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 period ended
December 31, 2008
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 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
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
2911
(Primary Standard
Industrial
Classification Code Number)
|
|
37-1516132
(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 LLC
|
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 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
|
Smaller
reporting
company o
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
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
$100.3 million on June 30, 2008, based on $14.36 per
unit, the closing price of the common units as reported on the
NASDAQ Global Market on such date.
At February 26, 2009, there were 19,166,000 common units
and 13,066,000 subordinated units outstanding.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
NONE.
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
FORM 10-K
2008 ANNUAL REPORT
Table of Contents
1
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
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.
Some of the information in this annual report may contain
forward-looking statements. 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) the Shreveport refinery expansion
projects increases in production levels,
(ii) expected settlements with the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) or other environmental
and regulatory liabilities, (iii) the future benefits and
risks of the Penreco acquisition, (iv) our anticipated
levels of use of derivatives to mitigate our exposure to crude
oil price changes and fuel products price changes and
(v) future compliance with our debt covenants as well as
other matters discussed in this
Form 10-K
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 on
Form 10-K.
The risk factors and other factors noted throughout this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
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 crude oil and crack spread price fluctuations and
rapid increases or decreases, including the 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
or businesses;
|
|
|
|
environmental liabilities or events that are not covered by an
indemnity, insurance or existing reserves;
|
|
|
|
maintenance of our credit rating 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;
|
|
|
|
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 on
Form 10-K.
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 on
Form 10-K
to Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.,
Calumet, the Partnership, 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
Form 10-K
refer to Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership. The
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006
for Calumet include the results of operations of the Predecessor
for the period of January 1, 2006 through January 31,
2006. References in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
to our general partner refer to Calumet GP, LLC.
3
PART I
|
|
Items 1
and 2.
|
Business
and Properties
|
Overview
We are a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty
hydrocarbon products in North America. 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,
solvents 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
unleaded 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. For 2008, approximately 73.9% of our gross profit was
generated from our specialty products segment and approximately
26.1% of our gross profit was generated from our fuel products
segment. The acquisition of Penreco on January 3, 2008
expanded our specialty products offering and customer base. For
additional discussion of this acquisition, please read
Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Acquisition and Refinery Expansion.
Our operating assets 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) and had average
daily crude oil throughput of approximately 6,500 bpd for
2008.
|
|
|
|
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 and automotive products. The
Cotton Valley refinery has aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity of approximately 13,500 bpd and had average daily
crude oil throughput of approximately 6,200 bpd for 2008.
|
|
|
|
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
currently has aggregate crude oil throughput capacity of
approximately 60,000 bpd subsequent to the completion of a
major expansion project in May 2008 and had average daily crude
oil throughput of approximately 37,100 bpd for 2008.
|
|
|
|
Karns City Facility. Our Karns City facility,
located in western Pennsylvania and acquired in the Penreco
acquisition, produces white mineral oils, petrolatums, solvents,
gelled hydrocarbons, cable fillers, and natural petroleum
sulfonates. The Karns City facility currently has aggregate
feedstock throughput capacity of approximately 5,500 bpd
for 2008.
|
|
|
|
Dickinson Facility. Our Dickinson facility,
located in southeastern Texas and acquired in the Penreco
acquisition, produces white mineral oils, compressor lubricants
and natural petroleum sulfonates. The Dickinson facility
currently has aggregate feedstock throughput capacity of
approximately 1,300 bpd for 2008.
|
|
|
|
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 product in the Upper Midwest and East Coast
regions of the United States and in Canada. In addition, we
lease approximately 1,700 railcars 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.
|
4
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 73.9% of our gross profit for 2008 was
generated by the sale of specialty products, a segment of our
business which is characterized by stable customer relationships
due to their requirements for highly specialized products. 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. Dramatic changes in crude oil prices,
both increases and decreases, during 2008 did impact the
stability of cash flows throughout the year. During the period
where crude oil prices rose dramatically, our gross profit was
negatively impacted as adjustments to specialty product selling
prices did not keep pace with the increases in crude oil prices.
During the period where crude oil prices fell dramatically, our
gross profit was enhanced as reductions in crude oil prices
exceeded downward adjustments to specialty products selling
prices. The impacts of this volatility can best be seen in our
specialty products segment gross profit on a quarterly basis as
it fluctuated from $22.3 million, $21.5 million,
$66.1 million and $77.7 million in the first, second,
third and fourth quarters of 2008, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, in our fuel products segment, which accounted for 26.1% of
our gross profit in 2008, we seek to mitigate our exposure to
fuel products margin volatility by maintaining a long-term
hedging 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 have
an incentive 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 expanding their product offerings as well as
marketing specialty product formulations to new customers. By
striving to maintain our long-term relationships with our
existing customers and by adding new customers, we seek to limit
our dependence on a small number of customers. Our Penreco
acquisition provided us with an increase of approximately 1,400
customers and has enhanced our ability to expand our product
offering and to meet our customers needs.
|
|
|
|
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. For additional discussion of this
project, please read Item 7 Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Capital Expenditures.
|
|
|
|
Pursue strategic and complementary
acquisitions. Since 1990, our management team has
demonstrated the ability to identify opportunities to acquire
refineries whose operations we can enhance and whose
profitability we can improve. In the future, we intend to
continue to make strategic acquisitions of refineries that offer
the opportunity for operational efficiencies and the potential
for increased utilization and expansion. In addition, we may
pursue selected acquisitions in new geographic or product areas
to the extent we perceive similar opportunities. For example, on
January 3, 2008, we acquired Penreco from ConocoPhillips
Company (ConocoPhillips) and M.E. Zukerman Specialty
Oil Corporation for a purchase price of approximately
$269.1 million. For additional discussion of this project,
please read Item 7
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and
Capital Resources Capital Expenditures.
|
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 750
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 to 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 2,400 companies and we are continually seeking new
customers. No single specialty products customer accounts for
more that 10% of our consolidated sales.
|
|
|
|
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 new low sulfur fuel
regulations. For example, our Shreveport and Cotton Valley
refineries have the capability to make all of their low sulfur
diesel into ultra low sulfur diesel and all of the Shreveport
refinerys gasoline production meets low sulfur standards
set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). 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 also
upgraded the operations of many of our assets through our
investment in advanced, computerized refinery process controls.
|
|
|
|
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 over 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.
|
Our
Operating Assets
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 as well as a terminal in
Burnham, Illinois.
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
operations of our Karns City, Pennsylvania and Dickinson, Texas
facilities for 2007 and 2006, as we did not acquire these
facilities until January 3, 2008 with the acquisition of
Penreco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (1)
|
|
|
56,232
|
|
|
|
47,663
|
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
Total feedstock runs (2)
|
|
|
56,243
|
|
|
|
48,354
|
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
Production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
12,462
|
|
|
|
10,734
|
|
|
|
11,436
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
8,130
|
|
|
|
5,104
|
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,736
|
|
|
|
1,177
|
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,208
|
|
|
|
1,951
|
|
|
|
2,038
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,623
|
|
|
|
6,157
|
|
|
|
6,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
30,159
|
|
|
|
25,123
|
|
|
|
26,588
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
8,476
|
|
|
|
7,780
|
|
|
|
9,430
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
10,407
|
|
|
|
5,736
|
|
|
|
6,823
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
5,918
|
|
|
|
7,749
|
|
|
|
6,911
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
370
|
|
|
|
1,348
|
|
|
|
461
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
25,171
|
|
|
|
22,613
|
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production (3)
|
|
|
55,330
|
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
facilities and, beginning in 2008, 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, beginning
in 2008, at certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply
and/or processing agreements. The increase in feedstock runs for
2008 is primarily due to the acquisition of the Karns City, PA
and the Dickinson, TX facilities as part of the Penreco
acquisition and the completion of the Shreveport expansion
project in May 2008. These increases were offset by decreases in
production rates in the fourth quarter due to scheduled
turnarounds at our Princeton, Cotton Valley and Shreveport
refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Total production represents the barrels per day of specialty
products and fuel products yielded from processing crude oil and
other feedstocks at our facilities and, beginning in 2008, at
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 production of finished
products and volume loss. |
7
Set forth below is information regarding sales of our principal
products by segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Sales of specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
841.2
|
|
|
$
|
478.1
|
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
419.8
|
|
|
|
199.8
|
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
142.5
|
|
|
|
61.6
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
144.1
|
|
|
|
74.7
|
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,578.0
|
|
|
|
866.7
|
|
|
|
913.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
332.7
|
|
|
$
|
307.1
|
|
|
$
|
336.7
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
379.7
|
|
|
|
203.7
|
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
186.7
|
|
|
|
225.9
|
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
911.0
|
|
|
|
771.1
|
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
2,489.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, high sulfur diesel
and asphalt. The high sulfur diesel may be blended to produce
certain lubricating oils, transported to the Shreveport refinery
for further processing into ultra low sulfur diesel or sold to
third parties. 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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (1)
|
|
|
6,516
|
|
|
|
7,226
|
|
|
|
7,574
|
|
Total refinery production (1)
|
|
|
6,551
|
|
|
|
7,198
|
|
|
|
7,543
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
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
8
facilities. In addition, we have the necessary tankage and
technology to process our asphalt into higher value applications
like coatings and road paving applications.
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,
Related Party 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, low sulfur diesel, fuel feedstocks and residual fuel
oil. The residual fuel oil is an important feedstock for
specialty refined 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 its acquisition 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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
Total feedstock runs (1)(2)
|
|
|
6,175
|
|
|
|
6,775
|
|
|
|
7,130
|
|
Total refinery production (2)(3)
|
|
|
6,757
|
|
|
|
7,573
|
|
|
|
7,720
|
|
|
|
|
(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 solvent
feedstocks supplied to our Shreveport refinery. |
The Cotton Valley 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). Cotton
Valleys feedstock is primarily low sulfur, paraffinic
crude oil originating from north Louisiana and is purchased from
various marketers and gatherers. In addition, the refinery
receives feedstocks for solvent production from the Shreveport
refinery. The Cotton Valley refinery ships finished products
throughout the country by both truck and railcar service.
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
9
currently processing paraffinic crude oil and associated
feedstocks into fuel products, paraffinic lubricating oils,
waxes, residuals, and by-products.
The Shreveport refinery currently consists of 16 major
processing units, approximately 3.4 million barrels of
storage capacity in 141 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
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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (1)(2)
|
|
|
37,096
|
|
|
|
34,352
|
|
|
|
36,894
|
|
Total refinery production (2)(3)
|
|
|
35,566
|
|
|
|
32,819
|
|
|
|
34,950
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our Shreveport refinery. The
increase in feedstock runs for 2008 was primarily due to the
completion of the expansion project in May 2008, offset by
decreases in production rates in the fourth quarter of 2008 due
to a scheduled turnaround. |
|
(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 solvent
feedstocks supplied to our Cotton Valley refinery. |
We completed an expansion project in May 2008 that increased our
Shreveport refinerys aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity from approximately 42,000 bpd to approximately
60,000 bpd. For further discussion of this project, please
read Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources Capital
Expenditures.
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 discussed
above.
The Shreveport refinery currently makes jet fuel, low sulfur
diesel and ultra low sulfur diesel and all of its gasoline
production currently meets low sulfur standards.
The Shreveport refinery receives crude oil from common carrier
pipeline systems operated by subsidiaries of Plains and Exxon
Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil), each of which 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. In addition, trucks deliver crude oil gathered from
local producers to the Shreveport refinery.
The Shreveport refinery has direct pipeline access to the TEPPCO
Products Partners pipeline (TEPPCO pipeline), over
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.
10
Karns
City Facility
The Karns City facility, located on a
225-acre
site in Karns City, Pennsylvania, currently has aggregate base
oil throughput of 5,500 bpd and is currently processing
white mineral oils, petrolatums, solvents, gelled hydrocarbons,
cable fillers, and natural petroleum sulfonates. The Karns City
facility consists of seven major processing units including
hydrotreating, bender treating, fractionation, acid treating,
filtering and blending, approximately 817,000 barrels of
storage capacity in 309 tanks and related loading and unloading
facilities and utilities. The facility receives its base oil
feedstocks by rail 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
of 1,300 bpd and is currently processing white mineral
oils, compressor lubricants, and natural petroleum sulfonates.
The Dickinson facility consists of three major processing units
including 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 rail 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, 2008
|
|
|
|
(in bpd)
|
|
|
Feedstock throughput capacity (1)
|
|
|
6,800
|
|
Total feedstock runs (2)
|
|
|
6,456
|
|
Total production (3)
|
|
|
6,456
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes Karns City and Dickinson facilities only. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes runs of feedstocks at our Karns City and Dickinson
facilities as well as throughput at certain third-party
facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements. |
|
(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. |
Burnham
Terminal and Other Logistics Assets
We own and operate a terminal in Burnham, Illinois. The Burnham
terminal receives specialty products from each of 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.
|
11
We also lease a fleet of approximately 1,700 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 2008, we purchased 49.4% of our crude oil supply through
evergreen crude oil supply contracts, which are typically
terminable on 30 days notice by either party,
approximately 38.3% of our crude oil supply from a subsidiary of
Plains under a term contract that became evergreen in July 2008,
and the remaining 4.6% of our crude oil supply on the spot
market. Legacy Resources supplied us with 7.7% of our crude oil
in 2008. In addition, we are purchasing additional crude oil
from Legacy Resources in 2009 for our Shreveport refinery. Refer
to Item 13, Certain Relationships, Related Party
Transactions and Director Independence Crude Oil
Purchases for further information on our 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 feedstocks and the price 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 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 2 to 9 years, 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. Our customers purchase
these products primarily as raw material components for basic
industrial, consumer and automotive goods. We also produce a
variety of fuel products.
We have an experienced marketing department with an average
industry tenure of 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.
12
Our specialty products are utilized in applications across a
broad range of industries, including in:
|
|
|
|
|
industrial goods such as metal working fluids, belts, hoses,
sealing systems, batteries, hot melt adhesives, pressure
sensitive tapes, electrical transformers and refrigeration
compressors;
|
|
|
|
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 2008, about 45.5% of our
specialty products were shipped in our fleet of approximately
1,700 leased railcars, about 51.2% of our specialty products
shipped in trucks owned and operated by several different
third-party carriers and the remaining 3.3% were shipped via
water transportation. For shipments outside of North America,
which accounted for less than 10% of our consolidated sales in
2008, we ship railcars to several ports where the product is
loaded on ships for the customer.
Fuel Products. We produce a variety of fuel
and fuel-related products, primarily at our Shreveport refinery.
Fuel products produced at the Shreveport refinery can be sold
locally or through the TEPPCO pipeline. Local sales are made in
the TEPPCO terminal in Bossier City, Louisiana, which is
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 2008, we sold approximately 9,400 bpd of gasoline
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.
Similar market conditions exist for our diesel production. We
sell the majority of our diesel locally but, similar to
gasoline, we occasionally sell the excess volumes to marketers
further up the TEPPCO pipeline during times of high diesel
production or for competitive reasons.
The Shreveport refinery also 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 transferred to the
Cotton Valley refinery to be used 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 1,500 bpd of jet fuel. This contract
is effective until April 2009 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 producers. 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.
Customers
Specialty Products. We have a diverse customer
base for our specialty products, with approximately 2,400 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 accounts for
more that 10% of our consolidated sales.
Fuel Products. We have a diverse customer base
for our fuel products, with approximately 60 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
through the TEPPCO pipeline should the need arise. During the
year ended December 31, 2008, the fuel products segment had
one customer,
13
Murphy Oil U.S.A., which 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, 2008, 2007 and 2006.
Safety
and Maintenance
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
our assets as required by law or regulation.
We are subject to the requirements of Federal Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and comparable state
occupational safety statutes. We believe that we have operated
in substantial compliance with OSHA requirements, including
general industry standards, recordkeeping and reporting, hazard
communication and process safety management. We have implemented
a quality system that meets the requirements of the QS
9000/ISO-9002 Standard. The integrity of our certification is
maintained through surveillance audits by our registrar at
regular intervals designed to ensure adherence to the standards.
The nature of our business may result in industrial accidents
from time to time. It is possible that changes in safety and
health regulations or a finding of non-compliance with current
regulations could result in additional capital expenditures or
operating expenses, as well as fines and penalties.
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, Sunoco
Lubricants & Special Products 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, Ashland Inc. and
ConocoPhillips.
Fuel Products. Our competitors in producing
fuels 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.
During 2008, two of our competitors, Citgo Petroleum Corporation
and Ashland Inc. announced and have completed plans to cease
production of certain specialty product lines, including
paraffinic lubricating oils, waxes and solvents at certain of
their facilities, thereby reducing overall supply capacity in
the specialty products market.
14
Environmental
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.
