disclosed would put us at a competitive disadvantage.
As reflected in the table above, the performance targets we
established for 2010, 2009 and 2008 illustrate on a historical
basis the relative difficulty of attaining each level.
For further description of this compensation program, please see
Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and
Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Description of
Cash Incentive Plan.
Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan
The compensation committee allows for the participation of the
executive officers in the Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the Deferred
Compensation Plan) to encourage the officers to save for
retirement and to assist the Company in retaining the officers.
The Deferred Compensation Plan is intended to promote retention
by giving employees an opportunity to save in a tax-efficient
manner. The terms governing the retirement benefit under this
plan for the executive officers are the same as those available
for other eligible employees in the U.S. Pursuant to the
Deferred Compensation Plan, a select group of management,
including the named executive officers, and all of the
non-employee directors of the Company are eligible to
participate by making an annual irrevocable election to defer,
in the case of management, all or a portion of their annual cash
incentive award under the Cash Incentive Plan, and, in the case
of non-management directors, all or none of their annual cash
retainer. The deferred amounts are credited to
participants accounts in the form of phantom units, with
each such phantom unit representing a notional unit that
entitles the holder to receive either an actual common unit of
the Company or the cash value of a common unit (determined by
using the fair market value of a common unit at the time a
determination is needed). The phantom units credited to each
Plan participants
154
account also receive distribution equivalent rights
(DERs), which are credited to the participants
account in the form of additional phantom units. In its sole
discretion, the Company may make matching contributions of
phantom units or purely discretionary contributions of phantom
units, in amounts and at times as it determines. On
March 5, 2010, the Company made discretionary matching
contributions of phantom units to the accounts of those
participants in the Deferred Compensation Plan, including
certain of the named executive officers and non-management
directors, who elected to defer all or a portion of their annual
cash incentive award or annual cash retainer, as applicable,
related to the 2009 fiscal year. These contributions, which were
subject to continued service vesting requirements, were made by
the Company as a reward for prior service and future efforts
toward our success and growth, as well as an incentive for
continued participation through elective deferrals into the
Deferred Compensation Plan allowing participants to save in a
tax-efficient manner knowing that that Company, in its
discretion, may make such matching contributions. Please see
Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and
Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation Nonqualified Deferred
Compensation Table for 2010 for a more detailed disclosure
of the value of contributions into this plan, as well as the
DERs associated with such contributions.
Long-Term,
Unit-Based Awards
Long-term unit-based awards may consist of phantom units,
restricted units, unit options, substitution awards and DERs.
These awards are granted to employees, consultants and directors
of our general partner under the provisions of our Long-Term
Incentive Plan, as amended, (the Plan) originally
adopted on January 24, 2006 and administered by the
compensation committee. These awards aid Calumet in retaining
and motivating executives to assist the Company in meeting its
financial performance objectives.
In fiscal year 2010, the annual unit award opportunity to named
executive officers consisted of the contingent right to receive
phantom units. Under the Plan, a phantom unit is the right to
receive, upon the satisfaction of time-based vesting criteria
specified in the grant, a common unit (or cash equivalent).
Under the Plan, phantom units are granted only upon the
Companys achievement of specified levels of distributable
cash flow. Accordingly, these awards established a direct link
between executive compensation and the Companys financial
performance. This component of executive compensation, when
coupled with an extended ratable vesting period as compared to
cash awards, further aligns the interests of executives with the
Companys unitholders in the longer-term and reinforces
unit ownership levels among executives.
The following table provides the annual unit award opportunity
for each named executive officer. Our general objective when
determining the size of the phantom unit awards is to provide
our named executive officers with long-term incentive
opportunities targeted at the between the 25th percentile
and the 50th percentile of peer practices for long-term
equity based awards for similarly situated executive officers.
The distributable cash flow minimum, target and stretch levels
were the same ones used in determining payouts for the 2010 cash
incentive awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Phantom Unit Award
|
|
|
|
|
Opportunity
|
|
Phantom Units
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Target
|
|
Stretch
|
|
Granted
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
16,200
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins, R. Patrick Murray, II,
Allan A. Moyes III and Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
5,400 phantom units were awarded to Mr. Grube and
3,600 phantom units each were awarded to Ms. Straumins,
Mr. Murray, Mr. Moyes and Mr. Barnhart under the
program related to fiscal year 2010 because the Company achieved
at least its minimum distributable cash flow goal. The phantom
units will be granted in the first quarter of 2011.
Phantom units granted are subject to a time-vesting requirement,
whereby 25% of the units vest immediately at grant and the
remainder vest ratably over three years on each
December 31. These phantom units also receive DERs, which
are paid in the form of cash.
155
The following table provides the annual unit award opportunity
for 2011 for each named executive officer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 Phantom Unit Award Opportunity
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Target
|
|
Stretch
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
21,600
|
|
|
|
32,400
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins, R. Patrick Murray, II and
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
14,400
|
|
|
|
21,600
|
|
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors approved annual award opportunities for the key
executives, including the named executive officers, for 2011 at
levels that are 200% of the annual award opportunities at each
distributable cash flow goal level for 2010 as a special
incentive for higher performance relative to annual
distributable cash flow goals and to enhance the opportunity for
meaningful equity ownership among the executives to further
align the interests of executives with the Companys
unitholders in the longer-term. Please see Short-Term Cash
Awards for a discussion of the distributable cash flow
targets for the 2011 fiscal year.
For further description of this compensation program, please see
Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and
Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Description of
Long-Term Incentive Plan.
Health
and Welfare Benefits
We offer a variety of health and welfare benefits to all
eligible employees of our general partner. These benefits are
consistent with the types of benefits provided by our peer group
and provided so as to ensure that we are able to maintain a
competitive position in terms of attracting and retaining
executive officers and other employees. In addition, the health
and welfare programs are intended to protect employees against
catastrophic loss and encourage a healthy lifestyle. The named
executive officers generally are eligible for the same benefit
programs on the same basis as the rest of our employees. Our
health and welfare programs include medical, pharmacy, dental,
life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment. In
addition, certain employees are eligible for long-term
disability coverage. Coverage under long-term disability offers
benefits specific to the named executive officers. We provide
the named executive officers with a compensation allowance,
which is grossed up for the payment of taxes to allow them to
purchase long-term disability coverage on an after-tax basis at
no net cost to them. As structured, these long-term disability
benefits will pay 60% of monthly earnings, as defined by the
policy, up to a maximum of $6,000 per month during a period of
continuing disability up to normal retirement age, as defined by
the policy. Executive officers and other key employees are also
eligible to obtain executive physical examinations which are
paid for by the Company. Decisions made with respect to this
compensation element do not significantly factor into or affect
decisions made with respect to other compensation elements.
Retirement
Benefits
We provide the Calumet GP, LLC Retirement Savings Plan (the
401(k) Plan) to assist our eligible officers and
employees in providing for their retirement. Named executive
officers participate in the same retirement savings plan as
other eligible employees subject to ERISA limits. The Company
matches 100% of each 1% of eligible compensation contribution by
the participant up to 4% and 50% of each additional 1% of
eligible compensation contribution up to 6%, for a maximum
contribution by the Company of 5% of eligible compensation
contributions per participant. These contributions are provided
as a reward for prior contributions and future efforts toward
our success and growth.
The retirement savings plan also includes a discretionary
profit-sharing component. Determination of annual contributions
are made by the compensation committee based on overall
profitability of the Company. The board of directors approved a
discretionary profit sharing contribution to the 401(k) plan for
all eligible participants equivalent to 2.5% of their eligible
compensation for the 2010 fiscal year. The value of Company
contributions to the retirement savings plan for named executive
officers is included in the Summary Compensation Table.
Decisions made with respect to this compensation element do not
significantly factor into or affect decisions made with respect
to other compensation elements.
156
Perquisites
We provide executive officers with perquisites and other
personal benefits that we believe are reasonable and consistent
with our overall compensation programs and philosophy. These
benefits are provided in order to enable us to attract and
retain these executives. Decisions made with respect to this
compensation element do not significantly factor into or affect
decisions made with respect to other compensation elements.
All named executive officers are provided with all, or certain
of, the following benefits as a supplement to their other
compensation:
|
|
|
|
|
Use of Company Vehicle: In order to assist
them in conducting the daily affairs of the Company, we provide
each named executive officer with a company vehicle that may be
used for personal use as well as business use. Personal use of a
company vehicle is treated as taxable compensation to the named
executive officer.
|
|
|
|
Executive Physical Program: Generally on an
annual basis, we pay for a complete and professional personal
physical exam for each named executive officer appropriate for
his or her age to improve their health and productivity.
|
|
|
|
Club Memberships: We pay club membership fees
for a certain named executive officer. Although such club
memberships may be used for personal purposes in addition to
business entertainment purposes, each named executive officer
having such a membership is responsible for the reimbursement of
the Company or direct payment for any incremental costs above
the base membership fees associated with his or her personal use
of such membership.
|
|
|
|
Spousal Travel: On an occasional basis, we pay
expenses related to travel of the spouses of our named executive
officers in order to accompany the named executive officer to
business-related events.
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Disability Insurance: We provide
compensation to allow each named executive officer to purchase
long-term disability insurance on an after-tax basis at no net
cost to them.
|
The compensation committee periodically reviews the perquisite
program to determine if adjustments are appropriate.
Other
Compensation Related Matters
Tax
Implications of Executive Compensation
Because Calumet is not an entity taxable as a corporation, many
of the tax issues associated with executive compensation that
face publicly traded corporations do not directly affect the
Company. Internal Revenue Code Section 409A
(Section 409A) provides that amounts deferred
under nonqualified deferred compensation plans are includible in
a participants income when vested, unless certain
requirements are met. If these requirements are not met,
participants are also subject to an additional income tax and
interest. All of our awards under our Long-Term Incentive Plan,
severance arrangements and other nonqualified deferred
compensation plans presently meet these requirements. As a
result, employees will be taxed when the deferred compensation
is actually paid to them. We will be entitled to a tax deduction
at that time.
Executive
Ownership of Units
While we have not adopted any security ownership requirements or
policies for our executives, our executive compensation programs
foster the enhancement of executives equity ownership
through long-term, unit-based awards under Calumets
Long-Term Incentive Plan. Further, in 2006 several executives
purchased a significant number of our common units as
participants in our directed unit program in conjunction with
our initial public offering. For a listing of security ownership
by our named executive officers, refer to Item 12
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management and Related Unitholder Matters.
The board of directors has adopted the Insider Trading Policy of
Calumet GP, LLC and Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(the Insider Trading Policy), which provides
guidelines to employees, officers and directors with respect to
transactions in the Companys securities. Pursuant to
Calumets Insider Trading Policy, all
157
executive officers and directors must confer with the Chief
Financial Officer before effecting any put or call options for
the Companys securities. Further, the Insider Trading
Policy states that the Company strongly discourages all such
transactions by officers, directors and all other employees and
consultants. The Insider Trading Policy is available on our
website at www.calumetspecialty.com or a copy will be provided
at no cost to unitholders upon their written request to:
Investor Relations, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.,
2780 Waterfront Parkway East Drive, Suite 200,
Indianapolis, IN 46214.
Employment
Agreement with F. William Grube
We have entered into an employment agreement with our chief
executive officer and vice chairman of the board F. William
Grube, to ensure he will perform his role for an extended period
of time given his position and value to the Company. For a
discussion of the major terms of Mr. Grubes
employment agreement, please refer to Narrative Disclosure
to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards
Table Description of Employment Agreement with F.
William Grube.
Under his employment agreement, Mr. Grube is entitled to
receive severance compensation if his employment is terminated
under certain conditions, such as termination by Mr. Grube
for good reason or by us without cause,
each as defined in the agreement and further described in
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in
Control Employment Agreement with F. William
Grube.
Our employment agreement with Mr. Grube and the related
severance provisions are designed to meet the following
objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Control: In certain scenarios, the
potential for merger or being acquired may be in the best
interests of our unitholders. We provide the potential for
severance compensation to Mr. Grube in the event of a
change in control transaction to promote his ability to act in
the best interests of our unitholders even though his employment
could be terminated as a result of the transaction.
|
|
|
|
Termination without Cause: We believe
severance compensation in such a scenario is appropriate because
Mr. Grube is bound by confidentiality, nonsolicitation and
noncompetition provisions covering one year after termination
and because we and Mr. Grube have a mutually agreed to
severance package that is in place prior to any termination
event. This provides us with more flexibility to make a change
in this executive position if such a change is in our and our
unitholders best interests.
|
The salary multiple of the change of control benefits, use of
the single trigger change of control benefits and the amount of
the severance payout were determined through negotiation with
Mr. Grube at the time that we entered into his employment
agreement. Relative to the overall value of the Company, the
compensation committee believes these potential benefits are
reasonable.
Professional
Services and Transition Agreement with Allan A. Moyes
III
We entered into a Professional Services and Transition Agreement
(the Service Agreement) with Allan A. Moyes III
on November 2, 2009 in order to facilitate an effective
transition of Mr. Moyes executive duties to other
executives within the Company, to provide Mr. Moyes with an
incentive for continued performance of his duties during 2010
and as a reward for his prior service. Subject to his earlier
termination for Cause (as defined in the Service Agreement) or
his voluntary resignation, Mr. Moyes remained an executive
vice president through December 31, 2010. The Service
Agreement provided Mr. Moyes with the same base salary
through December 31, 2010 as he was receiving at the time
he executed the Service Agreement. He also participated in all
benefit plans offered to similarly-situated employees, including
the Cash Incentive Plan, the Calumet Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan, the Long-Term Incentive Plan and any health
and welfare plan in which he was currently participating at the
time of the execution of the Service Agreement. We will also
provide Mr. Moyes with continued health care benefits for a
period of 32 weeks beginning January 1, 2011. Please
see Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in
Control Service Agreement with Allan A. Moyes
III for the definition of Cause in the Service
Agreement.
158
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our named executive officers for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Compensation Table for 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive
|
|
Change in Pension Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit
|
|
Plan
|
|
and Nonqualified Deferred
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
Salary
|
|
Awards (5)
|
|
Compensation (6)
|
|
Compensation Earnings (7)
|
|
Compensation (8)
|
|
Total
|
|
F. William Grube (1)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
386,131
|
|
|
$
|
278,220
|
(5)
|
|
$
|
115,378
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,574
|
|
|
$
|
799,303
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and Vice
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
371,280
|
|
|
|
113,338
|
(9)
|
|
|
113,338
|
(9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,133
|
|
|
|
613,089
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
357,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
261,844
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,712
|
|
|
|
644,556
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins (2)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
280,000
|
|
|
|
173,736
|
(5)
|
|
|
101,728
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,884
|
|
|
|
573,348
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
214,500
|
|
|
|
162,607
|
(9)
|
|
|
|
(9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,659
|
|
|
|
405,766
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
195,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119,438
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,940
|
|
|
|
336,378
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
129,699
|
(5)
|
|
|
114,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,240
|
|
|
|
536,123
|
|
Vice President and Chief Financial
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
242,000
|
|
|
|
75,968
|
(9)
|
|
|
74,029
|
(9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
407,997
|
|
Officer
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
220,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,682
|
|
|
|
379,432
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III (3)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
296,400
|
|
|
|
143,769
|
(5)
|
|
|
107,686
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,798
|
|
|
|
615,653
|
|
Former Executive Vice President
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
296,400
|
|
|
|
58,633
|
(9)
|
|
|
105,790
|
(9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,902
|
|
|
|
476,725
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
285,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
174,563
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,919
|
|
|
|
486,482
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart (4)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
255,000
|
|
|
|
179,931
|
(5)
|
|
|
66,175
|
|
|
|
38,800
|
|
|
|
17,735
|
|
|
|
557,641
|
|
Vice President Operations
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
209,196
|
|
|
|
114,878
|
(9)
|
|
|
49,972
|
(9)
|
|
|
19,511
|
|
|
|
18,661
|
|
|
|
412,218
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Grube was appointed vice chairman of the board
effective January 1, 2011. |
|
(2) |
|
Ms. Straumins was appointed president effective
January 1, 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
Mr. Moyes resigned effective December 31, 2010. |
|
(4) |
|
Mr. Barnhart became an executive officer in December 2009. |
|
(5) |
|
The amounts include the aggregate grant date fair value of
(i) awards made in connection with each executive
officers election to defer a portion of his or her cash
incentive plan award, (ii) discretionary matching phantom
unit awards granted during the fiscal year, (iii) phantom
units the grant date of which occurred in 2010, which that are
granted to reward services provided during the fiscal year and
the number of which is determined based on the Companys
level of distributable cash flow during the fiscal year,
excluding the effect of estimated forfeitures and (iv) DERs
granted in the form of phantom units pursuant to the Deferred
Compensation Plan. |
|
(6) |
|
Represents amounts earned under our Cash Incentive Compensation
Plan. Please read Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Short-Term Cash Awards. |
|
(7) |
|
Represents aggregate change in the actuarial present value of
accumulated benefits under the Penreco Pension Plan. Please read
Pension Benefits. |
|
(8) |
|
The following table provides the aggregate All Other
Compensation information for each of the named executive
officers, except that it excludes perquisites or other personal
benefits received by Mr. Grube, Ms. Straumins,
Mr. Murray and Mr. Barnhart in 2010, as such amounts
for these named executive officers were each less than $10,000
in aggregate. |
|
(9) |
|
2009 amounts have been restated to reallocate the portion of the
cash incentive award for each named executive officer that was
deferred into the Deferred Compensation Plan as phantom units. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
401(k) Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matching
|
|
|
Annual
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spousal
|
|
|
Club
|
|
|
Disability
|
|
|
Term Life
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
|
Physical
|
|
|
Vehicle (a)
|
|
|
Travel
|
|
|
Membership
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
18,436
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,138
|
|
|
$
|
19,574
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
17,061
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
823
|
|
|
|
17,884
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
16,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
809
|
|
|
|
17,240
|
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
18,470
|
|
|
|
1,412
|
|
|
|
46,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
792
|
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
67,798
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
16,985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
750
|
|
|
|
17,735
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Upon Mr. Moyes retirement on December 31, 2010
pursuant to the terms of the Service Agreement between
Mr. Moyes and the Company, he was given the title to his
company vehicle, which was previously owned by the |
159
|
|
|
|
|
Company. The incremental cost to the Company for such perquisite
was $39,916, calculated as the fair market value of the vehicle
grossed up for taxes. Additionally, $6,335 was related to
Mr. Moyes personal use of this vehicle during 2010. |
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards
The following table sets forth grants of plan-based awards to
our named executive officers for the year ended
December 31, 2010:
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table for the Year Ended December 31,
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future
|
|
Estimated Future
|
|
All Other
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
Payouts Under
|
|
Payouts Under
|
|
Unit
|
|
Date Fair
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
Equity
|
|
Awards:
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Plan Awards (1)
|
|
Incentive Plan Awards (2)
|
|
Number of
|
|
Unit
|
Name
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Target
|
|
Maximum
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Target
|
|
Maximum
|
|
Units (3)
|
|
Awards
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
222,300
|
|
|
$
|
444,600
|
|
|
$
|
889,200
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
16,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-5-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,830
|
|
|
$
|
37,790
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
|
3,330
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192
|
|
|
|
3,339
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160
|
|
|
|
3,363
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140,000
|
|
|
|
280,000
|
|
|
|
560,000
|
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
1,828
|
|
|
|
|
3-5-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,765
|
|
|
|
36,447
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275
|
|
|
|
5,033
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
290
|
|
|
|
5,043
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
5,108
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137,500
|
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
914
|
|
|
|
|
3-5-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
797
|
|
|
|
16,458
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
2,361
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
2,365
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
2,375
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148,200
|
|
|
|
296,400
|
|
|
|
592,800
|
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
447
|
|
|
|
|
3-5-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
732
|
|
|
|
15,116
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
1,793
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
1,774
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
1,808
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,500
|
|
|
|
255,000
|
|
|
|
510,000
|
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
1,361
|
|
|
|
|
3-5-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,210
|
|
|
|
24,987
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195
|
|
|
|
3,569
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205
|
|
|
|
3,565
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
171
|
|
|
|
3,594
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards
represent the ranges of potential cash incentive awards granted
under Calumets Cash Incentive Plan related to fiscal year
2010. For a description of this plan and available awards please
read Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table
and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Description of
Cash Incentive Plan. |
|
(2) |
|
Estimated future payouts under equity incentive plan awards
represent the ranges of potential unit based awards earned under
the 2010 Phantom Unit Program as part of Calumets
Long-Term Incentive Plan. These units will |
160
|
|
|
|
|
be granted in the first quarter of 2011. For a description of
this plan and available awards under the 2010 Phantom Unit
Program please read Narrative Disclosure to Summary
Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards
Table Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan. |
|
(3) |
|
All other unit awards represents discretionary matching
contributions made by the Company in fiscal year 2010, if any,
in connection with the named executive officers deferral
of a portion of his or her cash incentive award under
Calumets Cash Incentive Compensation Plan into the Calumet
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan. See Compensation
Discussion and Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Executive Deferred Compensation
Plan for additional discussion of this plan. Also included
are DERs credited in the form of phantom units earned on
discretionary phantom unit grants, deferred cash incentive
awards and discretionary matches on such deferred cash incentive
awards. |
Narrative
Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table
Description
of Cash Incentive Plan
Annual distributable cash flow goals are recommended by the
compensation committee to the board of directors and are based
upon the annual Company forecast of financial performance for
the upcoming fiscal year, and such goals are reviewed and
approved by the board of directors. Three increasing
distributable cash flow goals are established to calculate
awards under the Cash Incentive Plan: minimum, target and
stretch. Under the Cash Incentive Plan, if the Companys
actual performance meets at least the minimum distributable cash
flow goal for the fiscal year, executives and certain other
management employees may receive incentive awards ranging from
15% to 50% of base salary, depending on the employees
position with the general partner. If financial performance
exceeds the minimum distributable cash flow goal, the cash
incentive award paid as a percentage of base salary may be
larger, ultimately reaching an upper range of 60% to 200% of
base salary, if distributable cash flow for the fiscal year
reaches the stretch goal. Cash incentive awards are prorated if
actual performance falls between the defined minimum and stretch
cash flow goals. If distributable cash flow falls below the
minimum goal, no cash incentive awards are paid under the Cash
Incentive Plan. The compensation committee can recommend to the
full board of directors, however, that cash awards be given
notwithstanding the fact that the Company failed to achieve at
least the minimum distributable cash flow goal. Since the
inception of the Cash Incentive Plan the compensation committee
has not used this discretion, as no awards have been paid under
the plan unless the Company achieved at least the minimum
distributable cash flow goal. Awards earned, if any, under this
plan are generally paid in the first quarter of the following
fiscal year after finalizing the calculation of the
Companys performance relative to the distributable cash
flow targets. The following table summarizes the levels of
awards available to participants in the Cash Incentive Plan:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Incentive Award Calculated as a
|
|
|
Percentage of Base Salary
|
Incentive Level (1)
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Target
|
|
Stretch
|
|
1
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
2
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
150
|
%
|
3
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
4
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Grube, Ms. Straumins, Mr. Murray,
Mr. Moyes and Mr. Barnhart participate in the Cash
Incentive Plan at Incentive Level 1. |
Participants in the Cash Incentive Plan are eligible to defer
all or a portion of their award, if any, under the Cash
Incentive Plan into the Calumet Executive Deferred Compensation
Plan, which was adopted by the board of directors on
December 18, 2008 and effective as of January 1, 2009.
See Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Elements of Executive Compensation Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan for additional discussion of
this plan.
161
Description
of Long-Term Incentive Plan
Following is a summary of the major terms and provisions of the
Companys Long-Term Incentive Plan:
General. The Plan provides for the grant of
restricted units, phantom units, unit options and substitute
awards and, with respect to unit options and phantom units, the
grant of DERs. Subject to adjustment for certain events, an
aggregate of 783,960 common units may be delivered pursuant to
awards under the Plan, of which 172,429 have already been
awarded to the non-employee directors and certain key employees,
including certain of the named executive officers, of our
general partner. Units withheld to satisfy our general
partners tax withholding obligations are available for
delivery pursuant to other awards.
Restricted Units and Phantom Units. A
restricted unit is a common unit that is subject to forfeiture.
Upon vesting, the grantee receives a common unit that is not
subject to forfeiture. A phantom unit is a notional unit that
entitles the grantee to receive a common unit upon the vesting
of the phantom unit or, in the discretion of the compensation
committee, cash equal to the fair market value of a common unit.
The compensation committee may make grants of restricted units
and phantom units under the Plan to eligible individuals
containing such terms, consistent with the Plan, as the
compensation committee may determine, including the period over
which restricted units and phantom units granted will vest. The
compensation committee may, in its discretion, base vesting on
the grantees completion of a period of service or upon the
achievement of specified financial objectives or other criteria.
In addition, the restricted and phantom units will vest
automatically upon a change of control (as defined in the Plan)
of us or our general partner, subject to any contrary provisions
in the award agreement.
If a grantees employment, consulting or membership on the
board of directors terminates for any reason, the grantees
restricted units and phantom units will be automatically
forfeited unless, and to the extent, the grant agreement or the
compensation committee provides otherwise. Common units to be
delivered with respect to these awards may be common units
acquired by our general partner in the open market, common units
already owned by our general partner, common units acquired by
our general partner directly from us or any other person, or any
combination of the foregoing. Our general partner is entitled to
reimbursement by us for the cost incurred in acquiring common
units. If we issue new common units with respect to these
awards, the total number of common units outstanding will
increase. Any outstanding restricted unit or phantom unit awards
fully vest upon the occurrence of certain events including, but
not limited to, change of control of the Company, death,
disability and normal retirement.