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) has proposed penalties
totaling approximately $0.4 million and supplemental
projects 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. We anticipate that any penalties that may
be assessed due to the alleged violations at our Princeton
refinery as well as the aforementioned penalties related to the
Cotton Valley refinery will be consolidated in a settlement
agreement that we anticipate executing with the LDEQ in
connection with the agencys Small Refinery and
Single Site Refinery Initiative described below.
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
15
review and periodic renewal. Excluding consideration of the
alleged air violations discussed in this Environmental Matters
section for which we are currently discussing settlement with
the LDEQ, 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
gasoline in its production and produces diesel meeting the ultra
low sulfur standard.
We are party to ongoing discussions on a voluntary basis with
the LDEQ regarding the Companys participation in that
agencys 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. We expect that
the LDEQs primary focus under the state initiative will be
on four compliance and enforcement concerns: (i) Prevention
of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review; (ii) New
Source Performance Standards for fuel gas combustion devices,
including flares, heaters and boilers; (iii) Leak Detection
and Repair requirements; and (iv) Benzene Waste Operations
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. We are
in discussions with the LDEQ regarding our participation in this
regulatory initiative and anticipate that we will be entering
into a settlement agreement with the LDEQ pursuant to which we
will be required to make emissions reductions requiring capital
investments between approximately $1.0 million and
$3.0 million in total over a three to five year period at
our three Louisiana refineries. Because the settlement agreement
is also expected to resolve the alleged air emissions issues at
our Cotton Valley and Princeton refineries and consolidate any
penalties associated with such issues, we further anticipate
that a penalty of approximately $0.4 million will be
assessed in connection with this settlement agreement.
We also are in separate discussions with the EPA to resolve
alleged deficiencies in risk management planning in connection
with a fire-related incident arising out of tank cleaning and
vacuum truck operations at our Shreveport refinery on
October 30, 2008. The incident involved a third-party
contractor and resulted in damage to an
on-site
aboveground storage tank. Following an investigation of the
matter, the EPA issued five violations against us, alleging,
among other things, inadequate contractor training and
oversight, and has proposed a penalty of $0.2 million. We
are currently evaluating our response to the EPA with respect to
the matter.
Climate
Change
Recent studies suggest that emissions of carbon dioxide and
certain other gases, referred to as greenhouse
gases, may be contributing to warming of the Earths
atmosphere. In response, President Obama has expressed support
for, and it is anticipated that the current session of Congress
will consider, legislation to restrict or regulate emissions of
greenhouse gases. In addition, more than one-third of the
states, either individually or through multi-state regional
initiatives, already have begun implementing legal measures to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The most frequently
utilized model for greenhouse gas emission control is a
market-based
cap-and-trade
system, wherein regulated companies are required to obtain and
surrender government-issued emission allowances
based on the amount of greenhouse gases attributable to their
facilities. Depending on how such allowances are allocated
(i.e., for free or by auction), and whether a company has
enough allowances to cover its greenhouse gas emissions, a
company may be required to purchase allowances on the open
market.
One form of
cap-and-trade
system that has been proposed is an upstream
cap-and-trade
system, wherein fuel producers, including refiners, would be
required to maintain emission allowances covering the greenhouse
gas emissions attributable to the combustion of their products.
Were an upstream
cap-and-trade
system to be adopted at either the state, regional, or federal
level, we could be required to purchase and surrender allowances
for the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the combustion
of the fuels we produce. Although we would not be
16
impacted to a greater degree than other similarly situated
refiners of oil, a stringent greenhouse gas control program
could have an adverse effect on our operations, financial
condition, and cash flows.
Also, as a result of the United States Supreme Courts
decision on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts, et
al. v. EPA, the EPA may regulate greenhouse gas
emissions from mobile sources such as cars and trucks even if
Congress does not adopt new legislation specifically addressing
emissions of greenhouse gases. The Courts holding in
Massachusetts that greenhouse gases including carbon
dioxide fall under the federal Clean Air Acts definition
of air pollutant may also result in future
regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions
from stationary sources. In July 2008, EPA released an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding
possible future regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the
Clean Air Act, in response to the Supreme Courts decision
in Massachusetts. In the notice, EPA evaluated the
potential regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
and other potential methods of regulating greenhouse gases.
Although the notice did not propose any specific, new regulatory
requirements for greenhouse gases, it indicates that federal
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions could occur in the near
future even if Congress does not adopt new legislation
specifically addressing emissions of greenhouse gases. Although
it is not possible at this time to predict how legislation or
new regulations that may be adopted to address greenhouse gas
emissions would impact our business, any such new federal,
regional or state restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide or
other greenhouse gases that may be imposed in areas in which we
conduct business could also have an adverse effect on our cost
of doing business and demand for the oil we refine.
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 law. 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
17
can be no assurance that the future costs will not become
material. During 2008, we determined that we will incur costs of
approximately $0.7 million during 2009 at our Cotton Valley
refinery in connection with continued remediation of groundwater
impacts at that site.
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.
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
and Safety
We are 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 our operations and that this information be provided
to employees, state and local government authorities and
citizens. We maintain safety, training, and maintenance programs
as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Our compliance with applicable
health and safety laws and regulations has required and
continues to require substantial expenditures. We have
commissioned studies to assess the adequacy of our process
safety management practices at our Shreveport refinery.
Depending on the findings made in these studies, we may incur
capital expenditures over the next several years to enhance
these practices so that we may maintain our compliance with
applicable OSHA regulations at this refinery. While we do not
expect these expenditures to be material at this time, we have
not yet received the reports from the engineering firms
conducting the studies to reach final resolution. We believe
that our operations are in substantial compliance with OSHA and
similar state laws.
Other
Environmental Items
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.
We are indemnified on a limited basis by ConocoPhillips and M.E.
Zuckerman Specialty Oil Corporation, former owners of Penreco,
for pending, threatened, contemplated or contingent
environmental claims against Penreco of which we were unaware
upon our acquisition of Penreco. A significant portion of these
indemnifications will expire in January 2010 without any claims
having been asserted by us and are generally subject to a
$2.0 million limit.
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
18
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 as a result of 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 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 and approximately
14,500 square feet of office space in The Woodlands, Texas
under a lease as a result of the Penreco acquisition that we are
currently not using. 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 renew our lease of our facility 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 26, 2009, our general partner employs
approximately 640 people who provide direct support to the
Companys operations. Of these employees, approximately 360
are covered by collective bargaining agreements, including
approximately 140 employees at the facilities acquired in
the Penreco acquisition. Employees at the Princeton and Cotton
Valley refineries are covered by separate collective bargaining
agreements with the International Union of Operating Engineers,
having expiration dates of October 31, 2011 and
March 31, 2010, respectively. 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, 2010. The
Karns City, Pennsylvania facility employees are covered by a
collective bargaining agreement with United Steel Workers that
will expire on January 31, 2012. The Dickinson, Texas
facility employees are covered by a collective bargaining
agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers
that will expire in March 31, 2010. None of the employees
at the Burnham terminal are
19
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 in
print to anyone who requests it and is free of charge.
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 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;
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Further
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,
either of which would adversely affect our liquidity, financial
condition and our ability to distribute cash to our
unitholders.
The borrowing base under our revolving credit facility is
redetermined 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,
as a result of further decreases in the price of crude oil, we
may be required to post substantial amounts of cash collateral
to our hedging counterparties in order to maintain our hedging
positions. At December 31, 2008, we had $51.9 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 would have a material adverse effect
on our liquidity, financial condition and our ability to
distribute cash to our unitholders.
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.
|
21
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.
The new senior secured term loan credit agreement and amendment
to our existing revolving credit facility that we executed on
January 3, 2008 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 not more than 4.00 to 1.00 with a
step down to 3.75 to 1.00 beginning with the quarter ended
June 30, 2009 and a minimum consolidated interest coverage
ratio of not less than 2.50 to 1.00 which increases to 2.75 to
1.00 beginning with the quarter ended June 30, 2009. 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.
We may
not be able to obtain funding, obtain funding on acceptable
terms or obtain funding under our revolving credit facility
because of deterioration of the credit and capital markets. This
may hinder or prevent us from meeting our future capital
needs.
Global financial market and economic conditions have been, and
continue to be, disrupted and volatile. The debt and equity
capital markets have been exceedingly distressed. These issues,
along with significant write-offs in the financial services
sector, the re-pricing of credit risk and the current weak
economic conditions have made, and will likely continue to make,
it difficult to obtain funding.
In particular, the cost of raising money in the debt and equity
capital markets has increased substantially while the
availability of funds from those markets generally has
diminished significantly. Also, as a result of concerns about
the stability of financial markets generally and the solvency of
counterparties specifically, the cost of obtaining money from
the credit markets generally has increased as many lenders and
institutional investors have increased interest rates, enacted
tighter lending standards, refused to refinance existing debt at
maturity at all or on terms similar to our current debt and
reduced and, in some cases, ceased to provide funding to
borrowers.
In addition, we may be unable to obtain adequate funding under
our revolving credit facility because (i) our lending
counterparties may be unwilling or unable to meet their funding
obligations or (ii) our borrowing base under our revolving
credit facility is redetermined weekly or monthly depending upon
availability levels and may decrease as a result of changes in
selling prices of our products, our current material costs
(primarily crude oil), lending requirements or regulations, or
for any other reason.
Due to these factors, we cannot be certain that funding will be
available if needed and to the extent required, on acceptable
terms. If funding is not available when needed, or is available
only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to meet our
obligations as they come due or be required to post collateral
to support our obligations, or we may be unable to implement our
business development plans, enhance our existing business
opportunities or respond to competitive pressures, any of which
could have a material adverse effect on our production, revenues
and results of operations.
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
22
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
|
|
First quarter 2008
|
|
$
|
10.16
|
|
Second quarter 2008
|
|
$
|
14.55
|
|
Third quarter 2008
|
|
$
|
10.82
|
|
Fourth quarter 2008
|
|
$
|
4.30
|
|
Calendar year 2008
|
|
$
|
9.98
|
|
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.
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 segments 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 the increased crude oil
costs to our customers. In addition, we will not be 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.
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.
23
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 $5.29 and
$13.58 per million British thermal unit, or MMBtu, in 2008 and
between $5.38 and $8.64 per MMBtu in 2007. 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 36.5% and 44.2% of our total operating
expenses included in cost of sales for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, 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 hydrocarbon
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, we
historically have entered into monthly crude oil collars to
hedge up to 14,000 bpd of crude purchases related to our
specialty products segment, which had average total daily
production for 2008 of 30,159 bpd. As of December 31,
2008, we had significantly reduced the volume and duration of
our crude oil collars position and were hedging approximately
7,700 bpd through March 31, 2009. 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 obligation 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
acquisition, 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 acquisition and 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 construction
project and the
24
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. For example, the
Shreveport expansion project total cost was approximately
$375.0 million and was significantly over budget due to
increased construction labor costs. Future acquisition,
reconfiguration and enhancement projects may not be completed at
the budgeted cost, on schedule, or at all due to the risks
described above which would significantly affect our cash flows
and financial condition.
Our
acquisition of Penreco could expose us to potential significant
liabilities.
In connection with the Penreco acquisition, we purchased all of
the partnership interests of Penreco rather than just its
assets. As a result, we purchased the liabilities of Penreco
subject to certain exclusions in the purchase and sale
agreement, including unknown and contingent liabilities. We
performed a certain level of due diligence in connection with
the Penreco acquisition and attempted to verify the
representations of the sellers and of Penreco management, but
there may be pending, threatened, contemplated or contingent
claims against Penreco related to environmental, title,
regulatory, litigation or other matters of which we are unaware.
Although the sellers agreed to indemnify us on a limited basis
against some of these liabilities, a significant portion of
these indemnification obligations will expire two years after
the date the acquisition is completed without any claims having
been asserted by us and these obligations are subject to limits.
Each sellers liability is limited to 50% of our loss. Each
sellers indemnification obligations are generally subject
to a limit of $2.0 million limit for most matters and a
deductible of $1.0 million per claim, or $10.0 million
for all claims in the aggregate. We may not be able to collect
on such indemnification because of disputes with the sellers or
their inability to pay. Moreover, there is a risk that we could
ultimately be liable for unknown obligations of Penreco, which
could materially adversely affect our operations and financial
condition.
Our
debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional
financing and in pursuing other business
opportunities.
We had approximately $477.6 million of outstanding
indebtedness under our credit facilities as of December 31,
2008 and availability for borrowings of $51.9 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
25
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.
Our
recently acquired Penreco facilities are dependent upon
ConocoPhillips for a majority of their feedstocks, and the
balance of its feedstocks are not secured by long-term contracts
and are subject to price increases and availability. To the
extent we are unable to obtain necessary feedstocks, operations
will be adversely affected.
Our Penreco facilities receive the majority of their feedstocks
from ConocoPhillips pursuant to long-term supply contracts. In
addition, one particular feedstock is produced at a unit
operated by ConocoPhillips within one of its refineries, which
has shut down production in the past under the force majeure
provisions of a supply contract. In addition, we do not have
long-term contracts with most of our other suppliers. Each of
our Penreco facilities is dependent on these suppliers and the
loss of these suppliers would adversely affect our financial
results to the extent we were unable to find replacement
suppliers.
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.
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 gatherers for a significant
portion of our supply of crude oil, and the loss of any of these
key suppliers or a material decrease in the supply of crude oil
generally available to our refineries could materially reduce
our ability to make distributions to unitholders.
We purchase crude oil from major oil companies as well as from
various gatherers and marketers in east Texas and north
Louisiana. In 2008, subsidiaries of Plains and Genesis Crude
Oil, L.P. supplied us with approximately 59.1% and 6.2%,
respectively, of our total crude oil supplies under term
contracts and evergreen crude oil supply contracts. In addition,
we received 7.7% of our total crude oil purchases from Legacy
Resources, an affiliate of our general partner, in 2008 and we
have expanded our supply from Legacy Resources in January 2009
through the execution of an additional crude oil supply
contract. Each of our refineries is dependent on one or all 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. Please read Items 1 and 2 Business and
Properties Crude Oil and Feedstock Supply.
26
To the extent that our suppliers reduce the volumes of crude oil
that they supply us as a result of declining production or
competition or otherwise, our revenues, net income and cash
available for distribution would decline unless we were able to
acquire comparable supplies of crude oil 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 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 TEPPCO 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 could decline.
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 would 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 changing
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
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
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 and terminal
operations are subject to stringent and complex federal, state
and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations
governing the discharge of materials into the environment or
otherwise relating to environmental protection, worker health
and safety. These laws and regulations impose numerous
obligations that are applicable to our operations, including the
acquisition of 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, and the incurrence of substantial costs and
liabilities for pollution resulting both from our operations and
from those of prior owners. Numerous governmental authorities,
such as the EPA, OSHA, and state agencies, such as the LDEQ,
have 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. Described below are
examples of these costs and liabilities.
We are in discussions with the LDEQ regarding our participation
in the Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery Initiative and
anticipate that we will be entering into a settlement agreement
with the LDEQ pursuant to which we will be required to make
emissions reductions requiring capital investments between
approximately $1.0 million and $3.0 million over a
three to five year period at our three Louisiana refineries.
Because the settlement agreement is also expected to resolve
alleged air emissions issues at our Cotton Valley and Princeton
refineries and consolidate any penalties associated with such
issues, we further anticipate that a penalty of approximately
$0.4 million will be assessed in connection with this
settlement agreement.
We have commissioned studies to assess the adequacy of our
process safety management practices at our Shreveport refinery.
Depending on the findings made in these studies, we may incur
capital expenditures over the next several years to enhance
these practices so that we may maintain our compliance with
applicable OSHA regulations at the refinery. While we do not
expect these expenditures to be material at this time, we have
not completed our negotiations with OSHA to reach final
resolution.
Our
business subjects us to the inherent risk of incurring
significant environmental liabilities in the operation of our
refineries 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, air emissions and water
discharges related to our operations, and historical operations
and waste disposal practices by prior owners. We currently own
or operate properties that for many years have been used for
industrial activities, including refining or terminal storage
operations. 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
28
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.
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 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; and
|
|
|
|
customer or key employee losses at the acquired businesses.
|
If we consummate any future acquisitions, our capitalization and
results of operations may change significantly, and our
unitholders will not have the opportunity to evaluate the
economic, financial and other relevant information that we will
consider in determining the application of our funds and other
resources.
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 significant interruption, and our
cash from operations could decline if any of our facilities
experiences a major accident or fire, is damaged by severe
weather or other natural disaster, or otherwise is forced to
curtail its operations or shut down. These 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 curtailment or suspension of our related operations.
29
We are not fully insured against all risks incident to our
business. 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. Our business interruption insurance will not apply
unless a business interruption exceeds 90 days. 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 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 are
subject to strict regulations at many of our facilities
regarding employee safety, and failure to comply with these
regulations could reduce our ability to make distributions to
our unitholders.
The workplaces associated with the facilities we operate are
subject to the requirements of the 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, record
keeping requirements and monitoring of occupational exposure to
regulated substances could reduce our ability to make
distributions to our unitholders if we are subjected to fines or
significant compliance costs.