Distributions made by us on restricted units may, in the
compensation committees discretion, be subject to the same
vesting requirements as the restricted units. Previously granted
contingent phantom unit awards have contemplated the award of
tandem DERs in the event the phantom units were awarded. DERs
are rights that entitle the grantee to receive, with respect to
a phantom unit, cash equal to the cash distributions made by us
on a common unit. The compensation committee, in its discretion,
may grant tandem DERs on such terms as it deems appropriate.
Participants do not pay any consideration for the common units
they receive with respect to these types of awards, and neither
we nor our general partner will receive remuneration for the
units delivered with respect to these awards.
2010 Phantom Unit Program. In addition to the
features described above, potential awards under our 2010
Phantom Unit Program range from 900 to 5,400 phantom units for
achievement of the minimum distributable cash flow goal, 1,800
to 10,800 phantom units for achievement of the target
distributable cash flow goal and from 2,700 to 16,200 phantom
units for achievement of the stretch distributable cash flow
goal. Awards are not prorated for actual distributable cash flow
that is achieved between the target and stretch levels. Phantom
units that are granted are subject to a time-vesting
requirement, whereby 25% of the units vest immediately at grant
and the remainder vest ratably over three years on each
December 31. At the election of the general partner,
phantom unit awards may be settled in either cash or common
units. These phantom units also receive DERs, which are paid in
the form of cash.
162
The following table summarizes the levels of phantom unit awards
available to participants in the 2010 program:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phantom Unit Award
|
|
|
Opportunity
|
Incentive Level (a)
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Target
|
|
Stretch
|
|
1
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
16,200
|
|
2
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
3
|
|
|
2,700
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
|
|
8,100
|
|
4
|
|
|
1,800
|
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
5
|
|
|
900
|
|
|
|
1,800
|
|
|
|
2,700
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Mr. Grube is the only employee and named executive officer
who is eligible for a long-term unit-based award under Incentive
Level 1. Ms. Straumins, Mr. Murray,
Mr. Moyes and Mr. Barnhart are the only employees and
named executive officers who are eligible for a long-term
unit-based award under Incentive Level 2. |
Unit Options. The Plan also permits the grant
of options covering common units. Unit options may be granted to
such eligible individuals and with such terms as the
compensation committee may determine, consistent with the Plan;
however, a unit option must have an exercise price equal to the
fair market value of a common unit on the date of grant.
Upon exercise of a unit option, our general partner will acquire
common units in the open market at a price equal to the
prevailing price on the principal national securities exchange
upon which the common units are then traded, or directly from us
or any other person, or use common units already owned by the
general partner, or any combination of the foregoing. Our
general partner will be entitled to reimbursement by us for the
difference between the cost incurred by our general partner in
acquiring the common units and the proceeds received by our
general partner from an optionee at the time of exercise. Thus,
we will bear the cost of the unit options. If we issue new
common units upon exercise of the unit options, the total number
of common units outstanding will increase, and our general
partner will remit the proceeds it received from the optionee
upon exercise of the unit option to us. The unit option plan has
been designed to furnish additional compensation to employees,
consultants and directors and to align their economic interests
with those of common unitholders.
Substitution Awards. The compensation
committee, in its discretion, may grant substitute or
replacement awards to eligible individuals who, in connection
with an acquisition made by us, our general partner or an
affiliate, have forfeited an equity-based award in their former
employer. A substitute award that is an option may have an
exercise price less than the value of a common unit on the date
of grant of the award.
Termination of Plan. Our general
partners board of directors, in its discretion, may
terminate the Plan at any time with respect to the common units
for which a grant has not theretofore been made. The Plan will
automatically terminate on the earlier of the
10th anniversary of the date it was initially approved by
the board of directors of our general partner or when common
units are no longer available for delivery pursuant to awards
under the Plan. Our general partners board of directors
will also have the right to alter or amend the Plan or any part
of it from time to time and the compensation committee may amend
any award; provided, however, that no change in any outstanding
award may be made that would materially impair the rights of the
participant without the consent of the affected participant.
Subject to unitholder approval, if required by the rules of the
principal national securities exchange upon which the common
units are traded, the board of directors of our general partner
may increase the number of common units that may be delivered
with respect to awards under the Plan.
Description
of Employment Agreement with F. William Grube
We have an employment agreement with F. William Grube, our chief
executive officer and vice chairman of the board, dated as of
January 31, 2006 (the Effective Date). The term
of the employment agreement is five years and expires on
January 31, 2011 (the Employment Period), with
automatic extensions of an additional twelve months added to the
Employment Period beginning on the third anniversary of the
Effective Date, and on every anniversary of the Effective Date
thereafter, unless either party notifies the other of
non-extension at least ninety days prior to any such anniversary
date. As neither we nor Mr. Grube provided notice of a
non-renewal of the
163
agreement within the ninety day period prior to January 31,
2011, the effective term now extends to at least
January 31, 2014.
The agreement provides for an initial annual base salary of
approximately $333,000, subject to annual adjustment by the
compensation committee of the board of directors of our general
partner, as well as the right to participate in our Long-Term
Incentive Plan and other bonus plans. Mr. Grube will
generally be entitled to receive a payout or distribution of at
least 150% of the amount of any cash, equity or other payout or
distribution that may be made to any other executive officer
under the terms of these plans. Mr. Grubes employment
agreement may be terminated at any time by either party with
proper notice. For the term of the employment agreement and for
the one-year period following the termination of employment,
Mr. Grube is prohibited from engaging in competition (as
defined in the employment agreement) with us and soliciting our
customers and employees.
Salary in
Proportion to Total Compensation
The following table sets forth the percentage of each Named
Executive Officers total compensation that we paid in the
form of salary.
Salary
Percentage at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
Name
|
|
Year
|
|
Compensation
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
48
|
%
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
61
|
%
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
55
|
%
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
53
|
%
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
51
|
%
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
48
|
%
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
62
|
%
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
Timothy R. Barnhart (1)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
46
|
%
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
51
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Barnhart became an executive officer in December 2009. |
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
Our named executive officers had the following outstanding
equity awards at December 31, 2010.
Outstanding
Equity Awards at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit Awards
|
|
|
Number of Units
|
|
Market Value of
|
|
|
That Have Not
|
|
Units That Have Not
|
Name
|
|
Vested
|
|
Vested (1)
|
|
F. William Grube (2)
|
|
|
1,964
|
(6)
|
|
$
|
41,833
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins (3)
|
|
|
5,586
|
(6)
|
|
|
118,982
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II (4)
|
|
|
2,700
|
(6)
|
|
|
57,510
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
|
|
(6)
|
|
|
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart (5)
|
|
|
4,065
|
(6)
|
|
|
86,585
|
|
164
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Market value of phantom units reported in these columns is
calculated by multiplying the closing market price ($21.30) of
our common units at December 31, 2010 (the last trading day
of the fiscal year) by the number of units. |
|
(2) |
|
1,964 phantom units vest ratably over four years on each
July 1. |
|
(3) |
|
3,692 phantom units vest ratably over three years on each
January 22 and 1,894 phantom units vest ratably over four years
on each July 1. |
|
(4) |
|
1,845 phantom units vest ratably over three years on each
January 22 and 855 phantom units vest ratably over four years on
each July 1. |
|
(5) |
|
2,767 phantom units vest ratably over three years on each
January 22 and 1,298 phantom units vest ratably over four years
on each July 1. |
|
(6) |
|
Does not include the following phantom unit awards, which will
be granted during the first quarter of 2011 and which relate to
services provided during fiscal year 2010: Mr. Grube
(5,400), Ms. Straumins (3,600), Mr. Murray (3,600),
Mr. Moyes (3,600) and Mr. Barnhart (3,600). |
Options
Exercises and Stock Vested
Our named executive officers exercised no options and had a
total of 25,171 phantom unit awards related to the Deferred
Compensation Plan vest during the year ended December 31,
2010. These vested units will remain in the Deferred
Compensation Plan until the earlier of the date specified by
each participant and the participants termination of
employment.
Unit
Awards Vested During Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit Awards
|
|
|
Number of Units
|
|
Value Realized
|
Name
|
|
Vested
|
|
on Vesting (1)
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
5,889
|
|
|
$
|
120,863
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
6,914
|
|
|
|
141,870
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
3,180
|
|
|
|
65,249
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
|
4,370
|
|
|
|
91,005
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
4,818
|
|
|
|
98,860
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Market value of phantom units reported in this column is
calculated by multiplying the closing market price of our common
units on the vesting date by the number of units. |
Pension
Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present Value of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Years of
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
Payments During
|
Executive
|
|
Plan Name
|
|
Credited Service (1)
|
|
Benefits (2)
|
|
2010
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
Penreco Pension Plan
|
|
|
26.3205
|
|
|
$
|
239,611
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Barnharts Number of Years Credited
Service is computed using the same pension plan
measurement dates used for our financial statement reporting
purposes with respect to our audited consolidated financial
statements for the 2010 fiscal year; a further description can
be found in Note 13 to such statements included in this
Annual Report. This column contemplates Mr. Barnharts
previous employment with Penreco, as well as our decision to
freeze account benefit accumulation for all salaried
participants, as of January 31, 2009. |
|
(2) |
|
In addition to the assumptions noted within Note 13 to our
audited consolidated financial statements for the 2010 fiscal
year, the assumptions used to calculate the amounts shown in the
Present Value of Accumulated Benefits column above
are as follows: (a) payments under the Pension Plan were
assumed to begin for Mr. Barnhart at age 65; (b) the
December 31, 2010 Financial Accounting Standards
(FAS) disclosure discount rate of 5.5% was used; and
(c) payments assumed to be made following age 65 were
also discounted using the FAS disclosure mortality assumption
(no mortality was assumed prior to age 65). |
165
We acquired Penreco from ConocoPhillips and M.E. Zukerman
Specialty Oil Corporation on January 3, 2008. In connection
with this acquisition, we also took over the Penreco Pension
Plan, a noncontributory defined benefit plan, in which both
salaried and union employees were entitled to participate (the
Pension Plan). However, while we agreed to maintain
and continue administration of the Pension Plan, we froze the
plan as in effect for salaried employees effective
January 31, 2009. Freezing this portion of the
Pension Plan meant that no more salaried employees are permitted
to join the plan following this date, and the accounts of
current participants are not permitted to accrue further
benefits.
Mr. Timothy R. Barnhart, as a former salaried Penreco
employee, participates in the Pension Plan. Salaried employees
such as Mr. Barnhart were eligible to participate in the
plan following one year of completed service. The Pension Plan
is intended to provide a normal pension benefit to
participants upon their normal retirement age of 65.
A normal retirement benefit is equal to the greater of:
(1) the sum of (a) one and one-sixth percent of the
participants final average compensation
multiplied by his years of service prior to 1974, plus
(b) one and one-tenth percent of a participants
final average compensation multiplied by his years
of service after 1973, plus (c) five-tenths percent of the
amount of the participants monthly final average
compensation in excess of the participants final
covered compensation in the year of retirement,
multiplied by his years of service after 1973; or (2) $40
multiplied by a participants years of service; or
(3) the accrued pension amount as determined under the
terms of the Pension Plan as in effect on June 30, 2003.
Once the greatest of these three options is determined, a normal
pension will then be calculated by subtracting the pension
benefit determined under two of the various superseded and prior
plans, or the pension benefit as calculated under the union
employee portion of the Pension Plan if the participant was
previously a participant in that portion of the Pension Plan.
The average final compensation is the highest
monthly considered compensation of a participant
during the 60 consecutive months immediately prior to
January 31, 2009. A participants considered
compensation under the Pension Plan consists of all of the
compensation actually provided to a participant in consideration
of his performance of services to his employer that is
considered taxable wages, excluding any compensation received
from the exercise of stock options, from distributions of any
other employee benefit plan accounts, or amounts paid by his
employer for life insurance policies; this amount will be
limited to the amount as noted in Code
section 401(a)(17)(B) for an applicable year (which is
$245,000 for the 2010 year). However, due to our freezing
of benefits in 2009, no amount of compensation earned after
January 31, 2009 shall be deemed considered
compensation for purposes of the Pension Plan.
Covered compensation under the Pension Plan means
the average taxable wage base during the 35 years
immediately prior to the date the participant reaches the social
security retirement age.
Other than a normal retirement, there are various
events that would require or allow the distribution of Pension
Plan accounts. Participants may receive an early
retirement benefit upon reaching the age of 55 but prior to
reaching age 65. In the event that a participant suffers a
disability prior to normal retirement, the
participant will be eligible to receive a disability pension
benefit upon reaching the age of 65. If a participant works past
the age of 65, his Pension Plan benefit will not be calculated
differently than if calculated at age 65. If a participant
separates from service prior to retirement, the retirement
benefit will be calculated based upon years of service completed
at the separation date, although payments will not begin until
the participant reaches a normal or early retirement age. As of
December 31, 2010, Mr. Barnhart was not yet eligible
to receive an early or a normal
retirement benefit pursuant to the Pension Plan. Any participant
in the Pension Plan as of January 31, 2009 was also
considered fully vested in his or her account, thus
Mr. Barnhart is 100% vested in all portions of his Pension
Plan account.
A normal form of payment will be distributed in a monthly
annuity payment, but a participant may also elect a different
monthly benefit amount prior to normal retirement, which would
allow the participant to receive a reduced pension amount while
continuing to provide for a surviving spouse upon his death,
known as a joint and survivor annuity benefit. This will
typically provide a 50% benefit as a retirement benefit and 50%
will be deferred until it is needed for surviving spouse
support, although the participant and his spouse may make
written elections to alter these percentages during the
participants service.
166
Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation
The Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan (the Deferred Compensation Plan)
became effective as of January 1, 2009. The Deferred
Compensation Plan is an unfunded arrangement intended to be
exempt from the participation, vesting, funding and fiduciary
requirements set forth in Title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and to
comply with Section 409A. Our obligations under the
Deferred Compensation Plan will be general unsecured obligations
to pay deferred compensation in the future to eligible
participants in accordance with the terms of the Deferred
Compensation Plan from our general assets. The compensation
committee of our general partners board of directors (the
Committee) acts as the plan administrator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table for 2010
|
|
|
Executive
|
|
Company
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
Contributions
|
|
Earnings
|
|
Withdrawals/
|
|
Balance at end
|
Name
|
|
in 2010 (1)
|
|
in 2010 (2)
|
|
in 2010 (3)
|
|
Distributions
|
|
of 2010 (4)
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
113,338
|
|
|
$
|
37,790
|
|
|
$
|
10,032
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
167,269
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
109,362
|
|
|
|
36,447
|
|
|
|
17,012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266,250
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
49,354
|
|
|
|
16,458
|
|
|
|
8,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125,244
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III (5)
|
|
|
45,327
|
|
|
|
15,116
|
|
|
|
5,822
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,081
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
74,939
|
|
|
|
24,987
|
|
|
|
12,089
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,208
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Executive contributions in 2010 represent phantom unit grants on
March 5, 2010 to certain of our named executive officers
based on their individual elections to defer all or a portion of
their cash incentive award under Calumets Cash Incentive
Compensation Plan related to the 2009 fiscal year into the
Deferred Compensation Plan. These amounts, which represent the
fair value of the phantom units on the date of grant were
included as compensation in 2009 under Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Compensation in the Summary Compensation
Table. |
|
(2) |
|
Company contributions in 2010 represent discretionary matching
contributions made in the form of phantom unit grants on
March 5, 2010 to our named executive officers based on
their individual elections to defer all or a portion of their
cash award under Calumets Cash Incentive Compensation Plan
related to the 2009 fiscal year into the Calumet Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan. These amounts, which represent the
fair value of the phantom units on the date of grant are
included as compensation under Unit Awards in the
Summary Compensation Table. |
|
(3) |
|
Aggregate earnings in 2010 represent additional phantom units
earned through DERs in the applicable named executive
officers Deferred Compensation Plan account on phantom
units granted under the aforementioned executive contribution
and discretionary matching contribution on March 5, 2010,
as well as phantom units granted in fiscal year 2009. These
amounts, which represent the fair value of the phantom units
earned on the corresponding dates of the Companys
distributions to its unitholders in fiscal year 2010 are
included as compensation under Unit Awards in the
Summary Compensation Table. |
|
(4) |
|
While the aggregate balance of each participants Deferred
Compensation Plan account at the end of the fiscal year is
comprised of the phantom units subject to the executive and
discretionary matching contributions as well as the phantom
units attributable to aggregate earnings accumulated during the
2010 year, the dollar amount of each participants
account as of December 31, 2010 was determined by
multiplying all phantom units deemed to be included in the
participants account by the closing price of our common
units on December 31, 2010, which was $21.30. The phantom
units associated with each executives account as of
December 31, 2010 were as follows: Mr. Grube, 7,853;
Ms. Straumins, 12,500; Mr. Murray, 5,880;
Mr. Moyes, 4,370; and Mr. Barnhart, 8,883. Subject to
the executives continued employment with us, these phantom
units will become vested over a four year period (except for
phantom units associated with executive contributions, which are
fully vested at the time of cash incentive deferral), but such
vesting applies to the number of phantom units credited to the
participants account, and not the value of the account at
any given time. The value of the executives accounts will
fluctuate due to the fact that the value of their phantom units
will track the value of our common units. Also, please keep in
mind that the executives accounts are not currently fully
vested; subject to the forfeiture provisions described below,
these amounts do not reflect the payout amount that an executive
would receive if he or she voluntarily left our service prior to
vesting. The amounts in this column also include amounts that
were |
167
|
|
|
|
|
previously reported as compensation in the Summary Compensation
Table during previous years as follows: Mr. Grube,
$113,348; Ms. Straumins, $109,362; Mr. Murray,
$49,354; Mr. Moyes, $42,327; and Mr. Barnhart, $74,939. |
|
(5) |
|
Due to Mr. Moyes resignation on December 31, 2010, he
will receive his distributions in the first quarter of 2011, per
the terms of the Deferred Compensation Plan |
The named executive officers, as well as other officers and key
employees, participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan by
making an annual irrevocable election to defer all or a portion
of their annual cash incentive award for the year. The deferred
amounts will be credited to the participants accounts in
the form of phantom units, and will receive DERs to be credited
in the form of additional phantom units to the
participants account. We have the discretion to make
matching contributions of phantom units or purely discretionary
contribution of phantom units, in amounts and at times as the
compensation committee determines appropriate. For the
2010 year, the compensation committee authorized matching
contributions of deferred amounts related to the 2009 fiscal
year. For each equivalent three phantom units credited to a
participants account at the time the 2009 cash incentive
award was paid during the first quarter of 2010, the Company
matched with one additional phantom unit credited to the
participants account. Participants will at all times be
100% vested in amounts they have deferred; however, amounts we
have contributed may be subject to a vesting schedule, as
determined appropriate by the compensation committee. The 2010
matching contributions related to fiscal year 2009 will vest
ratably over four years on each anniversary date of the grant or
date of cash incentive award deferral, as applicable. The
participants accounts are adjusted at least quarterly to
determine the fair market value of our phantom units, as well as
any DERs that may have been credited in that time period.
Distributions from the Deferred Compensation Plan are payable on
the earlier of the date specified by each participant and the
participants termination of employment. Death, disability,
normal retirement or our change of control (such term of which
is linked to the same term within our Long-Term Incentive Plan)
require automatic distribution of the Deferred Compensation Plan
benefits, and will also accelerate at that time the vesting of
any portion of a participants account that has not already
become vested. Benefits will be distributed to participants in
the form of our common units, cash or a combination of common
units and cash at the election of the compensation committee. In
the event that accounts are paid in common units, such units
will be distributed pursuant to our Long-Term Incentive Plan.
Unvested portions of a participants account will be
forfeited in the event that a distribution was due to a
participants voluntary resignation or a termination for
cause. To ensure compliance with Section 409A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code), distributions to participants that are
considered key employees (as defined in Code
Section 409A) may be delayed for a period of six months
following such key employees termination of employment
with the Company.
Potential
Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
Employment
Agreement with F. William Grube
Following is a description of our obligations, including
potential payments to Mr. Grube, upon termination of
Mr. Grubes employment under various termination
scenarios. We have assumed for purposes of quantifying
Mr. Grubes potential payments that his termination
occurred on December 31, 2010, and amounts are our best
estimates as to the potential payout he would have received upon
that date. The amounts Mr. Grube would receive upon an
actual termination of employment could only be calculated with
certainty upon a true termination of employment.
In consideration for any potential severance Mr. Grube may
receive pursuant to his employment agreement, he will not
compete or solicit our employees for a period of one year
following a termination of employment. Prior to receipt of any
potential severance payments or the acceleration of any
outstanding equity awards, Mr. Grube will be required to
sign, and not revoke, a full waiver and release in our favor.
Following such release and waivers period of revocability,
Mr. Grube will be eligible to receive payments as soon as
administratively possible, though if Code Section 409A
would subject Mr. Grube to additional taxes upon receipt of
the payments, we will delay the payment of these amounts for a
period of six months and provide for interest to accrue on such
delayed amounts at the maximum nonusurious rate from the date of
the originally scheduled payment date. Mr. Grube is also
eligible to receive an additional sum from us in the event that
any termination payments we provide to him are considered
parachute payments pursuant to Section 280G of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code); a parachute payment could occur in connection
with a change in control or a termination of employment that was
also
168
in connection with a change in control, but such a payment would
not occur in the event of a termination of Mr. Grubes
employment that is not in connection with a change in control.
This additional payment, if necessary, would equal the amount
necessary to place Mr. Grube in the same after-tax position
he would have been in absent the additional excise taxes imposed
by Section 280G of the Code.
Termination
of Employment Due to Death or Disability
Upon the termination of Mr. Grubes employment due to
his disability or death:
a. We will pay him or his beneficiary a lump sum equal to
his earned annual base salary through the date of termination to
the extent not theretofore paid;
b. We will pay him or his beneficiary a lump sum equal to
any compensation incentive awards payable in cash with respect
to fiscal years ended prior to the year that includes the date
of termination to the extent not theretofore paid;
c. We will pay him or his beneficiary a lump sum cash
payment with respect to his participation in any plans,
programs, contracts or other arrangements that may result in a
cash payment for the fiscal year that includes the date of
termination on a prorated basis considering the date of
termination relative to the full fiscal year; and
d. Any equity awards held by Mr. Grube shall
immediately vest and become fully exercisable or payable, as the
case may be.
For this purpose, Mr. Grube will be deemed to have a
disability if he is unable to perform his duties
under the employment agreement by reason of mental or physical
incapacity for 90 consecutive calendar days during the
Employment Period, provided that we will not have the right to
terminate his employment for disability if in the written
opinion of a qualified physician reasonably acceptable to us is
delivered to the us within 30 days of our delivery to
Mr. Grube of a notice of termination (as defined in the
employment agreement) that it is reasonably likely that
Mr. Grube will be able to resume his duties on a regular
basis within 90 days of the notice of termination and
Mr. Grube does resume such duties within such time.
If Mr. Grubes employment were to have been terminated
on December 31, 2010, due to death or disability (as
defined in the employment agreement), we estimate that the value
of the payments and benefits described in clauses (a), (b),
(c) and (d) above he would have been eligible to
receive is as follows: (a) $0; (b) $0;
(c) $436,489; and (d) $115,020, with an aggregate
value of $551,509.
Termination
of Employment by Mr. Grube for Good Reason or by Us Without
Cause
Upon the termination of Mr. Grubes employment by him
for good reason or by us without cause:
a. We will pay him a lump sum cash payment in an amount
equal to three times his annual base salary then in effect;
b. We will pay him a lump sum equal to his earned annual
base salary through the date of termination to the extent not
theretofore paid;
c. We will pay him a lump sum equal to any compensation
incentive awards payable in cash with respect to fiscal years
ended prior to the year that includes the date of termination to
the extent not theretofore paid;
d. We will pay him a lump sum cash payment with respect to
his participation in any plans, programs, contracts or other
arrangements that may result in a cash payment for the fiscal
year that includes the date of termination on a prorated basis
considering the date of termination relative to the full fiscal
year;
e. All equity-based awards (including phantom unit awards)
held by Mr. Grube shall immediately vest in full (at their
target levels, if applicable) and become fully exercisable or
payable, as the case may be.
Good reason as defined in the employment
agreement includes: (i) any material breach by us of the
employment agreement; (ii) any requirement by us that
Mr. Grube relocate outside of the metropolitan
Indianapolis, Indiana area; (iii) failure of any successor
to us to assume the employment agreement not later than the date
as of
169
which it acquires substantially all of the equity, assets or
business of us; (iv) any material reduction in
Mr. Grubes title, authority, responsibilities, or
duties (including a change that causes him to cease being a
member of the board of directors or reporting directly and
solely to the board of directors); or (v) the assignment of
Mr. Grube any duties materially inconsistent with his
duties as the chief executive officer of the Company.