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, 2008). Borrowings
under our term loan facility bear interest at a floating rate
(6.15% as of December 31, 2008). 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 exclusively 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
30
catastrophic events or weather, decreased supply of crude oil
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 and Shreveport refineries are employed under
collective bargaining agreements that expire in October 2011,
March 2010 and April 2010, respectively. Substantially all of
the operating personnel acquired through the Penreco acquisition
are employed under collective bargaining agreements that expire
in January 2012 and March 2010. 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 fuels 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.
If we
fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we
may not be able to report our financial results accurately, or
prevent fraud which could have an adverse effect on our business
and would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of
our common units.
Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide
reliable financial reports to prevent fraud and to operate
successfully as a publicly traded partnership. Our efforts to
develop and maintain our internal controls may not be
successful, and we may be unable to maintain adequate controls
over our financial processes and reporting in the future,
including compliance with the obligations under Section 404
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which we refer to as
Section 404. For example, Section 404 requires us,
among other things, annually to review and report on, and our
independent registered public accounting firm annually to attest
to, our internal control over financial reporting. Any failure
to develop or maintain effective controls, or difficulties
encountered in their implementation or other effective
improvement of our internal controls could harm our operating
results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations.
Ineffective internal controls subject us to regulatory scrutiny
and a loss of confidence in our reported financial information,
which could have an adverse effect on our business and would
likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our common
units.
31
Risks
Inherent in an Investment in Us
The
families of our chairman and chief executive officer and
president, The Heritage Group and certain of their affiliates
own a 58.2% 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 and chief executive officer and
president, the Heritage Group, and certain of their affiliates
own a 58.2% limited partner interest in us. In addition, The
Heritage Group and the families of our chairman and chief
executive officer and president 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 and the
ability of the subordinated units to convert to common units;
|
|
|
|
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 subordinated units and incentive
distribution rights or to accelerate the expiration of the
subordination period; 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 a
distribution on the subordinated units, to make incentive
distributions or to accelerate the expiration of the
subordination period.
|
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 products in the continental United
States (restricted business) 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, Related Party 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.
32
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 outstanding units voting together as a single class is
required to remove the general partner. The owners of our
general partner and certain of their affiliates own 58.2% of our
common and subordinated units. Also, if our general partner is
removed without cause during the subordination period and units
held by our general partner and its affiliates are not voted in
favor of that removal, all remaining subordinated units will
automatically convert into common units and any existing
arrearages on the common units will be extinguished. A removal
of the general partner under these circumstances would adversely
affect the common units by prematurely eliminating their
distribution and liquidation preference over the subordinated
units, which would otherwise have continued until we had met
certain distribution and performance tests.
33
Cause is narrowly defined in our partnership agreement to mean
that a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final,
non-appealable judgment finding our general partner liable for
actual fraud or willful misconduct in its capacity as our
general partner. Cause does not include most cases of charges of
poor management of the business, so the removal of our general
partner during the subordination period because of the
unitholders dissatisfaction with our general
partners performance in managing our partnership will most
likely result in the termination of the subordination period.
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.
In general, during the subordination period, we may issue up to
6,533,000 additional common units without obtaining unitholder
approval, which units we refer to as the basket. Our
general partner can also issue an unlimited number of common
units in connection with accretive acquisitions and capital
improvements that increase cash flow from operations per unit on
an estimated pro forma basis. We can also issue additional
common units if the proceeds are used to repay certain of our
indebtedness.
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;
|
|
|
|
because a lower percentage of total outstanding units will be
subordinated units, the risk that a shortfall in the payment of
the minimum quarterly distribution will be borne by our common
unitholders will increase;
|
|
|
|
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.
|
34
After the end of the subordination period, 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.
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 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, Related Party
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. Our general partner and its
affiliates own approximately 31.7% of the common units. At the
end of the subordination period, assuming no additional
issuances of common units, our general partner and its
affiliates will own approximately 59.4% 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.
|
35
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.
Our
common units have a limited trading history compared to other
units representing limited partner interests.
Our common units are traded publicly on the NASDAQ Global Market
under the symbol CLMT. However, our common units
have a limited trading history and low average daily trading
volume compared to many other units representing limited partner
interests quoted on the NASDAQ. 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 on
Form 10-K.
|
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 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
the common units depends largely on our being treated as a
partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not
requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as
a partnership for federal income tax purposes.
Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under
Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a
partnership such as ours to be treated as a corporation for
federal income tax purposes. Although we do not believe based
upon our current operations that we are so treated, a change in
our business (or a change in current law) could
36
cause us to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax
purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.
If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax
purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income
at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%
and would likely pay state income tax at varying rates.
Distributions to unitholders would generally be taxed again as
corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses or
deductions would flow through to the unitholders. Because a tax
would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available
for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially
reduced. Therefore, our treatment as a corporation would result
in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and
after-tax return to the unitholders, likely causing a
substantial reduction in the value of our common units.
Current law may change so as to cause us to be treated as a
corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject
us to entity-level taxation. At a state level, 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 and other forms of
taxation. For example, beginning in 2008, we are required to pay
Texas franchise tax at a maximum effective rate of 0.7% of our
gross income apportioned to Texas in the prior year. Imposition
of such a tax on us by Texas and, if applicable, by any other
state will reduce the cash available for distribution to
unitholders.
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, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the
target distribution levels will be adjusted to reflect the
impact of that law on us.
The
tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment
in our common units could be subject to potential legislative,
judicial or administrative changes and differing
interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.
The present federal income tax treatment of publicly traded
partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units
may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial
interpretation at any time. For example, members of Congress
have recently considered substantive changes to the existing
federal income tax laws that would have affected certain
publicly traded partnerships. Any modification to the federal
income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be
applied retroactively. Although the considered legislation would
not have appeared to affect our tax treatment as a partnership,
we are unable to predict whether any of these changes, or other
proposals, will be reintroduced or will ultimately be enacted.
Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an
investment in our common units.
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 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 some or all of 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, our costs of any contest with the IRS will be borne
indirectly by our unitholders and our general partner 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 to whom we
will allocate taxable income which could be different in amount
than the cash we distribute, unitholders will be required to pay
any federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local
income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they
receive no cash distributions from us. Unitholders may not
receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our
taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability that
results from that income.
37
Tax
gain or loss on disposition of common units could be more or
less than expected.
If 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 share of our net
taxable income decrease 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 unitholders if they sell such units at a price greater than
their tax basis in those units, even if the price they receive
is less than 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
items, including depreciation recapture. 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-United
States persons face unique tax issues from owning our common
units that may result in adverse tax consequences to
them.
Investment in our common units by tax-exempt entities, such as
individual retirement accounts (IRAs), other
retirement plans, and
non-U.S. persons
raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our
income allocated to organizations that are 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 at the highest applicable
effective tax rate, and
non-U.S. persons
will be required to file United States federal tax returns
and pay tax on their share 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.
Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common
units and because of other reasons, we take depreciation and
amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of
existing Treasury regulations. A successful IRS challenge to
those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax
benefits available to our unitholders. It also could affect the
timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale
of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of
our common units or result in audit adjustments to our
unitholders tax returns.
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 end-users 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 subject to
corporate-level tax, which will reduce the 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 was 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
transferors and transferees of our 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
transferors and transferees of our 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 use of this proration method may not be
permitted under existing Treasury regulations. If the IRS were
to challenge this 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.
38
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, he 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.
Because a unitholder whose units are loaned to a short
seller to cover a short sale of units may be considered as
having disposed of the loaned units, he may no longer be treated
for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during
the period of the loan to the short seller and the unitholder
may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover,
during the period of the loan to the short seller, any of our
income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those units may
not be reportable by the unitholder and any cash distributions
received by the unitholder as to those units could be fully
taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their
status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a
loan to a short seller are urged to modify any applicable
brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from
borrowing their units.
We
have adopted certain valuation methodologies that may result in
a shift of income, gain, loss and deduction between the 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 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 case, there may be a shift of
income, gain, loss and deduction between certain unitholders and
the general partner, which may be unfavorable to such
unitholders. Moreover, under our valuation methodologies,
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 income, gain, loss and deduction between the
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
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 terminated for federal income tax
purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the
total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve-month
period. 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 fiscal 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 fiscal year ending December 31,
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
currently would not affect our classification as a partnership
for federal income tax purposes, but instead, we would be
treated as a new partnership for 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.
Unitholders
may be subject to state and local taxes and return filing
requirements.
In addition to federal income taxes, our common unitholders will
likely be subject to other taxes, including foreign, state and
local 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
common unitholders will likely be required to file foreign,
state and local income tax returns and pay state and local
income taxes in some or all of these jurisdictions. Further,
unitholders may be subject
39
to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. We
own assets
and/or do
business in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. Each
of these states, other than Texas and Florida, currently imposes
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 United States federal,
foreign, state and local tax returns.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
We are not a party to any material litigation. 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 litigation arising in
the ordinary course of business. Please see Items 1 and 2
Business and Properties Environmental
Matters for a description of our current regulatory
matters related to the environment.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
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
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, 2008 and 2007, identical cash
distributions per unit were paid among all outstanding common
and subordinated units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Distribution
|
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
per Unit
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
39.64
|
|
|
$
|
48.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.60
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
46.36
|
|
|
$
|
55.26
|
|
|
$
|
0.60
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
42.27
|
|
|
$
|
52.90
|
|
|
$
|
0.63
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
32.87
|
|
|
$
|
50.99
|
|
|
$
|
0.63
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
22.60
|
|
|
$
|
37.88
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
11.19
|
|
|
$
|
23.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
11.46
|
|
|
$
|
15.40
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
5.77
|
|
|
$
|
15.35
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
As of February 26, 2009, 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 26, 2009,
there were 32,232,000 units outstanding. The number of
units outstanding on this date includes the 13,066,000
subordinated units for which there is no
40
established trading market. The last reported sale price of our
common units by NASDAQ on February 26, 2009 was $12.16.
On November 20, 2007, we completed a follow-on public
offering of common units in which we sold 2,800,000 common units
to the underwriters of this offering at a price to the public of
$36.98 per common unit and received net proceeds of
$98.2 million. Additionally, the general partner
contributed an additional $2.1 million to us to retain its
2% general partner interest.
Cash
Distribution Policy
General. Within 45 days after the end of
each quarter, we distribute our available cash (as defined in
the 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 and subordinated 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 13, 2009, we paid a quarterly cash distribution of
$0.45 per unit on all outstanding units totaling
$14.8 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2008
to all unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 3, 2009.
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 657,796 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 $0.45 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. We paid $1.0 million to
our general partner in incentive distributions pursuant to its
incentive distribution rights during the year ended
December 31, 2008.
41
Operating
Surplus and Capital Surplus
General. All cash distributed to unitholders
will be characterized as either operating surplus or
capital surplus. Our partnership agreement requires
that we distribute available cash from operating surplus
differently than available cash from capital surplus.
Operating Surplus. Operating surplus generally
consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
our cash balance on the closing date of the initial public
offering; plus
|
|
|
|
$10.0 million (as described below); plus
|
|
|
|
all of our cash receipts after the closing of the initial public
offering, excluding cash from (1) borrowings that are not
working capital borrowings, (2) sales of equity and debt
securities and (3) sales or other dispositions of assets
outside the ordinary course of business; plus
|
|
|
|
working capital borrowings made after the end of a quarter but
before the date of determination of operating surplus for the
quarter; less
|
|
|
|
all of our operating expenditures after the closing of the
initial public offering (including the repayment of working
capital borrowings, but not the repayment of other borrowings)
and maintenance capital expenditures; less
|
|
|
|
the amount of cash reserves established by our general partner
for future operating expenditures.
|
Maintenance capital expenditures represent capital expenditures
made to replace partially or fully depreciated assets, to
maintain the existing operating capacity of our assets and to
extend their useful lives, or other capital expenditures that
are incurred in maintaining existing system volumes and related
cash flows. Expansion capital expenditures represent capital
expenditures made to expand the existing operating capacity of
our assets or to expand the operating capacity or revenues of
existing or new assets, whether through construction or
acquisition. Costs for repairs and minor renewals to maintain
facilities in operating condition and that do not extend the
useful life of existing assets will be treated as operations and
maintenance expenses as we incur them. Our partnership agreement
provides that our general partner determines how to allocate a
capital expenditure for the acquisition or expansion of our
assets between maintenance capital expenditures and expansion
capital expenditures.
Capital Surplus. Capital surplus consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
borrowings other than working capital borrowings;
|
|
|
|
sales of our equity and debt securities; and
|
|
|
|
sales or other dispositions of assets for cash, other than
inventory, accounts receivable and other current assets sold in
the ordinary course of business or as part of normal retirement
or replacement of assets.
|
Characterization of Cash Distributions. We
will treat all available cash distributed as coming from
operating surplus until the sum of all available cash
distributed since we began operations equals the operating
surplus as of the most recent date of determination of available
cash. We will treat any amount distributed in excess of
operating surplus, regardless of its source, as capital surplus.
As reflected above, operating surplus includes
$10.0 million. This amount does not reflect actual cash on
hand that is available for distribution to our unitholders.
Rather, it is a provision that will enable us, if we choose, to
distribute as operating surplus up to this amount of cash we
receive in the future from non-operating sources, such as asset
sales, issuances of securities and borrowings, that would
otherwise be distributed as capital surplus. We do not
anticipate that we will make any distributions from capital
surplus.
Subordination
Period
General. Our partnership agreement provides
that, during the subordination period (defined below), the
common units will have the right to receive distributions of
available cash from operating surplus in an amount equal to the
minimum quarterly distribution of $0.45 per quarter, plus any
arrearages in the payment of the minimum quarterly distribution
on the common units from prior quarters, before any
distributions of available cash
42
from operating surplus may be made on the subordinated units.
These units are deemed subordinated because for a
period of time, referred to as the subordination period, the
subordinated units will not be entitled to receive any
distributions until the common units have received the minimum
quarterly distribution plus any arrearages from prior quarters.
Furthermore, no arrearages will be paid on the subordinated
units. The practical effect of the existence of the subordinated
units is to increase the likelihood that during the
subordination period there will be available cash to be
distributed on the common units. All of the outstanding
subordinated units are owned by affiliates of our general
partner.
Subordination Period. The subordination period
will extend until the first day of any quarter beginning after
December 31, 2010 that each of the following tests are met:
|
|
|
|
|
distributions of available cash from operating surplus on each
of the outstanding common units, subordinated units and general
partner units equaled or exceeded the minimum quarterly
distributions on such common units, subordinated units and
general partner units for each of the three consecutive,
non-overlapping four-quarter periods immediately preceding that
date;
|
|
|
|
the adjusted operating surplus (as defined below)
generated during each of the three consecutive, non-overlapping
four-quarter periods immediately preceding that date equaled or
exceeded the sum of the minimum quarterly distributions on all
of the outstanding common units, subordinated units and general
partner units during those periods on a fully diluted
basis; and
|
|
|
|
there are no arrearages in payment of minimum quarterly
distributions on the common units.
|
Expiration of the Subordination Period. When
the subordination period expires, each outstanding subordinated
unit will convert into one common unit and will then participate
pro rata with the other common units in distributions of
available cash. In addition, if the unitholders remove our
general partner other than for cause and units held by the
general partner and its affiliates are not voted in favor of
such removal:
|
|
|
|
|
the subordination period will end and each subordinated unit
will immediately convert into one common unit;
|
|
|
|
any existing arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution on the common units will be extinguished; and
|
|
|
|
the general partner will have the right to convert its general
partner interest and its incentive distribution rights into
common units or to receive cash in exchange for those interests.
|
Adjusted Operating Surplus. Adjusted operating
surplus is intended to reflect the cash generated from
operations during a particular period and therefore excludes net
increases in working capital borrowings and net drawdowns of
reserves of cash generated in prior periods. Adjusted operating
surplus consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
operating surplus generated with respect to that period; less
|
|
|
|
any net increase in working capital borrowings with respect to
that period; less
|
|
|
|
any net decrease in cash reserves for operating expenditures
with respect to that period not relating to an operating
expenditure made with respect to that period; plus
|
|
|
|
any net decrease in working capital borrowings with respect to
that period; plus
|
|
|
|
any net increase in cash reserves for operating expenditures
with respect to that period required by any debt instrument for
the repayment of principal, interest or premium.
|
Distributions
of Available Cash from Operating Surplus During the
Subordination Period
We will make distributions of available cash from operating
surplus for any quarter during the subordination period in the
following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to
the general partner, until we distribute for each outstanding
common unit an amount equal to the minimum quarterly
distribution for that quarter;
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
second, 98% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 2%
to the general partner, until we distribute for each outstanding
common unit an amount equal to any arrearages in payment of the
minimum quarterly distribution on the common units for any prior
quarters during the subordination period;
|
|
|
|
third, 98% to the subordinated unitholders, pro rata, and
2% to the general partner, until we distribute for each
subordinated unit an amount equal to the minimum quarterly
distribution for that quarter; and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, in the manner described in
Incentive Distribution Rights below.
|
The preceding discussion is based on the assumptions that our
general partner maintains its 2% general partner interest and
that we do not issue additional classes of equity securities.