Cause as defined in the employment agreement
includes: (i) Mr. Grubes willful and continuing
failure (excluding as a result of his mental or physical
incapacity) to perform his duties and responsibilities with us;
(ii) Mr. Grubes having committed any act of
material dishonesty against us or any of its affiliates as
defined in the employment agreement;
(iii) Mr. Grubes willful and continuing breach
of the employment agreement; (iv) Mr. Grubes
having been convicted of, or having entered a plea of nolo
contendre to any felony; or (v) Mr. Grubes
having been the subject of any final and non-appealable order,
judicial or administrative, obtained or issued by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, for any securities violation involving
fraud.
If Mr. Grubes employment were to have been terminated
by him for good reason or by us without cause on
December 31, 2010, we estimate that the value of the
payments and benefits described in clauses (a), (b), (c),
(d) and (e) above he would have been eligible to
receive is as follows: (a) $1,158,393 (or three times
$386,131); (b) $0; (c) $0; (d) $436,489; and
(e) $115,020, with an aggregate value of $1,709,902.
Termination
of Employment by Mr. Grube Without Good Reason or by Us for
Cause
Upon the termination of employment by Mr. Grube without
good reason or by us with cause:
a. We will pay him a lump sum equal to his earned annual
base salary through the date of termination to the extent not
theretofore paid;
b. We will pay him a lump sum equal to any compensation
incentive awards payable in cash with respect to fiscal years
ended prior to the year that includes the date of termination to
the extent not theretofore paid; and
c. We will pay him a lump sum cash payment with respect to
his participation in any plans, programs, contracts or other
arrangements that may result in a cash payment for the fiscal
year that includes the date of termination on a prorated basis
considering the date of termination relative to the full fiscal
year.
If Mr. Grubes employment were to have terminated by
him without good reason or by us for cause on December 31,
2010, we estimate that the value of the payments and benefits
described in clauses (a), (b) and (c) above he would
have been eligible to receive is as follows: (a) $0;
(b) $0; (c) $436,489, with an aggregate value of
$436,489.
Service
Agreement with Allan A. Moyes III
Mr. Moyes Service Agreement provided Mr. Moyes
with the right to receive certain continued health benefits
following his termination of employment on December 31,
2010. Beginning January 1, 2011, we have covered
Mr. Moyes for the applicable premiums to continue health
care benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (or COBRA) for the first
32 weeks following the termination of his employment, and
we have provided an additional cash payment to Mr. Moyes in
the amount of $4,995 on January 14, 2011, which was
necessary to put Mr. Moyes in the same after-tax position
he would be in had he been covered under the plan as our
employee. In exchange for our agreement regarding his COBRA
premiums, Mr. Moyes signed a Reaffirmation Agreement,
General Release, and a Covenant Not to Sue regarding any item
related to Mr. Moyes separation from service, and he
has agreed to keep all of our proprietary information and
business knowledge confidential. The Service Agreement does not
waive or cancel any vested retirement or pension benefit
Mr. Moyes is entitled to under any other agreement or plan,
but the Service Agreement itself, only resulted in our payment
to Mr. Moyes of the health insurance premiums in the amount
of $14,260, which was grossed up for taxes. Mr. Moyes will
receive 4,370 common units pursuant to vested phantom units
under the Deferred Compensation Plan and 3,600 common units
pursuant to vested phantom units under the Long-Term Incentive
Plan during the first quarter of 2011, both of which will be
valued on the date of payment.
170
Termination
or Change of Control Pursuant to Long-Term Incentive
Plan
Unless specifically provided otherwise in the named executive
officers individual award agreement, upon a Change of
Control all outstanding awards granted pursuant to the Long-Term
Incentive Plan shall automatically vest and be payable at their
maximum target level or become exercisable in full, as the case
may be, or any restricted periods connected to the award shall
terminate and all performance criteria, if any, shall be deemed
to have been achieved at the maximum level. We provide these
single-trigger change of control benefits because we
believe such benefits are important retention tools for the
Company, as providing for accelerated vesting of awards under
the Long-Term Incentive Plan upon a Change of Control enables
employees, including the named executive officers, to realize
value from these awards in the event that the Company goes
through a change of control transaction. In addition, the
Company believes that it is important to provide the named
executive officers with a sense of stability, both in the middle
of transactions that may create uncertainty regarding their
future employment and post-termination as they seek future
employment. Whether or not a change of control results in a
termination of its officers employment with the Company or
a successor entity, the Company wants to provide its officers
with certain guarantees regarding the importance of equity
incentive compensation awards they were granted prior to that
change of control. Further, the Company believes that change of
control protection allows management to focus their attention
and energy on the business transaction at hand without any
distractions regarding the effects of a change of control. Also,
the Company believes that such protection maximize unitholder
value by encouraging the named executive officers to review
objectively any proposed transaction in determining whether such
proposed transaction is in the best interest of the
Companys unitholders, whether or not the executive will
continue to be employed.
For purposes of the Long-Term Incentive Plan, a Change of
Control shall be deemed to have occurred upon one or more of the
following events: (i) any person or group, other than a
person or group who is our affiliate, becomes the beneficial
owner, by way of merger, consolidation, recapitalization,
reorganization or otherwise, of fifty percent (50%) or more of
the voting power of our outstanding equity interests;
(ii) a person or group, other than our general partner or
one of our general partners affiliates, becomes our
general partner; or (iii) the sale or other disposition,
including by liquidation or dissolution, of all or substantially
all of our assets or the assets of our general partner in one or
more transactions to any person or group other than an a person
or group who is our affiliate. However, in the event that an
award is subject to Code Section 409A, a Change of Control
shall have the same meaning as such term in the regulations or
other guidance issued with respect to Code Section 409A for
that particular award.
Under the Long-Term Incentive Plan, the awards will also
accelerate upon a termination due to death, disability or a
normal retirement upon or after reaching the age of 66. The
Board has the final authority to determine if a disability is
permanent or of a long term duration resulting in termination
from the Company. A disability per the terms of the
Long-Term Incentive Plan grant means (i) a
participants inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental impairment
that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of 12 months, or (ii) the
participant is, by reason of a physical or mental impairment
that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of 12 months, receiving income
replacement benefits for a period of not less than 3 months
under one of our accident and health plans. The Company has
determined that providing acceleration of Long-Term Incentive
Plan awards upon a death or disability is appropriate because
the termination of a participants employment with the
Company due to such an occurrence is often an unexpected event,
and it is the Companys belief that providing an immediate
value to the participant or his family, as appropriate, in such
a situation is a competitive retention tool. The Company also
believes that providing for acceleration upon a normal
retirement is appropriate due to the fact that the definition of
a normal retirement requires an executive to remain employed
with the Company until late in his or her career, and the
acceleration of their equity awards upon such an event provides
the executives with a reassurance that they will receive value
for their awards at the end of their career. The Company has
determined that it is in the unitholders best interest to
provide such retention tools with respect to the Companys
equity compensation awards due to the fact that the Company
strives to retain a high level of executive talent while
competing in a very aggressive industry.
171
The following table discloses the amount each executive could
receive as of December 31, 2010 under the Long-Term
Incentive Plan upon a termination of employment or a Change of
Control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Payments from the Long-Term Incentive
Plan (1)
|
|
|
|
|
Termination due to
|
|
|
Change of
|
|
Death, Disability or
|
Name
|
|
Control
|
|
Normal Retirement
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
115,020
|
|
|
$
|
115,020
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
|
|
76,680
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All amounts assume that the executives received full vesting of
equity awards due to the applicable termination or Change of
Control event, and the value of all phantom units pursuant to
equity awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan were valued at
our December 31, 2010 closing common unit price of $21.30.
As required pursuant to Section 409A of the Code, in the
event that any of the executives are also key
employees as defined in Section 409A of the Code at
the time a settlement would become due, we would delay the
settlement of such an executives equity awards until the
first day of the seventh month following the applicable event
requiring settlement of equity awards under the Long-Term
Incentive Plan. |
Termination
or Change of Control of Deferred Compensation Plan
Participants
The Calumet Deferred Compensation Plan (the Deferred
Plan) provides the executives with the opportunity to
defer a portion of their eligible compensation each year. At the
time of their deferral election, the executive may choose a day
in the future in which a payout from the plan will occur with
regard to their vested account balance, or, if earlier, the
payout of vested accounts will occur upon the executives
termination from service for any reason. Despite the
executives payout election date, however, the Deferred
Plan accounts will also receive accelerated vesting and a pay
out in the event of the executives termination from
service due to death, disability or normal retirement, or upon
the occurrence of a Change of Control.
A disability under the Deferred Plan means
(i) a participants inability to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental
impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months, or
(ii) the participant is, by reason of a physical or mental
impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of 12 months,
receiving income replacement benefits for a period of not less
than 3 months under one of our accident and health plans. A
normal retirement means a participants
termination of employment on or after the date that he or she
reaches the age of 66.
There are various connections between the Deferred Plan and the
Long-Term Incentive Plan. A Change of Control for
the Deferred Plan shall have the same definition as that term
within our Long-Term Incentive Plan noted above. Our
compensation committee also has the discretion to pay Deferred
Plan accounts in either cash or our common units. In the event
that a Deferred Plan account is settled in our common units,
those units will be issued pursuant to our Long-Term Incentive
Plan. For purposes of this disclosure we have assumed that the
compensation committee would determine to settle the Deferred
Plan accounts solely in our common units, meaning that the
amounts below would reflect the fair market value of common
units that could be issued pursuant to Long-Term Incentive Plan
in connection with a termination of employment or a Change of
Control. Please note that the compensation committees
decision regarding such a settlement could not be determined
with any certainty until such an event actually occurred.
172
The following table discloses the amount each executive could
receive as of December 31, 2010 under the Deferred Plan
upon a termination of employment or a Change of Control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Payments from the Deferred Plan (1)
|
|
|
|
|
Termination due to
|
|
|
Change of
|
|
Death, Disability or
|
Name
|
|
Control
|
|
Normal Retirement
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
167,269
|
|
|
$
|
167,269
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
266,250
|
|
|
|
266,250
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
125,244
|
|
|
|
125,244
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
|
93,081
|
|
|
|
93,081
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
189,208
|
|
|
|
189,208
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All amounts assume that the executives received full vesting of
the accounts due to the applicable termination or Change of
Control event, and the value of all phantom units held in the
Deferred Plan accounts was valued at our December 31, 2010
closing common unit price of $21.30. As required pursuant to
Section 409A of the Code, in the event that any of the
executives are also key employees as defined in
Section 409A of the Code at the time a settlement would
become due, we would delay the settlement of such an
executives account until the first day of the seventh
month following the applicable event requiring settlement of the
Deferred Plan account. |
Compensation
of Directors
Officers or employees of our general partner who also serve as
directors do not receive additional compensation for their
service as a director of our general partner. Each director who
is not an officer or employee of our general partner receives an
annual fee as well as compensation for attending meetings of the
board of directors and committee meetings. Non-employee director
compensation consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
an annual fee of $50,000, payable in quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
an annual award of restricted or phantom units with a market
value of approximately $40,000;
|
|
|
|
an audit committee chair annual fee of $8,000, payable in
quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
a non-chair audit committee member annual fee of $4,000, payable
in quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
all other committee chair annual fee of $5,000; and
|
|
|
|
all other committee member annual fee of $2,500, payable in
quarterly installments.
|
In addition, we reimburse each non-employee director for his
out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in connection with attending meetings of the
board of directors or committees. Under certain circumstances,
we will also indemnify each director for his actions associated
with being a director to the fullest extent permitted under
Delaware law.
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our non-employee directors for the year ended
December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Compensation Table for 2010
|
|
|
Fees Earned or
|
|
Unit
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Paid in Cash
|
|
Awards (1)
|
|
Total
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
$
|
55,000
|
|
|
$
|
68,909
|
|
|
$
|
123,909
|
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
59,000
|
|
|
|
72,805
|
|
|
|
131,805
|
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
40,025
|
|
|
|
90,025
|
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
56,500
|
|
|
|
54,786
|
|
|
|
111,286
|
|
George C. Morris III
|
|
|
58,000
|
|
|
|
40,025
|
|
|
|
98,025
|
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
68,079
|
|
|
|
118,079
|
|
173
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The amounts in this column are calculated based on the aggregate
grant date fair value of (i) annual phantom unit awards to
all non-employee directors and (ii) matching phantom unit
awards granted to those non-employee directors who deferred a
portion of the fees they earned in 2010 pursuant to the Deferred
Compensation Plan. Please see Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Executive Deferred Compensation
Plan for a discussion of how we calculated these values. |
Annual
Phantom Unit Awards
On November 5, 2010, each non-employee director was granted
1,896 phantom units with a grant date fair value of $40,025.
With respect to this award, 25% of the phantom units vested on
December 31, 2010, entitling the director to receive an
equal number of common units, with an additional 25% vesting on
December 31 of each of the three successive years. As of
December 31, 2010, Messrs. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr.,
Carter, W. Fehsenfeld, Funk and Rutigliano had 3,866 unvested
phantom units outstanding with a market value of $82,346 related
to annual equity awards from 2008, 2009 and 2010. As of
December 31, 2010, Mr. Morris had 2,608 unvested
phantom units outstanding with a market value of $55,550 related
to the annual equity awards from 2009 and 2010. Related to these
annual equity awards made to non-employee directors, an
aggregate of 21,938 phantom units with a market value of
$467,279 were outstanding as of December 31, 2010.
Deferred
Compensation Plan
Messrs. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Carter and Rutigliano each
elected to defer all of their fees earned related to fiscal year
2010 into the Deferred Compensation Plan. These deferred amounts
are credited to the participants account in the form of
phantom units, and will receive DERs to be credited to the
participants account in the form of additional phantom
units on the corresponding dates of the Companys
distributions to its unitholders. The compensation committee
recommended, and the board of directors approved, a matching
contribution of one phantom unit for each equivalent three
phantom units deferred for those fees earned related to fiscal
year 2010. Phantom units credited to a participants
account pursuant to matching contributions also carry DERs to be
credited to the participants account in the form of
additional phantom units. The matching contribution for each
participant for fiscal year 2010 was made on a quarterly basis
as of the date of the Companys quarterly board meetings
related to fiscal year 2010.
174
The following table summarizes grants of phantom units made to
those directors participating in the Deferred Compensation Plan
for fiscal year 2010. The fair value of such grants is
calculated by multiplying the closing market price of our common
units on the grant date by the number of units. Phantom units
granted in 2010 under the Deferred Compensation Plan will vest
in 25% increments on July 1 of each year beginning on
July 1, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
Unit Awards:
|
|
|
Fair Value of
|
|
Name
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Number of Units
|
|
|
Unit Awards
|
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
$
|
1,712
|
|
|
|
|
2-16-10
|
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
4,534
|
|
|
|
|
5-4-10
|
|
|
|
214
|
|
|
|
4,573
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
|
2,507
|
|
|
|
|
8-3-10
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
4,583
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
2,991
|
|
|
|
|
11-2-10
|
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
4,579
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
162
|
|
|
|
3,405
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,479
|
|
|
|
28,884
|
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
|
2,276
|
|
|
|
|
2-16-10
|
|
|
|
246
|
|
|
|
4,871
|
|
|
|
|
5-4-10
|
|
|
|
230
|
|
|
|
4,915
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
3,148
|
|
|
|
|
8-3-10
|
|
|
|
268
|
|
|
|
4,912
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
208
|
|
|
|
3,617
|
|
|
|
|
11-2-10
|
|
|
|
244
|
|
|
|
4,921
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
|
4,120
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,681
|
|
|
|
32,780
|
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
2,198
|
|
|
|
|
2-16-10
|
|
|
|
235
|
|
|
|
4,653
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
2,635
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
2,626
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
2,649
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
769
|
|
|
|
14,761
|
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
2-12-10
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
2,003
|
|
|
|
|
2-16-10
|
|
|
|
208
|
|
|
|
4,118
|
|
|
|
|
5-4-10
|
|
|
|
195
|
|
|
|
4,167
|
|
|
|
|
5-14-10
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
2,727
|
|
|
|
|
8-3-10
|
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
4,161
|
|
|
|
|
8-13-10
|
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
|
3,130
|
|
|
|
|
11-2-10
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
4,175
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-10
|
|
|
|
170
|
|
|
|
3,573
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,439
|
|
|
|
28,054
|
|
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The members of our compensation committee are F. William
Grube and Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. Mr. Grube is
our chief executive officer and vice chairman of the board of
our general partner. Mr. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr. is the
chairman of the board of our general partner. Please read
Item 13 Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions and Director Independence Specialty
Product Sales and Related Purchases and Crude Oil
Purchases for
175
descriptions of our transactions in fiscal year 2010 with
certain entities related to Messrs. Grube and
F. Fehsenfeld, Jr. No executive officer of our general
partner served as a member of the compensation committee of
another entity that had an executive officer serving as a member
of our board of directors or compensation committee.
Risk
Considerations in our Overall Compensation Program
Our compensation policies and practices are designed to provide
rewards for high levels of financial performance. Currently, our
incentive compensation programs are based on performance, at the
Company level, relative to goals we set for distributable cash
flow. In our assessment of risk related to such use of a single
financial performance metric, we considered the relative
difficulty for any employee to engage in an undue amount of
risk-taking activity with a result that would be reasonably
likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company due to
the breadth and scope of activities, both operational and
financial, across that organization that are captured in the
calculation of distributable cash flow. Also, we considered the
current approval controls that exist within the Company to
mitigate against excessive risk-taking that might impact
distributable cash flow and in turn our compensation programs.
For example, we have specific approval policies related to the
entry into derivative instruments, material commercial
agreements and significant capital expenditures. Also, our full
board of directors, as well as through the actions of its
various committees, regularly assesses the Companys key
risk areas to monitor the impacts of such risks on our financial
performance. Further, we considered the design of our incentive
compensation programs, noting that the inclusion of both
shorter-term cash incentive awards and longer-term unit awards
further align the interest of the employees of the Company and
its unitholders. As a result of these considerations, we have
concluded that the risks arising from our compensation policies
and practices for our employees are not reasonably likely to
have a material adverse effect on us.
Report of
the Compensation Committee for the Year Ended December 31,
2010
The compensation committee of our general partner has reviewed
and discussed our Compensation Discussion and Analysis with
management. Based upon such review, the related discussion with
management and such other matters deemed relevant and
appropriate by the compensation committee, the compensation
committee has recommended to the board of directors that our
Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the
Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Members of the Compensation Committee:
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Chairman
F. William Grube
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Unitholder Matters
|
The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of our
units as of February 18, 2011 held by:
|
|
|
|
|
each person who beneficially owns 5% or more of our outstanding
units;
|
|
|
|
each director of our general partner;
|
|
|
|
each named executive officer of our general partner; and
|
|
|
|
all directors, and executive officers of our general partner as
a group.
|
The amounts and percentages of units beneficially owned are
reported on the basis of regulations of the SEC governing the
determination of beneficial ownership of securities. Under the
rules of the SEC, a person is deemed to be a beneficial
owner of a security if that person has or shares
voting power, which includes the power to vote or to
direct the voting of such security, or investment
power, which includes the power to dispose of or to direct
the disposition of such security. A person is also deemed to be
a beneficial owner of any securities of which that person has a
right to acquire beneficial ownership within 60 days. Under
these rules, more than one person may be deemed a beneficial
owner of the same securities and a person may be deemed a
beneficial owner of securities as to which he has no economic
interest.
176
Except as indicated by footnote, the persons named in the table
below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all
units shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to community
property laws where applicable. The address for the beneficial
owners listed below, other than The Heritage Group and Calumet,
Incorporated, is 2780 Waterfront Parkway East Drive,
Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46214.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Total Units
|
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
The Heritage Group (1)
|
|
|
11,867,533
|
|
|
|
33.64
|
%
|
Janet K. Grube (2)
|
|
|
3,081,142
|
|
|
|
8.73
|
%
|
Calumet, Incorporated (3)
|
|
|
1,934,287
|
|
|
|
5.48
|
%
|
F. William Grube (4)
|
|
|
825,000
|
|
|
|
2.34
|
%
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. (1)(2)(5)(6)
|
|
|
595,803
|
|
|
|
1.69
|
%
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
|
14,124
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Timothy R. Barnhart
|
|
|
6,400
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins (7)
|
|
|
22,600
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
William A. Anderson (8)
|
|
|
10,680
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
33,760
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
William S. Fehsenfeld (1)(6)(9)
|
|
|
68,141
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
26,635
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano (1)(6)(10)
|
|
|
28,235
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
George C. Morris III
|
|
|
40,438
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
All directors and executive officers as a group (12 persons)
|
|
|
1,696,316
|
|
|
|
4.81
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Thirty grantor trusts indirectly own all of the outstanding
general partner interests in The Heritage Group, an Indiana
general partnership. The direct or indirect beneficiaries of the
grantor trusts are members of the Fehsenfeld family. Each of the
grantor trusts has five trustees, Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., James
C. Fehsenfeld, Nicholas J. Rutigliano, William S. Fehsenfeld and
Amy M. Schumacher, each of whom exercises equivalent voting
rights with respect to each such trust. Each of Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr., Nicholas J. Rutigliano and William S.
Fehsenfeld, who are directors of our general partner, disclaims
beneficial ownership of all of the common units owned by The
Heritage Group, and none of these units are shown as being
beneficially owned by such directors in the table above. The
address for The Heritage Group is 5400 W. 86th St.,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268. Of these common units, 367,197 are
owned by The Heritage Group Investment Company, LLC
(Investment LLC). Investment LLC is under common
ownership with The Heritage Group. The Heritage Group, although
not the owner of the common units, serves as the Manager of
Investment LLC, and in that capacity has sole voting and
investment power over the common units. The Heritage Group
disclaims beneficial ownership of the common units owned by
Investment LLC except to the extent of its pecuniary interest
therein. |
|
(2) |
|
Janet K. Grubes holdings include common units that are
owned by two grantor retained annuity trusts for which Janet K.
Grube, the spouse of F. William Grube, serves as sole trustee.
Janet K. Grube and her two children are the beneficiaries of
such trusts. Janet K. Grubes holdings also include common
units owned by Janet K. Grube personally. F. William Grube has
no voting or investment power over these units and disclaims
beneficial ownership of all such units, and none of these units
are shown as being beneficially owned by F. William Grube in the
table above. |
|
(3) |
|
The common units of Calumet, Incorporated are indirectly owned
45.8% by The Heritage Group and 5.1% by Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
personally. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. is also a director of
Calumet, Incorporated. |
177
|
|
|
|
|
Accordingly, 885,294 of the common units owned by Calumet,
Incorporated are also shown as being beneficially owned by The
Heritage Group in the table above, and 97,971 of the common
units owned by Calumet, Incorporated are also shown as being
beneficially owned by Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. in the table
above. The Heritage Group and Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. disclaims
beneficial ownership of all of the common units owned by
Calumet, Incorporated in excess of their respective pecuniary
interests in such units. The address of Calumet, Incorporated is
5400 W. 86th St., Indianapolis, Indiana 46268. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes 775,000 common units that are owned by AEG Associates
II, LLC, and Indiana domestic limited liability company
(AEG II). F. William Grube has sole voting and
investment power over the common units. AEG II is co-owned by F.
William Grube, William F. Grube, Jennifer G. Straumins, one
grantor retained annuity trust for which Jennifer G. Straumins
serves as sole trustee, and one grantor retained annuity trust
for which Janet K. Grube, the spouse of F. William Grube, serves
as sole trustee. F. William Grube disclaims beneficial ownership
of the common units owned by AEG II except to the extent of his
pecuniary interest therein. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and certain
children of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., for which he disclaims
beneficial ownership. |
|
(6) |
|
Does not include a total of 1,979,804 common units owned by two
trusts, the direct or indirect beneficiaries of which are
members of the Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. family. Each of the
trusts has five trustees, Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., James C.
Fehsenfeld, Nicholas J. Rutigliano, William S. Fehsenfeld and
Amy M. Schumacher, each of whom exercises equivalent voting
rights with respect to each such trust. Each of Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr., Nicholas J. Rutigliano and William S.
Fehsenfeld, who are directors of our general partner, disclaims
beneficial ownership of all of the common units owned by the
trusts, and none of these units are shown as being beneficially
owned by such directors in the table above. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the children of Jennifer
G. Straumins, of which she disclaims beneficial ownership. |
|
(8) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the children of William
A. Anderson, of which he disclaims beneficial ownership. |
|
(9) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and children
of William S. Fehsenfeld of which he disclaims beneficial
ownership. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse of Nicholas
J. Rutigliano of which he disclaims beneficial ownership. |
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The following table summarizes information about our equity
compensation plans as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
Future Issuance Under
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Equity Compensation
|
|
|
|
Exercise of Outstanding
|
|
|
of Outstanding
|
|
|
Plans (Excluding
|
|
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
|
Securities Reflected
|
|
|
|
and Rights(1)
|
|
|
and Rights
|
|
|
in Column (a))
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by unitholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by unitholders
|
|
|
181,941
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
554,681
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
181,941
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
554,681
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Long-Term Incentive Plan contemplates the issuance or
delivery of up to 783,960 common units to satisfy awards under
the plan. The number of units presented in column
(a) assumes that all outstanding grants will be satisfied
by the issuance of new units or the purchase of existing units
on the open market upon vesting. In fact, some portion of the
phantom units may be settled in cash and some portion may be
withheld for taxes. Any units not issued upon vesting will
become available for future issuance under Column
(c). For more information on |
178
|
|
|
|
|
our Long-Term Incentive Plan, which did not require approval by
our limited partners, refer to Item 11 Executive and
Director Compensation Narrative Disclosure to
Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards
Table Description of Long-Term Incentive Plan. |
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions and Director
Independence
|
Distributions
and Payments to Our General Partner and its Affiliates
Owners of our general partner and their affiliates own
19,260,315 common units representing a 54.6% limited partner
interest in us. In addition, our general partner owns a 2%
general partner interest in us and the incentive distribution
rights. We will generally make cash distributions of 98% to the
unitholders pro rata, including the affiliates of our general
partner, and 2% to our general partner. In addition, if
distributions exceed the minimum quarterly distribution and
other higher target distribution levels, our general partner
will be entitled to increasing percentages of the distributions,
up to 50% of the distributions above the highest target level.