Distributions
of Available Cash from Operating Surplus After the Subordination
Period
We will make distributions of available cash from operating
surplus for any quarter after the subordination period in the
following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to the
general partner, until we distribute for each outstanding unit
an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution for that
quarter; and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, in the manner described in
Incentive Distribution Rights below.
|
The preceding discussion is based on the assumptions that our
general partner maintains its 2% general partner interest and
that we do not issue additional classes of equity securities.
Incentive
Distribution Rights
Incentive distribution rights represent the right to receive an
increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of available
cash from operating surplus after the minimum quarterly
distribution and the target distribution levels have been
achieved. Our general partner currently holds the incentive
distribution rights, but may transfer these rights separately
from its general partner interest, subject to restrictions in
our partnership agreement.
If for any quarter:
|
|
|
|
|
we have distributed available cash from operating surplus to the
common and subordinated unitholders in an amount equal to the
minimum quarterly distribution; and
|
|
|
|
we have distributed available cash from operating surplus on
outstanding common units in an amount necessary to eliminate any
cumulative arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution;
|
then, we will distribute any additional available cash from
operating surplus for that quarter among the unitholders and the
general partner in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to the
general partner, until each unitholder receives a total of
$0.495 per unit for that quarter (the first target
distribution);
|
|
|
|
second, 85% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 15% to the
general partner, until each unitholder receives a total of
$0.563 per unit for that quarter (the second target
distribution);
|
|
|
|
third, 75% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 25% to the
general partner, until each unitholder receives a total of
$0.675 per unit for that quarter (the third target
distribution); and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, 50% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 50% to
the general partner.
|
In each case, the amount of the target distribution set forth
above is exclusive of any distributions to common unitholders to
eliminate any cumulative arrearages in payment of the minimum
quarterly distribution. The preceding discussion is based on the
assumptions that our general partner maintains its 2% general
partner interest and that we do not issue additional classes of
equity securities.
44
Percentage
Allocations of Available Cash from Operating Surplus
The following table illustrates the percentage allocations of
the additional available cash from operating surplus between the
unitholders and our general partner up to the various target
distribution levels. The amounts set forth under Marginal
Percentage Interest in Distributions are the percentage
interests of our general partner and the unitholders in any
available cash from operating surplus we distribute up to and
including the corresponding amount in the column Total
Quarterly Distribution, until available cash from
operating surplus we distribute reaches the next target
distribution level, if any. The percentage interests shown for
the unitholders and the general partner for the minimum
quarterly distribution are also applicable to quarterly
distribution amounts that are less than the minimum quarterly
distribution. The percentage interests set forth below for our
general partner include its 2% general partner interest and
assume our general partner has contributed any additional
capital to maintain its 2% general partner interest and has not
transferred its incentive distribution rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
%
|
Distributions
from Capital Surplus
How Distributions from Capital Surplus Will Be
Made. Our partnership agreement requires that we
make distributions of available cash from capital surplus, if
any, in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to the
general partner, until we distribute for each common unit an
amount of available cash from capital surplus equal to the
initial public offering price;
|
|
|
|
second, 98% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 2%
to the general partner, until we distribute for each common
unit, an amount of available cash from capital surplus equal to
any unpaid arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution on the common units; and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, we will make all distributions of available
cash from capital surplus as if they were from operating surplus.
|
Effect of a Distribution from Capital
Surplus. Our partnership agreement treats a
distribution of capital surplus as the repayment of the initial
unit price, which is a return of capital. The initial public
offering price less any distributions of capital surplus per
unit is referred to as the unrecovered initial unit
price. Each time a distribution of capital surplus is
made, the minimum quarterly distribution and the target
distribution levels will be reduced in the same proportion as
the corresponding reduction in the unrecovered initial unit
price. Because distributions of capital surplus will reduce the
minimum quarterly distribution, after any of these distributions
are made, it may be easier for the general partner to receive
incentive distributions and for the subordinated units to
convert into common units. However, any distribution of capital
surplus before the unrecovered initial unit price is reduced to
zero cannot be applied to the payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution or any arrearages.
Once we distribute capital surplus on a unit in an amount equal
to the initial unit price, our partnership agreement specifies
that the minimum quarterly distribution and the target
distribution levels will be reduced to zero. Our partnership
agreement specifies that we then make all future distributions
from operating surplus, with 50% being paid to the holders of
units and 50% to the general partner. The percentage interests
shown for our general partner include its 2% general partner
interest and assume the general partner has not transferred the
incentive distribution rights.
45
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 on
Form 10-K.
Sales of
Unregistered Securities
None.
Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities
None.
46
|
|
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
(Calumet) and Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership (Predecessor). The selected historical
financial data as of December 31, 2008 includes the
operations acquired as part of the Penreco acquisition from
their date of acquisition, January 3, 2008. The selected
historical financial data as of December 31, 2005 and 2004
and for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, are
derived from the consolidated financial statements of the
Predecessor. The results of operations for the years ended
December 31, 2006 for Calumet include the results of
operations of the Predecessor for the period of January 1,
2006 through January 31, 2006.
The following table includes the non-GAAP financial measures
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA. For a reconciliation of EBITDA and
Adjusted EBITDA to net income and net cash provided by (used in)
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 that
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 on
Form 10-K
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per unit data)
|
|
|
Summary of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
2,235,111
|
|
|
|
1,456,492
|
|
|
|
1,436,108
|
|
|
|
1,147,117
|
|
|
|
501,973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
253,883
|
|
|
|
181,356
|
|
|
|
204,940
|
|
|
|
141,955
|
|
|
|
37,643
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
34,267
|
|
|
|
19,614
|
|
|
|
20,430
|
|
|
|
22,126
|
|
|
|
13,133
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
84,702
|
|
|
|
54,026
|
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
|
|
46,849
|
|
|
|
33,923
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
4,598
|
|
|
|
3,662
|
|
|
|
3,592
|
|
|
|
2,493
|
|
|
|
2,309
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
2,854
|
|
|
|
863
|
|
|
|
871
|
|
|
|
839
|
|
Restructuring, decommissioning and asset impairments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
|
|
67,283
|
|
|
|
(12,878
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in loss of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(427
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(33,938
|
)
|
|
|
(4,717
|
)
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
|
|
(22,961
|
)
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
388
|
|
|
|
1,944
|
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(898
|
)
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
(6,882
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(58,833
|
)
|
|
|
(12,484
|
)
|
|
|
(30,309
|
)
|
|
|
2,830
|
|
|
|
39,160
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
3,454
|
|
|
|
(1,297
|
)
|
|
|
12,264
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(7,788
|
)
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
5,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(919
|
)
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
|
(84,046
|
)
|
|
|
(17,825
|
)
|
|
|
(27,365
|
)
|
|
|
(54,357
|
)
|
|
|
21,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income before income taxes
|
|
|
44,694
|
|
|
|
83,375
|
|
|
|
95,768
|
|
|
|
12,926
|
|
|
|
8,281
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
$
|
12,926
|
|
|
$
|
8,281
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per unit data)
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.41
|
|
|
$
|
2.63
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
(1.00
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average units:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common basic
|
|
|
19,166
|
|
|
|
16,678
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated basic
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common diluted
|
|
|
19,166
|
|
|
|
16,680
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated diluted
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distribution declared per common and subordinated unit
|
|
$
|
1.98
|
|
|
$
|
2.46
|
|
|
$
|
1.90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
659,684
|
|
|
$
|
442,882
|
|
|
$
|
191,732
|
|
|
$
|
127,846
|
|
|
$
|
126,585
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
1,081,062
|
|
|
|
678,857
|
|
|
|
531,651
|
|
|
|
401,924
|
|
|
|
319,396
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
93,855
|
|
|
|
167,977
|
|
|
|
78,752
|
|
|
|
44,759
|
|
|
|
58,027
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
465,091
|
|
|
|
39,891
|
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
267,985
|
|
|
|
214,069
|
|
Total partners capital
|
|
|
473,212
|
|
|
|
399,644
|
|
|
|
385,267
|
|
|
|
43,940
|
|
|
|
37,802
|
|
Cash Flow Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flow provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
130,341
|
|
|
$
|
167,546
|
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
|
$
|
(34,001
|
)
|
|
$
|
(612
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(480,461
|
)
|
|
|
(260,875
|
)
|
|
|
(75,803
|
)
|
|
|
(12,903
|
)
|
|
|
(42,930
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
350,133
|
|
|
|
12,409
|
|
|
|
(22,183
|
)
|
|
|
40,990
|
|
|
|
61,561
|
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
135,575
|
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
$
|
53,155
|
|
|
$
|
25,077
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
128,075
|
|
|
|
104,272
|
|
|
|
104,458
|
|
|
|
85,821
|
|
|
|
34,711
|
|
Operating Data (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (2)
|
|
|
56,232
|
|
|
|
47,663
|
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
|
|
46,953
|
|
|
|
24,658
|
|
Total feedstock runs (3)
|
|
|
56,243
|
|
|
|
48,354
|
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
26,205
|
|
Total production (4)
|
|
|
55,330
|
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
48,331
|
|
|
|
26,297
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incurred in connection with the decommissioning of the
Rouseville, Pennsylvania facility, the termination of the Bareco
joint venture and the closing of the Reno, Pennsylvania
facility, none of which were contributed to Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. in connection with the closing of our
initial public offering on January 31, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
facilities and, beginning in 2008, certain
third-party
facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements, and
sales of inventories. |
|
(3) |
|
Feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil and
other feedstocks processed at our facilities and, beginning in
2008, certain
third-party
facilities pursuant to supply and/or processing agreements. |
|
(4) |
|
Total production represents the barrels per day of specialty
products and fuel products yielded from processing crude oil and
other feedstocks at our facilities and, beginning in 2008,
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
feedstock and production of finished products and volume loss. |
48
Non-GAAP Financial
Measures
We include in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
the non-GAAP financial measures EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, and
provide reconciliations of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to net
income and net cash provided by (used in) operating activities,
our most directly comparable financial performance and liquidity
measures calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP.
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA 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, support our indebtedness, and meet minimum
quarterly distributions;
|
|
|
|
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 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. On January 3, 2008, we entered
into a new senior secured term loan credit facility and amended
our existing senior secured revolving credit facility. Please
refer to Item 7 Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt and Credit Facilities within
this item for additional details regarding our credit agreements.
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered alternatives
to net income, operating income, net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities or any other measure of financial
performance presented in accordance with GAAP. Our EBITDA and
Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled
measures of another company because all companies may not
calculate EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA in the same manner. The
following table presents a reconciliation of both net income to
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted
49
EBITDA and EBITDA to net cash provided by (used in) operating
activities, our most directly comparable GAAP financial
performance and liquidity measures, for each of the periods
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net income to EBITDA and Adjusted
EBITDA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
$
|
12,926
|
|
|
$
|
8,281
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
34,836
|
|
|
|
5,069
|
|
|
|
11,997
|
|
|
|
29,843
|
|
|
|
9,869
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
56,045
|
|
|
|
14,275
|
|
|
|
11,821
|
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
|
|
6,927
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
135,575
|
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
$
|
53,155
|
|
|
$
|
25,077
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized losses (gains) from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities
|
|
$
|
(11,509
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,487
|
|
|
$
|
(13,145
|
)
|
|
$
|
27,586
|
|
|
$
|
7,788
|
|
Non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,766
|
|
|
|
(1,276
|
)
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and accrued non-recurring
expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
4,009
|
|
|
|
(1,934
|
)
|
|
|
(1,983
|
)
|
|
|
3,314
|
|
|
|
3,122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
128,075
|
|
|
$
|
104,272
|
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
$
|
85,821
|
|
|
$
|
34,711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA and EBITDA to net cash
provided by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
128,075
|
|
|
$
|
104,272
|
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
$
|
85,821
|
|
|
$
|
34,711
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (losses) gains from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities
|
|
|
11,509
|
|
|
|
(3,487
|
)
|
|
|
13,145
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(7,788
|
)
|
Non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,766
|
)
|
|
|
1,276
|
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and accrued non-recurring
expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
(4,009
|
)
|
|
|
1,934
|
|
|
|
1,983
|
|
|
|
(3,314
|
)
|
|
|
(3,122
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
135,575
|
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
$
|
53,155
|
|
|
$
|
25,077
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash interest expense and debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(31,440
|
)
|
|
|
(4,638
|
)
|
|
|
(11,997
|
)
|
|
|
(29,843
|
)
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
Unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(3,454
|
)
|
|
|
1,297
|
|
|
|
(12,264
|
)
|
|
|
27,586
|
|
|
|
7,788
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
(257
|
)
|
|
|
(501
|
)
|
|
|
(190
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,693
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
294
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
Equity in loss of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427
|
|
Dividends received from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,470
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
898
|
|
|
|
352
|
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
|
|
4,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
45,042
|
|
|
|
(15,038
|
)
|
|
|
16,031
|
|
|
|
(56,878
|
)
|
|
|
(19,399
|
)
|
Inventory
|
|
|
55,532
|
|
|
|
3,321
|
|
|
|
(2,554
|
)
|
|
|
(25,441
|
)
|
|
|
(20,304
|
)
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
1,834
|
|
|
|
(4,121
|
)
|
|
|
16,183
|
|
|
|
569
|
|
|
|
(11,596
|
)
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
41,757
|
|
|
|
2,121
|
|
|
|
(879
|
)
|
|
|
4,012
|
|
|
|
(2,742
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(103,136
|
)
|
|
|
89,225
|
|
|
|
33,993
|
|
|
|
(13,268
|
)
|
|
|
25,764
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(1,284
|
)
|
|
|
(4,150
|
)
|
|
|
657
|
|
|
|
5,293
|
|
|
|
957
|
|
Other, including changes in noncurrent assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(12,174
|
)
|
|
|
(3,082
|
)
|
|
|
5,063
|
|
|
|
(5,346
|
)
|
|
|
(401
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
$
|
130,341
|
|
|
$
|
167,546
|
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
|
$
|
(34,001
|
)
|
|
$
|
(612
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
The historical consolidated financial statements included in
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
reflect all of the assets, liabilities and results of operations
of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(Calumet). The following discussion analyzes the
financial condition and results of operations of Calumet for the
years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006. The
financial condition and results of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2006 are of Calumet and include the results of
operation of the Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership,
our predecessor, from January 1, 2006 to January 31,
2006. Unitholders should read the following discussion and
analysis of the financial condition and results of operations
for Calumet in conjunction with the historical consolidated
financial statements and notes of Calumet included elsewhere in
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
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. The asphalt and other by-products produced
in connection with the production of specialty products at our
Princeton, Cotton Valley and Shreveport refineries are included
in our specialty products segment. The by-products produced in
connection with the production of fuel products at our
Shreveport refinery are included in our fuel products segment.
The fuels produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at our Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries
are included in our specialty products segment. In 2008,
approximately 73.9% of our gross profit was generated from our
specialty products segment and approximately 26.1% of our gross
profit was generated from our fuel products segment.
Industry
Dynamics
The specialty petroleum products refining industry and, in
general, the overall refining industry experienced significant
volatility during 2008, which created many challenges for
refiners. We faced the same economic challenges that affected
most companies in the industry, primarily driven by the extreme
fluctuations in crude oil and other feedstock prices during the
year. As a whole, the specialty petroleum products refining
industry increased prices significantly for specialty products
during the first half of 2008, but these product price increases
lagged the unprecedented pace of increases in the price of crude
oil. The historic increase in crude oil to approximately
$145 per barrel on the NYMEX in June 2008 was followed by a
decrease in crude oil prices even more severe than the increase.
In December 2008, crude oil prices on the NYMEX averaged
approximately $42 per barrel. As a result, in 2008, most
companies in the industry experienced cash flow volatility,
significant fluctuations in gross profit, significant hedging
losses in the second half of the year and increased liquidity
issues due to the devaluation in the market prices of
inventories of crude oil and refined products. Calumet was no
different, as our specialty products segment gross profit on a
quarterly basis experienced volatility as it was
$22.3 million, $21.5 million, $66.1 million and
$77.7 million in the first, second, third and fourth
quarters of 2008, respectively.
Related to specialty products crude oil hedging, our realized
hedging results fluctuated from a gain of $22.8 million
through the six months ended June 30, 2008 as compared to a
loss of $47.9 million for the six months ended
December 31, 2008. Most recently, the industry has
experienced bankruptcy filings of certain refiners and chemical
companies due to this period of difficult industry dynamics.
Given the current fuel products crack spread being at a much
lower level than in recent years and the demand impact of the
economic downturn, the upcoming period will likely continue to
be challenging for refiners, including specialty products
refiners like us.
Calumet has sought to differentiate itself from its competitors
and mitigate the impacts of the challenging economic environment
through modifications to our hedging program, continued focus on
specialty products,
52
working capital reduction initiatives, reducing our quarterly
cash distributions to the minimum quarterly distribution early
in 2008, and other initiatives to help improve liquidity.
Acquisition
and Refinery Expansion
On January 3, 2008, we acquired Penreco, a Texas general
partnership, for $269.1 million. Penreco was owned by
ConocoPhillips and M.E. Zukerman Specialty Oil Corporation.
Penreco manufactures and markets highly refined products and
specialty solvents including white mineral oils, petrolatums,
natural petroleum sulfonates, cable-filling compounds,
refrigeration oils, food-grade compressor lubricants and gelled
products. The acquisition included facilities in Karns City,
Pennsylvania and Dickinson, Texas, as well as several long-term
supply agreements with ConocoPhillips. We funded the transaction
through a portion of the combined proceeds from a public equity
offering and a new senior secured first lien term loan facility.
For further discussion please read Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt and Credit Facilities. We
believe that this acquisition provides several key long term
strategic benefits, including market synergies within our
solvents and lubricating oil product lines, additional
operational and logistics flexibility and overhead cost
reductions. The acquisition has broadened our customer base and
has given the Company access to new markets.
In the second quarter of 2008 we completed a $374.0 million
expansion project at our Shreveport refinery to increase
aggregate crude oil throughput capacity from approximately
42,000 bpd to approximately 60,000 bpd and improve
feedstock flexibility. For further discussion of this project,
please read Liquidity and Capital Resources
Capital Expenditures.
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 which 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, 2008, we have hedged
approximately 18.5 million barrels of fuel products through
December 2011 at an average refining margin of $11.48 per barrel
with average refining margins ranging from a low of $11.32 in
2010 to a high of $11.99 in 2011. During the fourth quarter of
2008, we entered into derivative transactions for 5,000 bpd
in 2009 to sell crude oil and buy gasoline which economically
secured existing gains on the derivative position of
$9.70 per barrel. As a result of these positions, we are
now economically exposed to deterioration of gasoline crack
spreads below $(2.13) per barrel for 5,000 bpd in 2009. As
of December 31, 2008, we have 0.7 million barrels of
crude oil options through March 2009 to hedge our purchases of
crude oil for specialty products production. The strike prices
and types of crude oil options vary. Please refer to
Item 7a Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
About Market Risk Commodity Price Risk
Existing Commodity Derivative Instruments for a detailed
listing of our derivative instruments.
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.
|
53
Sales volumes. We view the volumes of
specialty products and fuels 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 the spreading of fixed costs over greater volumes and
the additional gross profit achieved on the incremental volumes.
Production yields. We seek the optimal product
mix for each barrel of crude oil we refine, which we refer to as
production yield, in order to maximize our gross profit and
minimize lower margin by-products.
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 include 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.
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.
High crude oil prices and the volatility of crude oil prices
posed significant challenges for us during 2008. The average of
the prompt month NYMEX contract for crude oil, which
approximates our cost of crude oil, has fluctuated significantly
throughout 2008 as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
NYMEX Price
|
|
Quarter Ended:
|
|
of Crude Oil Per Barrel
|
|
|
March 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
97.82
|
|
June 30, 2008
|
|
|
123.80
|
|
September 30, 2008
|
|
|
118.22
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
59.42
|
|
As a result, we have experienced significant volatility in our
gross profit and realized hedging results throughout the year.
In response to this volatility, we implemented multiple rounds
of specialty product price increases to customers during the
first three quarters of 2008 and implemented reductions in our
specialty products pricing being during the fourth quarter of
2008 in line with the substantial decline in the price of crude
oil. Also, we continue to work diligently on other strategic
initiatives, including optimizing our new assets from our
Shreveport refinery expansion project and Penreco acquisition,
using derivative instruments to mitigate the risk of price
fluctuations in crude oil input prices, and maintaining our
working capital reductions we achieved during the 2008 fiscal
year. For further discussion of our strategic initiatives and
our progress on such initiatives during the fourth quarter of
2008, please read Liquidity and Capital Resources.
While we are taking steps to mitigate the adverse impact of this
volatile environment on our operating results, we can provide no
assurances as to the sustainability of the improvements in our
operating results and to the extent we experience further
periods of rapidly escalating or declining crude oil prices, our
operating results and liquidity could be adversely affected.
54
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth information about our combined
operations. Facility production volume differs from sales volume
due to changes in inventory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In bpd)
|
|
|
Total sales volume (1)
|
|
|
56,232
|
|
|
|
47,663
|
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
Total feedstock runs (2)
|
|
|
56,243
|
|
|
|
48,354
|
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
Facility production (3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
12,462
|
|
|
|
10,734
|
|
|
|
11,436
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
8,130
|
|
|
|
5,104
|
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,736
|
|
|
|
1,177
|
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,208
|
|
|
|
1,951
|
|
|
|
2,038
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,623
|
|
|
|
6,157
|
|
|
|
6,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
30,159
|
|
|
|
25,123
|
|
|
|
26,588
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
8,476
|
|
|
|
7,780
|
|
|
|
9,430
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
10,407
|
|
|
|
5,736
|
|
|
|
6,823
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
5,918
|
|
|
|
7,749
|
|
|
|
6,911
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
370
|
|
|
|
1,348
|
|
|
|
461
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
25,171
|
|
|
|
22,613
|
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total facility production
|
|
|
55,330
|
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
facilities and, beginning in 2008, 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, beginning
in 2008, certain third-party facilities pursuant to supply
and/or processing agreements. The increase in feedstock runs for
2008 is primarily due to the acquisition of the Karns City, PA
and the Dickinson, TX facilities as part of the Penreco
acquisition and the completion of the Shreveport expansion
project in May 2008. These increases were offset by decreases in
production rates in the fourth quarter due to scheduled
turnarounds at our Princeton, Cotton Valley and Shreveport
refineries. |
|
(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, beginning
in 2008, 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 feedstock and production of
finished products and volume loss. |
55
The following table sets forth information about the sales of
our principal products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
841.2
|
|
|
$
|
478.1
|
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
419.8
|
|
|
|
199.8
|
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
142.5
|
|
|
|
61.6
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
144.1
|
|
|
|
74.7
|
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,578.0
|
|
|
|
866.7
|
|
|
|
913.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
332.7
|
|
|
|
307.1
|
|
|
|
336.7
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
379.7
|
|
|
|
203.7
|
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
186.7
|
|
|
|
225.9
|
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
911.0
|
|
|
|
771.1
|
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
2,489.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
The following table reflects our consolidated results of
operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
2,489.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
2,235.1
|
|
|
|
1,456.4
|
|
|
|
1,436.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
253.9
|
|
|
|
181.4
|
|
|
|
204.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
34.3
|
|
|
|
19.6
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
84.7
|
|
|
|
54.0
|
|
|
|
56.9
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
128.7
|
|
|
|
101.2
|
|
|
|
123.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(33.9
|
)
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
(9.0
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
Realized loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(58.8
|
)
|
|
|
(12.5
|
)
|
|
|
(30.3
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(84.0
|
)
|
|
|
(17.8
|
)
|
|
|
(27.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income before income taxes
|
|
|
44.7
|
|
|
|
83.4
|
|
|
|
95.8
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
44.4
|
|
|
$
|
82.9
|
|
|
$
|
95.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
Year
Ended December 31, 2008 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2007
Sales. Sales increased $851.1 million, or
52.0%, to $2,489.0 million in 2008 from
$1,637.8 million in 2007. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Sales by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
841.2
|
|
|
$
|
478.1
|
|
|
|
75.9
|
%
|
Solvents
|
|
|
419.8
|
|
|
|
199.8
|
|
|
|
110.1
|
%
|
Waxes
|
|
|
142.5
|
|
|
|
61.6
|
|
|
|
131.3
|
%
|
Fuels (1)
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
(42.1
|
)%
|
Asphalt and by-products (2)
|
|
|
144.1
|
|
|
|
74.7
|
|
|
|
92.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products
|
|
|
1,578.0
|
|
|
|
866.7
|
|
|
|
82.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
10,289,000
|
|
|
|
8,410,000
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
%
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
332.7
|
|
|
$
|
307.1
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
%
|
Diesel
|
|
|
379.7
|
|
|
|
203.7
|
|
|
|
86.5
|
%
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
186.7
|
|
|
|
225.9
|
|
|
|
(17.4
|
)%
|
By-products (3)
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
(65.5
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products
|
|
|
911.0
|
|
|
|
771.1
|
|
|
|
18.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
10,292,000
|
|
|
|
8,987,000
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
%
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
2,489.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
|
52.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
20,581,000
|
|
|
|
17,397,000
|
|
|
|
18.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
This $851.1 million increase in sales resulted from a
$711.3 million increase in sales in the specialty products
segment and a $139.8 increase in sales in the fuel products
segment.
Specialty products segment sales for 2008 increased
$711.3 million, or 82.1%, primarily due to a 22.3% increase
in volumes sold, from approximately 8.4 million barrels in
2007 to 10.3 million barrels in 2008 primarily due to an
additional 2.4 million barrels of sales volume of
lubricating oils, solvents and waxes from our operations
acquired in the Penreco acquisition. Excluding sales volume
associated with Penreco, our specialty products sales volume
decreased 6.0% primarily due to lower fuels and solvents sales
volume due to lower production at our Cotton Valley refinery.
These decreases were partially offset by increased asphalt and
by-products sales due to increased production from the
Shreveport refinery expansion project. Specialty products
segment sales were also positively affected by a 39.2% increase
in the average selling price per barrel of specialty products at
our Shreveport, Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries compared
to the prior period due to price increases in all specialty
products, with lubricating oils and asphalt and by-products
experiencing the largest sales price increases. The sales price
increases were implemented in response to the rising cost of
crude oil experienced early in 2008 as the cost of crude oil per
barrel increased 40.2% over 2007.
Fuel products segment sales for 2008 increased
$139.8 million, or 18.1%, due to a 31.1% increase in the
average selling price per barrel as compared to 2007. This
increase compares to a 40.3% increase in the average cost
58
of crude oil per barrel over 2007. The increased sales price per
barrel was a result of increases in all fuel products as prices
increased in relation to the increase in the price of crude oil.
Gasoline prices increased at rates lower than the overall
increase in the crude oil price per barrel due primarily to the
decline in gasoline demand throughout 2008. Fuel products
segment sales were also positively affected by a 14.5% increase
in sales volumes, from approximately 9.0 million barrels in
2007 to 10.3 million barrels in 2008, primarily driven by
diesel sales volume. The increase in diesel sales volume was due
primarily to the startup of the Shreveport refinery expansion
project in May 2008 and shifts in product mix to diesel during
various points throughout 2008. Our Shreveport refinery has the
ability to switch portions of its production between diesel and
other fuel and specialty products to allow it to take advantage
of the most advantageous markets. The increased sales volume and
sales prices were offset by a $263.7 million increase in
derivative losses on our fuel products cash flow hedges recorded
in sales. Please see Gross Profit below for the net
impact of our crude oil and fuel products derivative instruments
designated as hedges.
Gross Profit. Gross profit increased
$72.5 million, or 40.0%, to $253.9 million for 2008
from $181.4 million for 2007. Gross profit for our
specialty and fuel products segments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Gross profit by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
187.6
|
|
|
$
|
115.4
|
|
|
|
62.6
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
$
|
66.3
|
|
|
$
|
66.0
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
253.9
|
|
|
$
|
181.4
|
|
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
10.2
|
%
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
This $72.5 million increase in total gross profit includes
an increase in gross profit of $72.2 million in the
specialty products segment and a $0.3 million increase in
gross profit in the fuel products segment.
The increase in specialty products segment gross profit was
primarily due to a 22.3% increase in sales volume primarily due
to an additional 2.4 million barrels of sales volume from
our operations acquired in the Penreco acquisition. Negatively
impacting our gross profit was the effect of our specialty
products sales price increases not keeping pace with the rising
cost of crude oil late in 2007 and in the first half of 2008.
During the last six months of 2007, our specialty products sales
prices increased by 7.9% and our average cost of crude oil
increased by approximately 28.8%. This trend continued during
the first six months of 2008 as our specialty products sales
prices, excluding Penreco, increased by 18.3% and our average
cost of crude oil increased by 31.3%. As crude oil prices
started falling late in 2008, we benefited from price increases
during the last six months of 2008 resulting in our specialty
products sales prices increasing 25.5% while the average cost of
crude oil decreased by 13.8%. Further lowering our gross profit
was a reduction in the cost of sales benefit of
$5.5 million in 2008 as compared to 2007 from the
liquidation of lower cost inventory layers. These decreases were
offset by increased derivative gains of $19.8 million in
2008 as compared to 2007. Additionally, in 2008 we entered into
derivative contracts to economically hedge specialty crude
purchases which were not designated as hedges in accordance with
SFAS 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities, which was amended in June 2000 by
SFAS No. 138 and in May 2003 by SFAS No. 149
(collectively referred to as SFAS 133). The
impacts of these hedges which settled in 2008 was a realized
loss of $47.0 million which is recorded in realized loss on
derivative instruments in our statements of operations as
discussed below.
Fuel products segment gross profit was positively impacted by a
14.5% increase in fuel products sales volume as discussed above.
This increase was partially offset by the rising cost of crude
oil outpacing increases in the selling price per barrel of our
fuel products. The average cost of crude oil increased by
approximately 40.3% from 2007 to 2008 while the average selling
price per barrel of our fuel products increased by only 31.1%
primarily due to gasoline sales prices increasing at rates lower
than the overall increase in the crude oil price per barrel due
to the decline in gasoline demand throughout 2008. Additionally,
lowering our gross profit was a reduction in the cost of sales
benefit of $8.9 million in 2008 as compared to 2007 from
the liquidation of lower cost inventory layers.
59
Selling, general and administrative. Selling,
general and administrative expenses increased
$14.7 million, or 74.7%, to $34.3 million in 2008 from
$19.6 million in 2007. This increase is primarily due to
additional selling, general and administrative expenses
associated with Penreco. Selling, general and administrative
expenses also increased due to additional accrued incentive
compensation costs in 2008 as compared to 2007.
Transportation. Transportation expenses
increased $30.7 million, or 56.8%, to $84.7 million in
2008 from $54.0 million in 2007. This increase is primarily
related to additional transportation expenses associated with
Penreco.
Interest expense. Interest expense increased
$29.2 million, or 619.5%, to $33.9 million in 2008
from $4.7 million in 2007. This increase was primarily due
to an increase in indebtedness as a result of a new senior
secured term loan facility, which closed on January 3, 2008
and includes a $385.0 million term loan partially used to
finance the acquisition of Penreco, as well as increased
borrowings on our revolving credit facility primarily due to
higher than expected capital expenditures to complete the
Shreveport refinery expansion project. This increase was
partially offset by an increase in capitalized interest as a
result of increased capital expenditures on the Shreveport
refinery expansion project.
Interest income. Interest income decreased
$1.6 million to $0.4 million in 2008 from
$1.9 million in 2007. This decrease was primarily due to a
larger average cash and cash equivalents balance during 2007 as
compared to 2008 due to the utilization of cash for capital
expenditures on the Shreveport refinery expansion project.
Debt extinguishment costs. Debt extinguishment
costs increased $0.5 million in 2008 as compared to
$0.4 million in 2007. This increase was primarily due to
the repayment of our prior senior secured term loan facility
with a portion of the proceeds of our new senior secured term
loan facility. The increase was also the result of debt
extinguishment costs recognized in conjunction with the
repayment of a portion of our new senior secured term loan
facility using the proceeds of the sale of mineral rights on our
real property at our Shreveport and Princeton refineries.
Realized loss on derivative
instruments. Realized loss on derivative
instruments increased $46.3 million to $58.8 million
in 2008 from $12.5 million in 2007. This increased loss was
primarily the result of the unfavorable settlement of certain
derivative instruments not designated as cash flow hedges in
2008 as compared to 2007 as crude oil prices declined rapidly in
the third and fourth quarters of 2008. These derivative
instruments were primarily combinations of crude oil options
related to our specialty products segment crude oil purchases
and are utilized to economically offset our exposure to rising
crude oil prices.
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Unrealized gain on derivative
instruments increased $4.8 million, to $3.5 million in
2008 from a loss of $1.3 million in 2007. This increased
gain is primarily due to the increase in gain ineffectiveness
related to derivative instruments in our fuel products segment
in 2008 as compared to 2007. This was offset by the unfavorable
mark-to-market changes for certain derivative instruments in our
specialty products segment not designated as cash flow hedges,
including crude oil collars, natural gas swap contracts, and
interest rate swap contracts, being recorded to unrealized loss
on derivative instruments in 2008 as compared 2007.