Please refer to Item 5 Market for Registrants
Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and Issuer Purchases
of Equity Securities Market Information for a
summary of cash distribution levels of the Company during the
year ended December 31, 2010.
Our general partner does not receive any management fee or other
compensation for its management of our partnership; however, our
general partner and its affiliates are reimbursed for all
expenses incurred on our behalf. These expenses include the cost
of employee, officer and director compensation benefits properly
allocable to us and all other expenses necessary or appropriate
to the conduct of our business and allocable to us. The
partnership agreement provides that our general partner
determines the expenses that are allocable to us. There is no
limit on the amount of expenses for which our general partner
and its affiliates may be reimbursed.
Omnibus
Agreement
We entered into an omnibus agreement, dated January 31,
2006, with The Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates
pursuant to which The Heritage Group and its controlled
affiliates agreed not to engage in, whether by acquisition or
otherwise, the business of refining or marketing specialty
lubricating oils, solvents and wax products as well as gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel products in the continental United States
(restricted business) for so long as The Heritage
Group controls us. This restriction does not apply to:
|
|
|
|
|
any business owned or operated by The Heritage Group or any of
its affiliates as of January 31, 2006;
|
|
|
|
the refining and marketing of asphalt and asphalt-related
products and related product development activities;
|
|
|
|
the refining and marketing of other products that do not produce
qualifying income as defined in the Internal Revenue
Code;
|
|
|
|
the purchase and ownership of up to 9.9% of any class of
securities of any entity engaged in any restricted business;
|
|
|
|
any restricted business acquired or constructed that The
Heritage Group or any of its affiliates acquires or constructs
that has a fair market value or construction cost, as
applicable, of less than $5.0 million;
|
|
|
|
any restricted business acquired or constructed that has a fair
market value or construction cost, as applicable, of
$5.0 million or more if we have been offered the
opportunity to purchase it for fair market value or construction
cost and we decline to do so with the concurrence of the
conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general
partner; and
|
|
|
|
any business conducted by The Heritage Group with the approval
of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our
general partner.
|
179
Indemnification
of Directors and Officers
Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
Section 17-108
of the Delaware Revised Limited Partnership Act empowers a
Delaware limited partnership to indemnify and hold harmless any
partner or other person from and against all claims and demands
whatsoever. The partnership agreement of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. provides that, in most circumstances, we
will indemnify the following persons to the fullest extent
permitted by law, from and against all losses, claims, damages
or similar events.
|
|
|
|
|
our general partner;
|
|
|
|
any departing general partner;
|
|
|
|
any person who is or was an affiliate of our general partner;
|
|
|
|
any person who is or was a member, partner, officer, director
employee, agent or trustee of our general partner or any
departing general partner or any affiliate of our general
partner or any departing general partner; or
|
|
|
|
any person who is or was serving at the request of our general
partner or any departing general partner or any affiliate of a
general partner or any departing general partner as an officer,
director, employee, member, partner, agent or trustee of another
person.
|
Any indemnification under these provisions will only be out of
our assets. Our general partner will not be personally liable
for, or have any obligation to contribute or loan funds or
assets to us to enable us to effectuate, indemnification. We may
purchase insurance against liabilities asserted against and
expenses incurred by persons for our activities, regardless of
whether we would have the power to indemnify the person against
liabilities under the partnership agreement.
Calumet
GP, LLC
Section 18-108
of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act provides that,
subject to such standards and restrictions, if any, as are set
forth in its limited liability company agreement, a Delaware
limited liability company may, and has the power to, indemnify
and hold harmless any member or manager or other person from and
against any and all claims and demands whatsoever. The limited
liability company agreement of our general partner, Calumet GP,
LLC, provides that, in most circumstances, our general partner
will indemnify the following persons, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, from and against all losses, claims, damages
or similar events:
|
|
|
|
|
any person who is or was an affiliate of our general partner;
|
|
|
|
any person who is or was an officer, director, fiduciary or
trustee of our general partner or any affiliate of our general
partner; or
|
|
|
|
any person who is or was serving at the request of the board of
our general partner as an officer, director, member, partner,
fiduciary or trustee of another person.
|
Our general partner may purchase and maintain insurance on
behalf of the indemnified persons, to the extent and in such
amounts as our general partner determines to be reasonable,
against any liability that may be asserted against or expenses
that may be incurred by the indemnified persons in connection
with the activities of the general partner or the indemnified
persons. Our general partner may also enter into indemnity
contracts with the indemnified persons. We will reimburse our
general partner for all expenses allocable to us or otherwise
incurred by our general partner in connection with operating our
business.
Directors
and Officers Liability Insurance
We carry directors and officers liability insurance
designed to insure our officers and directors and those of our
subsidiaries against certain liabilities incurred by them in the
performance of their duties, and also providing for
reimbursement in certain cases to us and our subsidiaries for
sums paid to directors and officers as indemnification for
similar liability.
180
Insurance
Brokerage
Nicholas J. Rutigliano, a member of the board of directors of
our general partner, founded and is the president of Tobias
Insurance Group, Inc., a commercial insurance brokerage
business, that has historically placed a portion of our
insurance underwriting requirements, including our general
liability, automobile liability, excess liability, workers
compensation as well as directors and officers
liability. The total premiums paid by us through
Mr. Rutiglianos firm for 2010 were approximately
$0.6 million and were related to our directors and
officers liability insurance. We believe these premiums
are comparable to the premiums we would pay for such insurance
from a non-affiliated third party and we have assessed our other
insurance brokerage options to confirm this belief. We have
transitioned the majority of the aforementioned insurance
underwriting requirements to a non-affiliated third party
commercial insurance broker.
Crude Oil
Purchases
We purchase a portion of our crude oil supplies from Legacy
Resources Co., L.P. (Legacy Resources), an
exploration and production company owned in part by The Heritage
Group, our chief executive officer and vice chairman of the
board of our general partner, F. William Grube, and Jennifer G.
Straumins, our president and chief operating officer.
Mr. Grube and Ms. Straumins serve as members of the
board of directors of Legacy Resources. The total purchases made
by us from Legacy Resources in 2010 were approximately
$591.8 million, which represented purchases based upon
standard, index-based market rates.
In May 2008, we began purchasing all of our crude oil
requirements for our Princeton refinery on a just in time basis
utilizing a market-based pricing mechanism from Legacy
Resources. Based on historical usage, the estimated volume of
crude oil sold by Legacy Resources and purchased by us for the
Princeton refinery is approximately 7,000 barrels per day.
On January 26, 2009, we entered into a Master Crude Oil
Supply Agreement with Legacy Resources. Under this agreement,
Legacy Resources may supply our Shreveport refinery with a
portion of its crude oil requirements that are received via
common carrier pipeline. Pricing for the crude oil purchased
under each confirmation will be mutually agreed to by the
parties and set forth in such confirmation and will include a
market-based premium as determined and agreed to by the parties.
The agreement was effective as of January 26, 2009 and will
continue to be in effect until terminated by either party by
written notice. Based on historical usage, the estimated volume
of crude oil to be sold by Legacy Resources and purchased by us
under this Agreement is up to 15,000 barrels per day. This
agreement is not currently in use.
In September 2009, we entered into a Crude Oil Supply Agreement
(the Agreement) with Legacy Resources. Under the
Agreement, Legacy Resources supplies our Shreveport refinery
with a portion of its crude oil requirements on a just in time
basis utilizing a market-based pricing mechanism. Based on
historical usage, the estimated volume of crude oil to be sold
by Legacy Resources and purchased by us under this Agreement is
up to 20,000 barrels per day.
Because Legacy Resources is owned in part by one of our limited
partners, an affiliate of our general partner, our chief
executive officer and vice chairman of the board of directors of
our general partner, F. William Grube, and our president and
chief operating officer, Jennifer G. Straumins, the terms of
those agreements were reviewed by the conflicts committee of the
board of directors of our general partner, which consists
entirely of independent directors. The conflicts committee
approved the agreements after determining that the terms of the
agreements are fair and reasonable to us.
Specialty
Product Sales and Related Purchases
During 2010, we made ordinary course sales of certain specialty
products to TruSouth Oil, LLC (TruSouth), a
specialty petroleum packaging and distribution company owned in
part by The Heritage Group, Calumet, Incorporated, Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr. (our chairman) as an individual, certain
Fehsenfeld family trusts established where Mr. Fehsenfeld
or his family members are the beneficiary, Janet K. Grube (the
spouse of F. William Grube, our chief executive officer and vice
chairman of the board of our general partner) individually, and
certain Grube family trusts for which Janet K. Grube is sole
trustee. The total sales made by us to TruSouth in 2010 were
approximately $3.8 million. As of December 31, 2010
the balance due us from TruSouth related to these products
181
sales was approximately $0.3 million. The total purchases
made by us from TruSouth in 2010 for blending and packaging
services were approximately $0.9 million. As of
December 31, 2010 the balance due from us to TruSouth
related to these purchases was approximately $0.01 million.
We believe that the product sales prices and credit terms
offered to TruSouth are comparable to prices and terms offered
to non-affiliated third party customers.
During 2010, we made ordinary course sales of certain specialty
products to Johann Haltermann, Ltd. (Haltermann), a
specialty chemical company owned in part by The Heritage Group
and certain Grube family trusts for which Janet K. Grube is sole
trustee. The total sales made by us to Haltermann in 2010 were
approximately $0.9 million. As of December 31, 2010
there was an immaterial balance due us from Haltermann related
to these products sales. We anticipate that we will continue to
sell products to Haltermann in the future. We believe that the
product sales prices and credit terms offered to Haltermann are
comparable to prices and terms offered to non-affiliated third
party customers.
During 2010, we made payments to Asphalt Materials, Inc., an
affiliate of The Heritage Group (Asphalt Materials),
for expenses related to the business use of The Heritage
Groups company plane by our senior executive officers and
for environmental consulting services provided to us by Asphalt
Materials. The aggregate payments for these services made by us
to Asphalt Materials in 2010 were approximately
$0.2 million. As of December 31, 2010, there was
approximately $0.2 million payable by us to Asphalt
Materials related to these services. We believe that the costs
of the services provided to us by Asphalt Materials are
comparable to costs charged by non-affiliated third-party
suppliers of similar services. We also reimburse Asphalt
Materials for ordinary course purchases made by us under a
procurement card program administered by Asphalt Materials. As
of December 31, 2010, there was approximately
$1.0 million payable by us to Asphalt Materials related to
the reimbursement of these ordinary course purchases. We expect
that we will continue to utilize each of these services from
Asphalt Materials in the future.
Procedures
for Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions
Effective February 9, 2007, to further formalize the
process by which related person transactions are analyzed and
approved or disapproved, the board of directors of our general
partner has adopted the Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. Related Person Transactions Policy (the Policy)
to be followed in connection with all related person
transactions (as defined by the Policy) involving the Company
and its subsidiaries. The Policy was adopted to provide
guidelines and procedures for the application of the partnership
agreement to related person transactions and to further
supplement the conflicts resolutions policies already set forth
therein.
The Policy defines a related person transaction to
mean any transaction since the beginning of the Companys
last fiscal year (or any currently proposed transaction) in
which: (i) the Company or any of its subsidiaries was or is
to be a participant; (ii) the amount involved exceeds
$120,000 (including any series of similar transactions exceeding
such amount on an annual basis); and (iii) any related
person (as defined in the Policy) has or will have a direct or
indirect material interest. Under the terms of the policy, our
general partners chief executive officer (CEO)
has the authority to approve a related person transaction
(considering any and all factors as the CEO determines in his
sole discretion to be relevant, reasonable or appropriate under
the circumstances) so long as it is:
(a) in the normal course of the Companys business;
(b) not one in which the CEO or any of his immediate family
members has a direct or indirect material interest; and
(c) on terms no less favorable to the Company than those
generally being provided to or available from unrelated third
parties or fair to the Company, taking into account the totality
of the relationships between the parties involved (including
other transactions that may be particularly favorable or
advantageous to the Company).
The CEO does not have the authority to approve the issuances of
equity or grants of awards under the Companys Long-Term
Incentive Plan, except as provided in that plan. Pursuant to the
Policy, any other related person transaction must be approved by
the conflicts committee acting in accordance with the terms and
provisions of its charter.