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 has
been accounted for as a sale. We have retained a royalty
interest in any future production associated with these mineral
rights.
60
Year
Ended December 31, 2007 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2006
Sales. Sales decreased $3.2 million, or
0.2%, to $1,637.8 million in 2007 from
$1,641.0 million in 2006. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Sales by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
478.1
|
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
|
|
(6.2
|
)%
|
Solvents
|
|
|
199.8
|
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)%
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61.6
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
Fuels (1)
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
27.1
|
%
|
Asphalt and by-products (2)
|
|
|
74.7
|
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
(24.4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products
|
|
|
866.7
|
|
|
|
913.1
|
|
|
|
(5.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
8,410,000
|
|
|
|
9,165,000
|
|
|
|
(8.2
|
)%
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
307.1
|
|
|
$
|
336.7
|
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)%
|
Diesel
|
|
|
203.7
|
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)%
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
225.9
|
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
28.1
|
%
|
By-products (3)
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
347.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products
|
|
|
771.1
|
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
8,987,000
|
|
|
|
9,211,000
|
|
|
|
(2.4
|
)%
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
17,397,000
|
|
|
|
18,376,000
|
|
|
|
(5.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
This $3.2 million decrease in sales resulted from a
$46.4 million decrease in sales in the specialty products
segment and a $43.2 increase in sales in the fuel products
segment.
Specialty products segment sales for 2007 decreased
$46.4 million, or 5.1%, primarily due to a 8.2% decrease in
volumes sold, from approximately 9.2 million barrels in
2006 to approximately 8.4 million barrels in 2007.
Decreased volumes were driven by lower sales of lubricating oils
and asphalt and by-products. Lubricating oils sales volume
decreased primarily due to higher demand for certain lubricating
oils at the Princeton refinery due to the hurricane season of
2005 creating a brief decline in supply from our competitors in
2006 combined with reduced production at our Shreveport
refinery. The reduced production at our Shreveport refinery was
due to our decision to reduce production levels during the third
and fourth quarters of 2007 due to the unfavorable incremental
refining margins related to the rising cost of crude oil as well
as unscheduled downtime of certain units at our Shreveport
refinery in the first quarter of 2007. This decrease was
partially offset by a 3.4% increase in the average selling price
per barrel of specialty products. Average selling prices per
barrel for lubricating oils, solvents, waxes, fuels, and asphalt
and by-products all individually increased at rates below the
overall 10.4% increase in our cost of crude oil per barrel
during the period due to the rapidly changing and volatile
market conditions.
Fuel products segment sales for 2007 increased
$43.2 million, or 5.9%, due to an 13.3% increase in the
average selling price per barrel, which exceeded the overall
10.4% increase in the cost of crude oil per barrel for the
period.
61
This increase was partially offset by a 2.4% decrease in fuel
products sales volumes sold attributable to lower production at
our Shreveport refinery. The reduced production at our
Shreveport refinery was due to our decision to reduce production
levels during the third and fourth quarters of 2007 as a result
of the unfavorable incremental refining margins related to the
rising cost of crude oil as well as unscheduled downtime of
certain units at our Shreveport refinery in the first quarter of
2007. Fuel products segment sales were also negatively affected
by increased derivative losses of $33.6 million on our fuel
products cash flow hedges recorded to sales for 2007 as compared
to the prior year.
Gross Profit. Gross profit decreased
$23.6 million, or 11.5%, to $181.4 million for 2007
from $204.9 million for 2006. Gross profit for our
specialty and fuel products segments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Gross profit by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
115.4
|
|
|
$
|
154.0
|
|
|
|
(25.1
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
16.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
$
|
66.0
|
|
|
$
|
50.9
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
181.4
|
|
|
$
|
204.9
|
|
|
|
(11.5
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
|
12.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
This $23.6 million decrease in total gross profit includes
a decrease in gross profit of $38.7 million in the
specialty products segment offset by a $15.1 million
increase in gross profit in the fuel products segment.
The decrease in the specialty products segment gross profit was
primarily due the rising cost of crude oil outpacing increases
in the selling price per barrel of our specialty products,
decreased sales volumes and increased operating costs due to
higher maintenance expense. The cost of crude oil increased by
approximately 10.4% over prior year while the average selling
price per barrel increased by only 3.4%. Sales volume decreased
8.2% primarily related to lubricating oils as well as asphalt
and by-products. These decreases in segment gross profit were
partially offset by increased derivative gains of
$10.6 million on our cash flow hedges of crude oil and
natural gas purchases for 2007 as compared to the prior year as
well as increased LIFO gains of $10.6 million from the
liquidation of lower cost layers of inventory as compared to
current costs.
The increase in the fuel products segment gross profit of
$15.1 million was primarily the result of the average
selling price increasing by 13.3% as compared to the increase in
our average cost of crude of 10.4%. Additionally, we experienced
higher material costs in 2006 from the use of certain gasoline
blendstocks to maintain compliance with environmental
regulations in the fourth quarter of 2006, with no such activity
in 2007. These increases were partially offset by a 2.4%
decrease in fuel sales volumes and increased derivative losses
on our fuel products hedges of $11.4 million. In addition,
for 2007 the fuel products segment recognized increased LIFO
gains of $7.1 million from the liquidation of lower cost
layers of inventory as compared to current costs.
Selling, general and administrative. Selling,
general and administrative expenses decreased $0.8 million,
or 4.0%, to $19.6 million in 2007 from $20.4 million
in 2006. This decrease is primarily due to decreased annual
incentive bonuses to our executive management, as no incentive
bonuses were earned by executive management for 2007. This
decrease was partially offset by increased costs associated with
compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.
Transportation. Transportation expenses
decreased $2.9 million, or 5.1%, to $54.0 million in
2007 from $56.9 million in 2006. This decrease is primarily
related to decreased Company sales volume on specialty products,
which decreased by 8.2% over the prior year, which was partially
offset by higher rail rates.
Interest expense. Interest expense decreased
$4.3 million, or 47.8%, to $4.7 million in 2007 from
$9.0 million in 2006. This decrease was primarily due to
increased capitalized interest as a result of capital
expenditures on the Shreveport refinery expansion project.
62
Interest income. Interest income decreased
$1.0 million to $1.9 million in 2007 from
$3.0 million in 2006. This decrease was primarily due to a
larger average cash and cash equivalents balance in the year
ended December 31, 2006 as compared to 2007 due to the
proceeds from the public equity offering in July 2006, of which
the entire $103.5 million was utilized on the Shreveport
refinery expansion project during 2006 and 2007.
Debt extinguishment costs. Debt extinguishment
costs decreased to $0.4 million in 2007 compared to
$3.0 million in 2006. Debt extinguishment costs were
$0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 due
to the repayment of approximately $19.0 million of
borrowings under the Companys term loan facility in the
third quarter of 2007 in connection with an amendment to our
credit facilities. For 2006, the debt extinguishment costs of
$3.0 million resulted from the repayment of a portion of
borrowings under Calumets term loan and revolving credit
facilities using the proceeds of the initial public offering,
which closed on January 31, 2006.
Realized loss on derivative
instruments. Realized loss on derivative
instruments decreased $17.8 million to a $12.5 million
loss in 2007 from a $30.3 million loss in 2006. This
decreased loss primarily was the result of the unfavorable
settlement in 2006 on certain derivatives not designated as cash
flow hedges with no similar settlements in 2007.
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments decreased $13.6 million, to a $1.3 million
loss in 2007 from a $12.3 million gain in 2006. This
decrease is primarily due to the unfavorable mark-to-market
change related to the ineffective portion of certain derivative
instruments designated as cash flow hedges. Unrealized loss on
derivative instruments was also negatively affected by an
unfavorable market change on our interest rate swap, which is
not designated as a cash flow hedge due to the impact of the
refinancing of our term loan debt on January 3, 2008.
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 and debt service. We
expect that our principal uses of cash in the future will be for
working capital as we continue to increase our throughput rate
at the Shreveport refinery, distributions to our limited
partners and general partner, debt service, and capital
expenditures related to internal growth projects and
acquisitions from third parties or affiliates. Future internal
growth projects or acquisitions may require expenditures in
excess of our then-current cash flow from operations and cause
us to issue debt or equity securities in public or private
offerings or incur additional borrowings under bank credit
facilities to meet those costs. Given the current credit
environment and our continued efforts to reduce leverage to
ensure continued covenant compliance under our credit
facilities, we do not anticipate completing any significant
acquisitions, internal growth projects or replacement and
environmental capital expenditures which would cause total
spending to exceed $25.0 million during 2009. With the
uncertain status of the credit and equity markets we anticipate
future capital expenditures will be funded with current cash
flows from operations and borrowings under our existing
revolving credit facility.
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 change 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.
63
The following table summarizes our primary sources and uses of
cash in each of the most recent three years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
130.3
|
|
|
$
|
167.5
|
|
|
$
|
166.8
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
$
|
(480.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(260.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(75.8
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
$
|
350.1
|
|
|
$
|
12.4
|
|
|
$
|
(22.2
|
)
|
Operating Activities. Operating activities
provided $130.3 million in cash during 2008 compared to
$167.5 million during 2007. The decrease in cash provided
by operating activities during 2008 was primarily due to
increased working capital of $35.5 million, combined with a
decrease of net income, after adjusting for non-cash items, of
$1.7 million. The increase in working capital was due
primarily to the decrease in accounts payable resulting from
significantly lower crude oil and other feedstock prices at
December 31, 2008 as compared to December 31, 2007 and
the impacts of derivative activity. The reduction in accounts
payable was partially offset by significant decreases in
inventory and accounts receivable as a result of our working
capital reduction initiatives and lower crude oil prices and
fuel products selling prices.
Operating activities provided $167.5 million in cash during
2007 compared to $166.8 million in cash during 2006. The
cash provided by operating activities during 2007 primarily
consisted of net income, after adjusting for non-cash items, of
$101.4 million and $66.1 million of reductions in
working capital. Net income, after adjustments for non-cash
items, decreased by $12.5 million in 2007 from
$113.9 million in 2006. The reduction in working capital
was primarily due to an incremental $55.2 million increase
in accounts payable compared to 2006 primarily as a result of
improvements in payment terms with crude oil suppliers combined
with rising crude oil costs. This increase in accounts payable
was offset by a $31.1 million increase in accounts
receivable primarily as a result of higher sales prices in the
fourth quarter of 2007 as compared to the same period in 2006.
Investing Activities. Cash used in investing
activities increased to $480.5 million during 2008 compared
to $260.9 million during 2007. This increase was primarily
due to the acquisition of Penreco for $269.1 million. Also
increasing the use of cash for investing activities was the
settlement of $49.7 million of derivative instruments
utilized to economically hedge the risk of rising crude oil
prices. As crude oil prices declined significantly during the
last six months of 2008, the realized losses on these derivative
instruments increased. Offsetting this increased use of cash was
a decrease of $93.3 million in capital expenditures in 2008
compared to 2007. The majority of the capital expenditures were
incurred at our Shreveport refinery, with $119.6 million
related to the Shreveport refinery expansion project incurred in
2008 as compared to $188.9 million incurred in 2007. The
remaining decrease in capital expenditures of $24.0 million
primarily related to lower spending on various other capital
projects at our Shreveport refinery compared to the prior year.
Further offsetting the increased use of cash was the
$6.1 million of cash proceeds received as a result of
selling certain mineral rights on our real property at our
Shreveport and Princeton refineries to a third party during the
second quarter of 2008.
Cash used in investing activities increased to
$260.9 million during 2007 as compared to
$75.8 million during 2006. This increase was primarily due
to an increase of $185.0 million in capital expenditures
over 2006. The majority of the capital expenditures were
incurred at our Shreveport refinery, with $188.9 million
related to the Shreveport refinery expansion project incurred in
2007 as compared to $65.5 million incurred in 2006 for this
project. The remaining increase of $61.6 million related
primarily to various other capital projects at our Shreveport
refinery to replace certain assets, improve efficiency,
de-bottleneck certain specialty products operating units and for
new product development.
Financing Activities. Financing activities
provided cash of $350.1 million during 2008 as compared to
$12.4 million during 2007. This change was primarily due to
borrowings under the new senior secured term loan credit
facility along with associated debt issuance costs. A portion of
the new term loan proceeds of $385.0 million was used to
finance the acquisition of Penreco. The increase was also due to
a $88.6 million increase in borrowings on our revolving
credit facility, primarily due to spending on the Shreveport
refinery expansion project. These increases were offset by uses
of cash to repay our old term loan of $10.7 million,
increased debt issuance costs of $9.3 million and
repayments under the new term loan of $9.9 million. The
repayments under the new term loan are approximately
$1.0 million per quarter. We sold certain mineral rights
and our term loan credit agreement required
64
that the proceeds of $6.1 million be used to repay an equal
portion of the term loan. Our distributions to partners
decreased $10.9 million as we reduced our distribution
early in 2008 to our minimum quarterly distribution of
$0.45 per unit.
Financing activities provided cash of $12.4 million during
2007 compared to using $22.2 million during 2006. This
increase is primarily related to decreased repayments on debt in
2007 as compared to 2006 as well as reduced proceeds from public
offerings of $100.3 million. These increases were offset by
an increase in distributions to partners of $38.8 million.
On January 22, 2009, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.45 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$14.8 million, for the quarter ended December 31,
2008. The distribution was paid on February 13, 2009 to
unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 3, 2009. This quarterly distribution of $0.45 per
unit equates to $1.80 per unit, or $59.2 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 and to expand existing facilities, such as projects
that increase operating capacity. 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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
( In millions)
|
|
|
Capital improvement expenditures
|
|
$
|
161.6
|
|
|
$
|
248.8
|
|
|
$
|
69.9
|
|
Replacement capital expenditures
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
Environmental expenditures
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
167.7
|
|
|
$
|
261.0
|
|
|
$
|
76.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We anticipate that future capital expenditure requirements will
be provided through cash provided by operations and available
borrowings under our revolving credit facility unless the debt
and equity capital markets improve in the near term. Management
expects to invest up to $10 million in expenditures at its
various locations during 2009 to complete the majority of our
items in construction in progress related to improving our
product mix or operating cost leverage. In addition, management
estimates its replacement and environmental capital expenditures
to be approximately $3.5 million per quarter. Our
Shreveport refinery expansion project and the Penreco
acquisition have demonstrated an increase in cash flow from
operations on a per unit basis which has restored our ability to
issue common units in certain circumstances back to the maximum
level defined in our partnership agreement, or 6,533,000 common
units.
During the last three years, we invested significantly in
expanding and enhancing the operations at our facilities,
primarily at our Shreveport refinery. We invested a total of
approximately $161.6 million, $248.8 million and
$69.9 million during 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Of
these investments during these periods, $374.0 million
relates to our Shreveport refinery expansion project.
The Shreveport refinery expansion project was completed and
operational in May 2008. The Shreveport expansion project has
increased this refinerys throughput capacity from
42,000 bpd to 60,000 bpd. For 2008, the Shreveport
refinery had total feedstock runs of 37,096 bpd, which
represents an increase of approximately 2,744 bpd from
2007, before completion of the Shreveport expansion project. The
Shreveport refinery did not achieve the expected significant
increase in feedstock runs year over year due primarily to
unscheduled downtime due to hurricane Ike and scheduled downtime
in the fourth quarter to complete a three-week turnaround. In
2009, feedstock run rates at Shreveport have averaged
approximately 50,000 bpd.
65
As part of this expansion project, we enhanced the Shreveport
refinerys ability to process sour crude oil. During the
fourth quarter of 2008, we processed approximately
12,400 bpd of sour crude oil at the Shreveport refinery and
we anticipate running up to 19,000 bpd of sour crude oil at
the Shreveport refinery in the current environment. In certain
operating scenarios where overall throughput is reduced, we
expect we will be able to increase sour crude oil throughput
rates up to approximately 25,000 bpd.
Additionally, for 2008 and 2007, we invested $40.8 million
and $65.6 million, respectively, in our Shreveport refinery
for other capital expenditures, including projects to improve
efficiency, de-bottleneck certain operating units and for new
product development. These expenditures are anticipated to
enhance and improve our product mix and operating cost leverage,
but will not significantly increase the feedstock throughput
capacity of the Shreveport refinery. We estimate that by
March 31, 2009 we will have placed in service
$19.3 million of our total $25.1 million in
construction in progress.
Debt
and Credit Facilities
On January 3, 2008, we repaid all of our indebtedness under
our previous senior secured first lien term loan credit
facility, entered into new senior secured first lien term loan
facility and amended our existing senior secured revolving
credit facility. As of December 31, 2008, 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 by advance rates of percentages of eligible accounts
receivable and inventory (the borrowing base) 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. 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. The number of lenders in our facility
has been reduced from ten due to an acquisition. If further
acquisitions occur, we will increase the concentration of our
exposure to certain financial institutions. 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 assurances.
Also, our borrowing base at December 31, 2008 was
$175.8 million, thus, we would have to experience defaults
in commitments totaling $199.2 million from our lender
group before it would impact our liquidity as of
December 31, 2008. This would require at least three of our
nine lenders to default in order for it to impact our current
liquidity position under the revolving credit facility.
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 has a first
priority lien on our cash, accounts receivable and inventory and
a second priority lien on our fixed assets and matures in
January 2013. On December 31, 2008, we had availability on
our revolving credit facility of $51.9 million, based upon
a $175.8 million borrowing base, $21.4 million in
outstanding standby letters of credit, and outstanding
borrowings of $102.5 million. The recent drop in crude oil
prices has improved our gross profit; however, it has also
caused a reduction in the market value of our inventory and
resulted in a lower borrowing base. After paying our quarterly
distribution of $14.8 million on February 13, 2009,
our availability under the revolving credit facility was
consistent with December 31, 2008. We believe that we have
sufficient cash flow from operations
66
and borrowing capacity to meet our financial commitments, debt
service obligations, 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 our ability to comply with the covenants under our
credit facilities. Further 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, fully drawn at $385.0 million on
January 3, 2008, 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 is to 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 facility 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. In
June 2008, we received lease bonuses of $6.1 million
associated with the sale of mineral rights on our real property
at our Shreveport and Princeton refineries to a non-affiliated
third party. As a result of these transactions, we recorded a
gain of $5.8 million in other income (expense) in the
consolidated statements of operations. Under the term loan
agreement, cash proceeds resulting from the disposition of our
property, plant and equipment generally must be used as a
mandatory prepayment of the term loan. As a result, we made a
prepayment of $6.1 million in June 2008 on the term loan.
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 such 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 such counterparty to provide additional credit support for
a mutually-agreed maximum volume of executed crack spread
hedges. In the event such counterpartys exposure to us
exceeds $100.0 million, we would be required to post
additional credit support 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.
The 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 4.0 to 1 and a Consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio of
no less than 2.50 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). Both the Consolidated
Leverage Ratio steps down from 4.0 to 1 to 3.75 to 1 and the
Consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio steps up from 2.50 to 1 to
2.75 to 1 effective with the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
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. During
fiscal year 2008, the credit facilities permitted the inclusion
of a prorated portion of Penrecos estimated Adjusted
EBITDA from 2007 in measuring compliance with these covenants.
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. Available
Liquidity is a measure used under our revolving credit facility
and is the sum of the cash and borrowing capacity that we have
as of a given date. 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
67
decreasing net income (including the non-cash impact of
restructuring, 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 Penreco acquisition 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 Available Liquidity 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).
During 2008, we experienced adverse financial conditions
primarily attributable with historically high crude oil price
volatility, which negatively affected our operations during
2008. Also contributing to these adverse financial conditions
were higher borrowings required to fund the completion of the
Shreveport refinery expansion project. 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, 2008, we were
in compliance with all financial covenants under our credit
agreements. 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. These steps include the following:
Increased
Flexibility in Our Crude Oil Price Hedging for Specialty
Products Segment
We remain committed to an active hedging program to manage
commodity price risk in both our specialty products and fuel
products segments. Due to the volatility of the price of crude
oil and the impact such volatility has had on our short-term
cash flows, we modified our hedging strategy to allow increased
flexibility in the overall portion of input prices for specialty
products we may hedge, the time horizon we may hedge and the
types of derivative instruments we may use. Specifically, we
have targeted the use of derivative instruments, primarily
combinations of options, to mitigate our exposure to changes in
crude oil prices for up to 75% of our specialty products
production as conditions warrant. Generally, we believe that a
time horizon of hedging crude oil purchases ranging from 3 to
9 months forward for our specialty products segment is
appropriate given our general ability to manage our specialty
products prices. We continue to consider current crude oil
prices, specialty products gross profit expectations and
liquidity as the primary factors to determine the volume, time
horizon and type of derivative instruments we may execute. We
plan to continue to use derivative instruments to achieve our
goal of limiting crude oil price volatility in our operations.
Due to the current economic environment and the complexities
around derivative instruments, we intend to maintain flexibility
in the manner in which we hedge. At December 31, 2008, we
had approximately 7,700 barrels per day of crude oil hedges
in January 2009 through March 2009 and are at the lower end of
our targeted volume range of hedges for our specialty products
segment. Through February 26, 2009, we have added no
additional crude oil hedges for our specialty products segment.
During the last five fiscal quarters, October 1, 2007
through December 31, 2008, we have experienced significant
crude oil price volatility. As a result, we have realized
derivative gains (losses) in our specialty products segment over
these five quarters of $5.3 million, $6.4 million,
$16.4 million, $(7.3) million and
$(40.6) million, respectively, for a total loss during the
period of $(19.8) million. This loss includes approximately
$15.8 million of losses related to crude oil derivatives
related to 2009 that were early settled during the fourth
quarter of 2008. We believe that our hedging program has been
effective at offsetting a portion of volatility in our specialty
products segments quarterly gross profit.
As of December 31, 2008 and February 26, 2009, we
have provided cash margin of $4.0 million and
$0.4 million, respectively, in credit support to certain of
our hedging counterparties. Currently, we do not expect to have
a significant exposure to additional margin calls from our
derivative counterparties due to the reduced number of barrels
hedged and the use of 4-way collars that have a limited exposure
to crude oil price decreases. Please read
68
Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
about Market Risk Existing Commodity Derivative
Instruments for derivative instruments outstanding as of
December 31, 2008.
Working
Capital Reduction
We continue to implement strategies to reduce our working
capital requirements across all of our operations and we expect
to maintain prudent levels of working capital to enhance
liquidity given our plans for higher Shreveport refinery run
rates in 2009. As an example, effective May 1, 2008 we
entered into a crude oil supply agreement with an affiliate of
our general partner to purchase crude oil used at our Princeton
refinery on a
just-in-time
basis, which significantly reduced crude oil inventory
historically maintained for this refinery by approximately
200,000 barrels. Excluding inventory related to the Penreco
acquisition, we have reduced our total inventory levels by
approximately 640,000 barrels, or approximately 29.8% as of
December 31, 2008 as compared to December 31, 2007.
Additionally, on January 26, 2009 we entered into a second
crude oil supply agreement with the same affiliate of our
general partner to supply a portion of the crude oil for our
Shreveport refinery with favorable payment terms that will allow
us to further reduce our working capital requirements and
enhance liquidity.
Continued
Integration of the Penreco Acquisition
During the first nine months of 2008, we implemented multiple
price increases for various specialty product lines acquired in
the Penreco acquisition to attempt to keep pace with rising
feedstock costs. In addition, we have implemented a pricing
policy which we believe is more responsive to rising feedstock
prices to limit the time between feedstock price increases and
product price increases to customers. We are also implementing
operational strategies, including using various existing Calumet
refinery products as feedstocks in the acquired Penreco plant
operations, and we have reduced headcount by approximately
50 employees.
While assurances cannot be made regarding our future compliance
with these covenants and being cognizant of the general
uncertain economic environment, we anticipate that our strategic
initiatives discussed above will allow us to maintain compliance
with such financial covenants and improve our Adjusted EBITDA,
liquidity and distributable cash flows.
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
69
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. We believe we
are in compliance with all debt covenants and have adequate
liquidity to conduct our business as of December 31, 2008.
Contractual
Obligations and Commercial Commitments
A summary of our total contractual cash obligations as of
December 31, 2008, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
1-3
|
|
|
3-5
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Long-term debt obligations
|
|
$
|
477,624
|
|
|
$
|
3,850
|
|
|
$
|
7,700
|
|
|
$
|
110,239
|
|
|
$
|
355,835
|
|
Interest on long-term debt at contractual rates
|
|
|
165,267
|
|
|
|
30,808
|
|
|
|
59,972
|
|
|
|
49,674
|
|
|
|
24,813
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
2,640
|
|
|
|
961
|
|
|
|
1,354
|
|
|
|
325
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations (1)
|
|
|
45,688
|
|
|
|
12,665
|
|
|
|
18,287
|
|
|
|
10,661
|
|
|
|
4,075
|
|
Letters of credit (2)
|
|
|
71,355
|
|
|
|
21,355
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase commitments (3)
|
|
|
149,613
|
|
|
|
149,613
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension obligations
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment agreements (4)
|
|
|
773
|
|
|
|
371
|
|
|
|
402
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total obligations
|
|
$
|
925,960
|
|
|
$
|
219,623
|
|
|
$
|
95,715
|
|
|
$
|
225,899
|
|
|
$
|
384,723
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 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 president. |
In connection with the closing of the Penreco acquisition 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
are obligated to purchase $37.4 million of feedstock for
the LVT unit in each of the next four years based on pricing
estimates as of December 31, 2008. 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, 2008, 2007 and
2006. These consolidated financial statements have been prepared
in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these financial
statements requires 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
70
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 on
Form 10-K.
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.
Income
Taxes
As previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the
year ending December 31, 2007, we requested a ruling from
the IRS with respect to the qualifying nature of income
generated from the Penreco assets and business operations. In
the fourth quarter of 2008, the IRS provided a favorable ruling,
upon which we will rely to own the Penreco assets and operate
the Penreco business within our existing flow-through tax
structure.
Inventories
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method. 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
$27.5 million and $107.9 million higher at
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities, which was amended in June 2000 by
SFAS No. 138 and in May 2003 by SFAS No. 149
(collectively referred to as SFAS 133), the
Company recognizes all derivative transactions as either assets
or liabilities at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets.
The Company utilized third party valuations and published market
data to determine the fair value of these derivatives and thus
does not directly rely on market indices. The Company performs
an independent verification of the third party valuation
statements to validate inputs for reasonableness and completes a
comparison of implied crack spread mark-to-market valuations
among our counterparties.
The Companys derivative instruments, consisting of
derivative assets and derivative liabilities of
$71.2 million and $15.8 million, respectively, as of
December 31, 2008, are valued at Level 1,
Level 2, and Level 3 fair value measurement under SFAS
No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, depending upon the
degree by which inputs are observable. The Companys
derivative instruments are the only assets and liabilities
measured at fair value as of December 31, 2008. The Company
recorded unrealized gains of derivative instruments and realized
losses on derivative instruments of $3.5 million and
$58.8 million, respectively, on our derivative instruments
in 2008. The increase in the fair market value of our
outstanding derivative instruments from a net liability of
$57.5 million as of December 31, 2007 to a net asset
of $55.4 million as of December 31, 2008 was primarily
due to decreases in the forward market values of fuel products
margins, or cracks spreads, relative to our hedged fuel products
margins. The Company believes 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.
71
Holding all other variables constant, we expect a $1 increase in
these commodity prices would change our recorded mark-to-market
valuation by the following amounts based upon the volume hedged
as of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In millions
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
(18.5
|
)
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
$
|
11.9
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
$
|
6.7
|
|
Crude oil collars
|
|
$
|
(0.7
|
)
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
$
|
(0.3
|
)
|
The Company enters into crude oil, gasoline, and diesel hedges
to hedge an implied crack spread. 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.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (the Statement). The
Statement applies to assets and liabilities required or
permitted to be measured at fair value under other accounting
pronouncements. The Statement defines fair value, establishes a
framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosure
requirements about fair value, but does not provide guidance
whether assets and liabilities are required or permitted to be
measured at fair value. The Statement was effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company
adopted the Statement on January 1, 2008 and applied the
various disclosures as required by the Statement. The Statement
did not have a material affect on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows. In February 2008, the FASB
agreed to defer for one year the effective date of the Statement
for certain nonfinancial assets and liabilities, except those
that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial
statements on a recurring basis.
In April 2007, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. FIN 39-1,
Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39 (the
Position), which amends certain aspects of FASB
Interpretation Number 39, Offsetting of Amounts Related to
Certain Contracts. The Position permits companies to offset
fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash
collateral or the obligation to return cash collateral against
fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments
executed with the same counterparty under a master netting
arrangement. The Position is effective for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company adopted the
Position on January 1, 2008 and the adoption did not have a
material effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
In December 2007, the FASB issued FASB Statement
No. 141(R), Business Combinations (the
Statement). The Statement applies to the financial
accounting and reporting of business combinations. The Statement
is effective for business combination transactions for which the
acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first
annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15,
2008. The Company anticipates that the Statement will not have a
material effect on its financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
In March 2008, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 161,
Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133
(SFAS 161). SFAS 161 requires entities
that utilize derivative instruments to provide qualitative
disclosures about their objectives and strategies for using such
instruments, as well as any details of credit-risk-related
contingent features contained within derivatives. SFAS 161
also requires entities to disclose additional information about
the amounts and location of derivatives located within the
financial statements, how the provisions of SFAS 133 have
been applied, and the impact that hedges have on an
entitys financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows. SFAS 161 is effective for fiscal years and
interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with
early application encouraged. The Company currently provides an
abundance of information about its hedging activities and use of
derivatives in its quarterly and annual filings with the SEC,
including many of the disclosures contained within
SFAS 161. Thus, the Company currently does not anticipate
the adoption of SFAS 161 will have a material impact on the
disclosures already provided.
In March 2008, FASB issued Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 07-4,
Application of the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement
No. 128 to Master Limited Partnerships
(EITF 07-4).
EITF 07-4
requires master limited
72
partnerships to treat 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.
EITF 07-4
requires that undistributed earnings be allocated to the
partnership interests based on the allocation of earnings to
capital accounts as specified in the respective partnership
agreement. When distributions exceed earnings,
EITF 07-4
requires that net income be reduced by the actual distributions
with the resulting net loss being allocated to capital accounts
as specified in the respective partnership agreement.
EITF 07-4
is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning
after December 15, 2008. The Company is evaluating the
potential impacts of
EITF 07-4
and will adopt the new requirements for all future reporting
periods.
In April 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. 142-3,
Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets,
(FSP
No. 142-3)
that amends the factors considered in developing renewal or
extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
(SFAS No. 142). FSP
No. 142-3
requires a consistent approach between the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142 and the
period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of
an asset under SFAS No. 141(R), Business
Combinations. FSP
No. 142-3
also requires enhanced disclosures when an intangible
assets expected future cash flows are affected by an
entitys intent
and/or
ability to renew or extend the arrangement. FSP
No. 142-3
is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2008 and is applied
prospectively. Early adoption is prohibited. The Company does
not expect the adoption of FSP
No. 142-3
to have a material impact on its consolidated results of
operations or financial condition.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Commodity
Price Risk
Both our profitability and our cash flows are affected by
volatility in prevailing crude oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel,
and natural gas prices which is consistent with prior years. 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
$10.7 million and our fuel product segment cost of sales by
$10.7 million based on our sales volumes for 2008.
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, during periods such as 2008 when crude
oil prices ranged from a low of approximately $42 per barrel to
a high of approximately $145 per barrel, we are not always able
to adjust our sales prices as quickly as increases in the price
of crude oil. Due to this lack of correlation between our
specialty products sales 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 out
flows for up to 70% of our anticipated crude oil purchases
related to our specialty products production. These positions
generally will be short term in nature and expire within three
to nine months from execution; however, we may execute
derivative contracts for up to two years forward if our expected
future cash flows support lengthening our position. During the
first three quarters of 2008, we both lengthened the transaction
period and increased the volume hedged to near these maximum
levels of up to two years and for up to 70% of our projected
crude oil purchasing volume for our specialty products segment.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, we settled the majority of these
forward positions and as of December 31, 2008 we are hedged
at the lower end of our guideline
73
and at a hedge percentage of approximately 25% of forecasted
production through March 31, 2009. 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
$3.7 million based on our results for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
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. 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 $10.3 million based on our
results for the year ended December 31, 2008.
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
obtain and maintain derivative contracts 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, 2008, we were over 60%
hedged for both the forward 12 and 24 month periods. We are
currently hedging in calendar year 2011, with no positions
currently in 2012 or 2013.
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 increase in the fair market value of
our outstanding derivative instruments from a net liability of
$57.5 million as of December 31, 2007 to a net asset
of $55.4 million as of December 31, 2008 was primarily
due to decreases in the forward market values of fuel products
margins, or cracks spreads, relative to our hedged fuel products
margins, offset by the impact of decreases in crude oil prices
on our specialty products segment crude oil derivatives. Please
read Note 2 Derivatives in the notes to our
consolidated financial statements 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.
74
We are exposed to market risk from fluctuations in interest
rates. As of December 31, 2008, we had approximately
$477.6 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, 2008 would be expected to have an impact on
net income and cash flows for 2008 of approximately
$4.8 million.