182
A copy of the Policy is available on our website at
www.calumetspecialty.com and will be provided to unitholders
without charge upon their written request to: Investor
Relations, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., 2780
Waterfront Parkway E. Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN
46214.
Please see Item 10 Directors, Executive Officers of
Our General Partner and Corporate Governance for a
discussion of director independence matters.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services
|
The following table details the aggregate fees billed for
professional services rendered by our independent auditor during
2010 and 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Audit fees
|
|
$
|
1,485,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,515,000
|
|
Audit-related fees
|
|
|
131,000
|
|
|
|
166,000
|
|
Tax fees
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other fees
|
|
|
195,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,823,500
|
|
|
$
|
1,681,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit fees above include those related to our annual
audit, audit of our general partner, and quarterly review
procedures.
Audit-related fees primarily relate to our proposed
offering for sale of senior unsecured notes in July 2010, which
we opted not to complete and our filing of a shelf registration
statement on
Form S-3
in November 2010.
Tax fees are related property tax reviews.
All other fees primarily consist of those associated
with insurance claim consulting services.
Pre-Approval
Policy
The audit committee of our general partners board of
directors has adopted an audit committee charter, which is
available on our website at www.calumetspecialty.com. The
charter requires the audit committee to pre-approve all audit
and non-audit services to be provided by our independent
registered public accounting firm. The audit committee does not
delegate its pre-approval responsibilities to management or to
an individual member of the audit committee. Services for the
audit, tax and all other fee categories above were pre-approved
by the audit committee.
183
PART IV
(a)(1) Consolidated Financial Statements
The consolidated financial statements of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. and Calumet GP, LLC are included in
Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report.
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules are omitted because they are not applicable, or
the required information is shown in the consolidated financial
statements or notes thereto.
(a)(3) Exhibits
The following documents are filed as exhibits to this Annual
Report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
filed with the Commission on October 7, 2005 (File
No. 333-128880)).
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File
No. 000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Formation of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.3 of Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1
filed with the Commission on October 7, 2005
(File No. 333-128880)).
|
|
3
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of
Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2
to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File
No. 000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the First Amended and Restated Agreement
of Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on July 11, 2006 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.6
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to First Amended and Restated Agreement of
Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on April 18, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.7
|
|
|
|
Specimen Unit Certificate representing common units
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.7 to the Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on November 4, 2010 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement dated as of January 3, 2008, by and among
Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, as Borrower,
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., Calumet LP GP, LLC,
Calumet Operating, LLC, and the Subsidiaries and Affiliates of
the Borrower as Guarantors, the Lenders and Bank of America,
N.A., as Administrative Agent and Credit-Linked L/C Issuer and
Banc of America Securities LLC, as Sole Lead Arranger and Sole
Book Manager (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to
the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 9, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated ISDA Master Agreement and related Schedule
and Credit Support Annex, dated as of January 3, 2008,
between Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and J.
Aron & Company (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 9, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Noncompetition Agreement, dated January 3, 2008, between
ConocoPhillips Company and Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 9, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Noncompetition Agreement, dated January 3, 2008, between
M.E. Zukerman Specialty Oil Corporation and Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 9, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Sixth Amendment, dated as of January 3, 2008, to Credit
Agreement dated as of December 9, 2005 among Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and certain of its
affiliates, including Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.,
as Borrowers, Bank of America, N.A. as agent for the Lenders,
and the Lenders party thereto (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.5 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K/A
filed with the Commission on January 10, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
|
|
LVT Unit Agreement, effective January 1, 2008, between
ConocoPhillips Company and Calumet Penreco, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on March 4, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request
for confidential treatment.
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
|
|
LVT Feedstock Purchase Agreement, effective January 1,
2008, between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller and Calumet
Penreco, LLC, as Buyer (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.12 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on March 4, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request
for confidential treatment.
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
HDW Diesel Sale and Purchase Agreement, effective
January 1, 2008, between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller
and Calumet Penreco, LLC, as Buyer (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.13 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on March 4, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request
for confidential treatment.
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
|
|
Amended Crude Oil Sale Contract, effective April 1, 2008,
between Plains Marketing, L.P. and Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on March 20, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2008 and
effective May 1, 2008, between Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership, customer, and Legacy Resources Co., L.P.,
supplier (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on May 6, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
November 25, 2008 and effective October 1, 2008,
between Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, customer,
and Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on December 1, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
April 20, 2009 and effective April 1, 2009, between
Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, customer, and
Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on April 22, 2009 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan, dated December 18, 2008 and effective
January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on December 22, 2008 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Form of Phantom Unit Grant Agreement (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 99.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 28, 2009 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
|
|
Master Crude Oil Purchase and Sale Agreement, effective as of
January 26, 2009, between Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC,
customer, and Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated
by reference Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 30, 2009 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.16*
|
|
|
|
F. William Grube Employment Contract (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File
No. 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.17
|
|
|
|
Omnibus Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 of Registrants Registration Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File
No. 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Form of Unit Option Grant (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 of Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
filed with the Commission on November 16, 2005.
|
|
10
|
.19*
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, dated and
effective January 22, 2009 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.18 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on March 4, 2009 (File
No. 000-517347).
|
185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.20
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Supply Agreement, effective as of September 1,
2009, between Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC, customer, and
Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on September 4, 2009 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.21*
|
|
|
|
Professional Services and Transition Agreement, dated
November 2, 2009, between Calumet GP, LLC and Allan A.
Moyes III (incorporated by reference Exhibit 10.1 to
the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on November 6, 2009 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
May 4, 2010 and effective April 1, 2010, between
Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC, customer, and Legacy Resources
Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.22 to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on May 7, 2010 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
May 4, 2010 and effective April 1, 2010, between
Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P., customer, and Legacy Resources
Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.23 to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on May 7, 2010 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 4 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
August 30, 2010 and effective September 1, 2010,
between Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC, customer, and Legacy
Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.24 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on September 3, 2010 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 4 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
August 30, 2010 and effective September 1, 2010,
between Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership., customer,
and Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.25 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on September 3, 2010 (File No
000- 51734)).
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
|
|
Reaffirmation Agreement, General Release and Covenant Not to
Sue, dated December 22, 2010 and effective as of
December 29, 2010 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.26 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 4, 2011 (File No 000-
51734)).
|
|
21
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P.
|
|
23
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP, independent registered
public accounting firm.
|
|
31
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of F. William
Grube.
|
|
31
|
.2**
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of R. Patrick
Murray, II.
|
|
32
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
Section 1350 certification of F. William Grube and R.
Patrick Murray, II.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Identifies management contract and compensatory plan
arrangements. |
|
** |
|
Filed herewith. |
186
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
PARTNERS, L.P.
its general partner
F. William Grube,
Chief Executive Officer, Director and Vice Chairman of the Board
of Calumet GP, LLC
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date: February 22, 2011
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ F.
William Grube
F.
William Grube
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, Director and Vice Chairman of the Board
of Calumet GP, LLC (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Jennifer
G. Straumins
Jennifer
G. Straumins
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ R.
Patrick Murray, II
R.
Patrick Murray, II
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Calumet
GP, LLC (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Fred
M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
Fred
M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
Director and Chairman of the Board of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James
S. Carter
James
S. Carter
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ William
S. Fehsenfeld
William
S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert
E. Funk
Robert
E. Funk
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Nicholas
J. Rutigliano
Nicholas
J. Rutigliano
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ George
C. Morris III
George
C. Morris III
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 22, 2011
|
187
Index to
Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of
Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with
the Commission on October 7, 2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Formation of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.3 of Registrants Registration
Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Commission on October 7,
2005 (File No. 333-128880)).
|
|
3
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of
Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the
Registrants Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the First Amended and Restated Agreement of
Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on July 11, 2006 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.6
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to First Amended and Restated Agreement of
Limited Partnership of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on April 18, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
3
|
.7
|
|
|
|
Specimen Unit Certificate representing common units
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.7 to the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on November 4,
2010 (File No 000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement dated as of January 3, 2008, by and among
Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, as Borrower,
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., Calumet LP GP, LLC,
Calumet Operating, LLC, and the Subsidiaries and Affiliates of
the Borrower as Guarantors, the Lenders and Bank of America,
N.A., as Administrative Agent and Credit-Linked L/C Issuer and
Banc of America Securities LLC, as Sole Lead Arranger and Sole
Book Manager (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on January
9, 2008 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated ISDA Master Agreement and related Schedule
and Credit Support Annex, dated as of January 3, 2008, between
Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and J. Aron &
Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on January
9, 2008 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Noncompetition Agreement, dated January 3, 2008, between
ConocoPhillips Company and Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on January 9, 2008
(File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Noncompetition Agreement, dated January 3, 2008, between M.E.
Zukerman Specialty Oil Corporation and Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.4 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission
on January 9, 2008 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Sixth Amendment, dated as of January 3, 2008, to Credit
Agreement dated as of December 9, 2005 among Calumet Lubricants
Co., Limited Partnership and certain of its affiliates,
including Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., as
Borrowers, Bank of America, N.A. as agent for the Lenders, and
the Lenders party thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.5 to the Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the
Commission on January 10, 2008 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
|
|
LVT Unit Agreement, effective January 1, 2008, between
ConocoPhillips Company and Calumet Penreco, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on March 4, 2008 (File No 000-51734)).
Portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request
for confidential treatment.
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
|
|
LVT Feedstock Purchase Agreement, effective January 1, 2008,
between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller and Calumet Penreco,
LLC, as Buyer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Commission on March 4,
2008 (File No 000-51734)). Portions of this exhibit have been
omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment.
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
HDW Diesel Sale and Purchase Agreement, effective January 1,
2008, between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller and Calumet
Penreco, LLC, as Buyer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.13 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the
Commission on March 4, 2008 (File No 000-51734)). Portions of
this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request for
confidential treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
|
|
Amended Crude Oil Sale Contract, effective April 1, 2008,
between Plains Marketing, L.P. and Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on March 20, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2008 and
effective May 1, 2008, between Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, customer, and Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on May 6, 2008 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
November 25, 2008 and effective October 1, 2008, between Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership, customer, and Legacy
Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on December 1, 2008 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of April
20, 2009 and effective April 1, 2009, between Calumet Lubricants
Co., Limited Partnership, customer, and Legacy Resources Co.,
L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on April
22, 2009 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan, dated December 18, 2008 and effective January
1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Current Report on Form 8-K) filed with the Commission on
December 22, 2008 (File No 000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Form of Phantom Unit Grant Agreement (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 99.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on January 28, 2009 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
|
|
Master Crude Oil Purchase and Sale Agreement, effective as of
January 26, 2009, between Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC,
customer, and Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated
by reference Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 30, 2009
(File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.16*
|
|
|
|
F. William Grube Employment Contract (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrants Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.17
|
|
|
|
Omnibus Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of
Registrants Registration Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No. 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Form of Unit Option Grant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.4 of Registrants Registration Statement on Form S-1
(File No. 333-128880)).
|
|
10
|
.19*
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, dated and
effective January 22, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit
10.18 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the
Commission on March 4, 2009 (File No. 000-517347).
|
|
10
|
.20
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Supply Agreement, effective as of September 1, 2009,
between Calumet Shreveport Fuels, LLC, customer, and Legacy
Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on September 4, 2009 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.21*
|
|
|
|
Professional Services and Transition Agreement, dated November
2, 2009, between Calumet GP, LLC and Allan A. Moyes III
(incorporated by reference Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Commission on November 6, 2009 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of May
4, 2010 and effective April 1, 2010, between Calumet Shreveport
Fuels, LLC, customer, and Legacy Resources Co., L.P.,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
supplier (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on May
7, 2010 (File No 000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of May
4, 2010 and effective April 1, 2010, between Calumet Lubricants
Co., L.P., customer, and Legacy Resources Co., L.P., supplier
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Commission on
May 7, 2010 (File No 000-51734).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 4 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
August 30, 2010 and effective September 1, 2010, between Calumet
Shreveport Fuels, LLC, customer, and Legacy Resources Co., L.P.,
supplier (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to the
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on
September 3, 2010 (File No 000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 4 to Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated as of
August 30, 2010 and effective September 1, 2010, between Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership., customer, and Legacy
Resources Co., L.P., supplier (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.25 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Commission on September 3, 2010 (File No 000- 51734)).
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
|
|
Reaffirmation Agreement, General Release and Covenant Not to
Sue, dated December 22, 2010 and effective as of December 29,
2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the Commission on January 4, 2011
(File No 000- 51734)).
|
|
21
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
|
|
23
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP, independent registered
public accounting firm.
|
|
31
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of F. William Grube.
|
|
31
|
.2**
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of R. Patrick
Murray, II.
|
|
32
|
.1**
|
|
|
|
Section 1350 certification of F. William Grube and R. Patrick
Murray, II.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Identifies management contract and compensatory plan
arrangements. |
|
** |
|
Filed herewith. |