We have a $375.0 million revolving credit facility as of
December 31, 2008, bearing interest at the prime rate or
LIBOR, at our option, plus the applicable margin. We had
borrowings of $102.5 million outstanding under this
facility as of December 31, 2008, 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 its current variable rate
senior secured first lien term loan which closed January 3,
2008. The Company has 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.
Existing
Commodity Derivative Instruments
Fuel
Products Segment
As a result of our fuel products hedging activity, we recorded a
loss of $297.3 million and a gain of $285.0 million,
to sales and cost of sales, respectively, in the consolidated
statements of operations for 2008.
The following tables provide information about our derivative
instruments related to our fuel products segment as of
December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,025,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
$
|
66.26
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,047,500
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
7,300,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
67.29
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
3,009,000
|
|
|
|
8,244
|
|
|
|
76.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
18,521,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
68.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,170,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
$
|
80.51
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,183,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
4,745,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.41
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
2,371,000
|
|
|
|
6,496
|
|
|
|
90.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
11,861,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
82.48
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
855,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
$
|
73.83
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
864,500
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
874,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
874,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,555,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
75.28
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
638,000
|
|
|
|
1,748
|
|
|
|
83.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
6,660,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
75.30
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implied Crack
|
|
Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
Spread ($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,025,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
$
|
11.43
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,047,500
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
11.43
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
11.43
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
11.43
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
7,300,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
11.32
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
3,009,000
|
|
|
|
8,244
|
|
|
|
11.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
18,521,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.48
|
|
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil sales in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges. As a result of
these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the Company
recognized $14.3 million of unrealized gains in unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations in 2008. Refer to the gasoline swap
contracts table below with corresponding barrel per day amounts
for the related transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
$
|
62.66
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,825,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
62.66
|
|
76
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline purchases in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges. As a result of
these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the Company
recognized $15.9 million of losses in unrealized gain
(loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements
of operations in 2008. Refer to the crude oil swap contracts
table above with corresponding barrel per day amounts for the
related transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
$
|
60.53
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,825,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
60.53
|
|
To summarize at December 31, 2008, the Company had the
following crude oil and gasoline derivative instruments not
designated as hedges in its fuel products segment. These trades
were used to economically freeze a portion of the mark-to-market
valuation gain for the above crack spread trades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implied Crack
|
|
Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
Spread ($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
$
|
(2.13
|
)
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
(2.13
|
)
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
(2.13
|
)
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
(2.13
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,825,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2.13
|
)
|
The above derivative instruments to purchase the crack spread
have effectively locked in a gain of $9.70 per barrel on
approximately 1.8 million barrels, or $17.7 million,
to be recognized in 2009.
As of February 26, 2009, the Company has also added the
following crude oil and gasoline derivative instruments, none of
which are designated as hedges, to the above transactions for
our fuel products segment crack spread trades:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implied Crack
|
|
Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
Spread ($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2010
|
|
|
135,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
136,500
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
138,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
547,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
The above derivative instruments to purchase the crack spread
have effectively locked in a gain of $7.82 per barrel on
approximately 0.5 million barrels, or $4.3 million, to
be recognized in 2010.
77
Specialty
Products Segment
As a result of our specialty products crude oil hedging
activity, we recorded a gain of $21.9 million and a loss
$47.0 million, to cost of goods sold and realized loss on
derivative instruments, respectively, in the consolidated
statements of operations for 2008. As of December 31, 2008
and February 26, 2009, we have provided cash margin of
$4.0 million and $0.4 million, respectively, in credit
support to certain of our hedging counterparties. At
December 31, 2008, the Company had the following four-way
crude oil collar 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 $2.1 million of losses in
unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2009
|
|
|
217,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
50.32
|
|
|
$
|
60.32
|
|
|
$
|
70.32
|
|
|
$
|
80.32
|
|
February 2009
|
|
|
84,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
38.33
|
|
|
|
48.33
|
|
|
|
58.33
|
|
|
|
68.33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
301,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
46.98
|
|
|
$
|
56.98
|
|
|
$
|
66.98
|
|
|
$
|
76.98
|
|
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following two-way
crude oil collar derivatives related to crude oil purchases in
our specialty products segment, none of which are designated as
hedges. As a result of these derivatives not being designated as
hedges, the Company recognized $10.3 million of losses in
unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold Put
|
|
|
Bought Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2009
|
|
|
186,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
$
|
68.57
|
|
|
$
|
90.83
|
|
February 2009
|
|
|
112,000
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
74.85
|
|
|
|
96.25
|
|
March 2009
|
|
|
93,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
79.37
|
|
|
|
101.67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
391,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
72.94
|
|
|
$
|
94.96
|
|
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to natural gas purchases, of which
90,000 MMBtus are designated as hedges. As a result of a
portion of these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the
Company recognized $1.2 million of losses in unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations for 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMBtus
|
|
|
$/MMBtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
330,000
|
|
|
$
|
10.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
330,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
10.38
|
|
78
|
|
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, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, partners capital, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2008. 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, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated results
of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2008, 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, 2008, 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 27, 2009
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 27, 2009
79
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
48
|
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $2,121 and $786,
respectively
|
|
|
103,962
|
|
|
|
109,501
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,594
|
|
|
|
4,496
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109,556
|
|
|
|
113,997
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
118,524
|
|
|
|
107,664
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
71,199
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
1,803
|
|
|
|
7,567
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
4,021
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
305,151
|
|
|
|
229,284
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
659,684
|
|
|
|
442,882
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
48,335
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
49,502
|
|
|
|
2,460
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
18,390
|
|
|
|
4,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,081,062
|
|
|
$
|
678,857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
87,460
|
|
|
$
|
167,977
|
|
Accounts payable related party
|
|
|
6,395
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
6,865
|
|
|
|
2,745
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
6,833
|
|
|
|
6,215
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
9,662
|
|
|
|
4,882
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,811
|
|
|
|
943
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
15,827
|
|
|
|
57,503
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
137,853
|
|
|
|
240,265
|
|
Pension and postretirement benefit obligations
|
|
|
9,717
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
460,280
|
|
|
|
38,948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
607,850
|
|
|
|
279,213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners capital:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common unitholders (19,166,000 units authorized, issued and
outstanding)
|
|
|
363,935
|
|
|
|
375,925
|
|
Subordinated unitholders (13,066,000 units authorized,
issued and outstanding)
|
|
|
35,778
|
|
|
|
43,996
|
|
General partners interest
|
|
|
17,933
|
|
|
|
19,364
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
55,566
|
|
|
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total partners capital
|
|
|
473,212
|
|
|
|
399,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and partners capital
|
|
$
|
1,081,062
|
|
|
$
|
678,857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
80
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per unit data)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
2,235,111
|
|
|
|
1,456,492
|
|
|
|
1,436,108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
253,883
|
|
|
|
181,356
|
|
|
|
204,940
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
34,267
|
|
|
|
19,614
|
|
|
|
20,430
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
84,702
|
|
|
|
54,026
|
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
4,598
|
|
|
|
3,662
|
|
|
|
3,592
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
2,854
|
|
|
|
863
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(33,938
|
)
|
|
|
(4,717
|
)
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
388
|
|
|
|
1,944
|
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(898
|
)
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
Realized loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(58,833
|
)
|
|
|
(12,484
|
)
|
|
|
(30,309
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
3,454
|
|
|
|
(1,297
|
)
|
|
|
12,264
|
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
5,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(919
|
)
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(84,046
|
)
|
|
|
(17,825
|
)
|
|
|
(27,365
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income before income taxes
|
|
|
44,694
|
|
|
|
83,375
|
|
|
|
95,768
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
257
|
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to Predecessor for the period through
January 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to Calumet
|
|
|
44,437
|
|
|
|
82,874
|
|
|
|
91,170
|
|
Minimum quarterly distribution to common unitholders
|
|
|
(34,500
|
)
|
|
|
(30,021
|
)
|
|
|
(24,413
|
)
|
General partners incentive distribution rights
|
|
|
(10,996
|
)
|
|
|
(14,102
|
)
|
|
|
(18,912
|
)
|
General partners interest in net income
|
|
|
(334
|
)
|
|
|
(939
|
)
|
|
|
(845
|
)
|
Common unitholders share of income in excess of minimum
quarterly distribution
|
|
|
(11,706
|
)
|
|
|
(13,592
|
)
|
|
|
(18,312
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated unitholders interest in net income (loss)
|
|
|
(13,099
|
)
|
|
|
24,220
|
|
|
|
28,688
|
|
Basic net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.41
|
|
|
$
|
2.63
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
(1.00
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
Diluted net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.41
|
|
|
$
|
2.63
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
(1.00
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units
outstanding basic
|
|
|
19,166
|
|
|
|
16,678
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
Weighted average limited partner subordinated units
outstanding basic
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units
outstanding diluted
|
|
|
19,166
|
|
|
|
16,680
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
Weighted average limited partner subordinated units
outstanding diluted
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
Cash distributions declared per common and subordinated unit
|
|
$
|
1.98
|
|
|
$
|
2.43
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
81
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS CAPITAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
Partners Capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
General
|
|
|
Limited Partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners Capital
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Partner
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance at January 1, 2006
|
|
$
|
43,443
|
|
|
$
|
497
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
43,940
|
|
Comprehensive income through January 31, 2006 for the
Predecessor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income through January 31, 2006
|
|
|
4,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,408
|
|
Cash flow hedge (gain)/loss reclassified to net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(497
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(497
|
)
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges through
January 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income through January 31, 2006 for the
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,489
|
|
Distributions to Predecessor partners
|
|
|
(6,900
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,900
|
)
|
Assets and liabilities not contributed to Calumet
|
|
|
(5,626
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,626
|
)
|
Allocation of Predecessors capital
|
|
|
(35,325
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,053
|
|
|
|
10,423
|
|
|
|
21,849
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from initial public offering, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138,743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138,743
|
|
Contribution from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
Comprehensive income from February 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006 for Calumet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income from February 1, 2006 through December 31,
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,317
|
|
|
|
42,368
|
|
|
|
37,485
|
|
|
|
91,170
|
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges from February 1,
2006 through December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income from February 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006 for Calumet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141,843
|
|
Proceeds from follow-on public offering, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,479
|
|
Contribution from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,218
|
|
Units repurchased for phantom unit grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
Amortization of vested phantom units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,013
|
)
|
|
|
(20,286
|
)
|
|
|
(16,987
|
)
|
|
|
(38,286
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,251
|
|
|
|
15,950
|
|
|
|
274,719
|
|
|
|
42,347
|
|
|
|
385,267
|
|
Comprehensive loss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,944
|
|
|
|
43,139
|
|
|
|
33,791
|
|
|
|
82,874
|
|
Cash flow hedge gain reclassified to net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,880
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,880
|
)
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(78,012
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(78,012
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,018
|
)
|
Proceeds from follow-on public offering, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,206
|
|
Contribution from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,113
|
|
Amortization of vested phantom units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,643
|
)
|
|
|
(40,260
|
)
|
|
|
(32,142
|
)
|
|
|
(77,045
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,472
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,472
|
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,959
|
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
82
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
44,437
|
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
59,261
|
|
|
|
14,585
|
|
|
|
11,760
|
|
Amortization of turnaround costs
|
|
|
2,468
|
|
|
|
3,190
|
|
|
|
3,267
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
Non-cash debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
898
|
|
|
|
352
|
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
Unrealized (gain)/loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(3,454
|
)
|
|
|
1,297
|
|
|
|
(12,264
|
)
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
(5,770
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-cash activities
|
|
|
1,712
|
|
|
|
358
|
|
|
|
152
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
45,042
|
|
|
|
(15,038
|
)
|
|
|
16,031
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
55,532
|
|
|
|
3,321
|
|
|
|
(2,554
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
5,834
|
|
|
|
(6,061
|
)
|
|
|
9,293
|
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
41,757
|
|
|
|
2,121
|
|
|
|
(879
|
)
|
Deposits
|
|
|
(4,000
|
)
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
|
|
6,890
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
(10,211
|
)
|
|
|
(6,510
|
)
|
|
|
1,705
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(103,136
|
)
|
|
|
89,225
|
|
|
|
33,993
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
(1,657
|
)
|
|
|
(2,930
|
)
|
|
|
(2,489
|
)
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
618
|
|
|
|
(823
|
)
|
|
|
2,962
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(245
|
)
|
|
|
(396
|
)
|
|
|
184
|
|
Pension and postretirement benefit obligations
|
|
|
(193
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
130,341
|
|
|
|
167,546
|
|
|
|
166,768
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(167,702
|
)
|
|
|
(261,015
|
)
|
|
|
(76,064
|
)
|
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
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
261
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(480,461
|
)
|
|
|
(260,875
|
)
|
|
|
(75,803
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from borrowings revolving credit facility
|
|
|
1,424,732
|
|
|
|
303,380
|
|
|
|
335,069
|
|
Repayments of borrowings revolving credit facility
|
|
|
(1,329,150
|
)
|
|
|
(296,423
|
)
|
|
|
(428,054
|
)
|
Repayments of borrowings prior term loan credit
facilities
|
|
|
(30,099
|
)
|
|
|
(19,401
|
)
|
|
|
(125,500
|
)
|
Proceeds from borrowings new term loan credit
facility
|
|
|
385,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount on new term loan
|
|
|
(17,400
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(9,633
|
)
|
|
|
(369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of borrowings new term loan credit
facility
|
|
|
(9,915
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments on capital lease obligation
|
|
|
(618
|
)
|
|
|
(906
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from public equity offerings, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,206
|
|
|
|
242,222
|
|
Contributions from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,113
|
|
|
|
2,593
|
|
Cash distribution to Calumet Holding, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,258
|
)
|
Change in bank overdraft.
|
|
|
3,471
|
|
|
|
2,854
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of common units for unit grants
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
Distributions to Predecessor partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,900
|
)
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
(66,140
|
)
|
|
|
(77,045
|
)
|
|
|
(38,286
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
350,133
|
|
|
|
12,409
|
|
|
|
(22,183
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
(80,920
|
)
|
|
|
68,782
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
80,955
|
|
|
|
12,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
48
|
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
80,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest
|
|
$
|
33,667
|
|
|
$
|
4,080
|
|
|
$
|
11,986
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
150
|
|
|
$
|
175
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of noncash financing and investing
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment acquired under capital lease
|
|
$
|
171
|
|
|
$
|
3,565
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
83
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
1.
|
Description
of the Business
|
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (Calumet, Partnership,
or the Company) is a Delaware limited partnership. The general
partner is Calumet GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company. On January 31, 2006, the Partnership completed the
initial public offering of its common units. At that time,
substantially all of the assets or liabilities of Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and its subsidiaries
(Predecessor) were contributed to Calumet. References to the
Predecessor in these consolidated financial statements refer to
Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and its
subsidiaries. On July 5, 2006 and November 20, 2007,
the Partnership completed follow-on public offerings of its
common units. As of December 31, 2008, Calumet had
19,166,000 common units, 13,066,000 subordinated units, and
657,796 general partner equivalent units outstanding. The
general partner owns 2% of Calumet while the remaining 98% is
owned by limited partners. On January 3, 2008 the Company
closed on the acquisition of Penreco, a Texas general
partnership, for approximately $269,118. Calumet is engaged in
the production and marketing of crude oil-based specialty
lubricating oils, white mineral oils, solvents, petrolatums,
waxes and fuels. Calumet owns facilities located in Princeton,
Louisiana, Cotton Valley, Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana,
Karns City, Pennsylvania, and Dickinson, Texas, and a terminal
located in Burnham, Illinois.
|
|
2.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements of Calumet 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. 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.
84
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
24,955
|
|
|
$
|
20,887
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
43,735
|
|
|
|
21,325
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
49,834
|
|
|
|
65,452
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
118,524
|
|
|
$
|
107,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $27,517 and $107,885 higher as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. During the years
ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, the Company
recorded $5,446, $19,834 and $2,127, 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 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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
786
|
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
(140
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
2,121
|
|
|
$
|
786
|
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
3,249
|
|
|
$
|
1,169
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to 40 years)
|
|
|
6,626
|
|
|
|
2,050
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to 20 years)
|
|
|
711,122
|
|
|
|
225,096
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to 10 years)
|
|
|
2,682
|
|
|
|
1,261
|
|
Assets under capital leases (4 years)
|
|
|
4,015
|
|
|
|
3,565
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
25,065
|
|
|
|
264,052
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
752,759
|
|
|
|
497,193
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(93,075
|
)
|
|
|
(54,311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
659,684
|
|
|
$
|
442,882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (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 years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006,
the Company incurred $41,159, $9,328, and $10,998, respectively,
of interest expense of which $7,221, $4,611, and $1,968,
respectively, was capitalized as a component of property, plant
and equipment.
The Company has not recorded an asset retirement obligation as
of December 31, 2008 or 2007 because such potential
obligations cannot be measured since it is not possible to
estimate the settlement dates.
Accumulated depreciation above includes $669 of depreciation
expense related to the Companys capitalized lease assets.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of purchase price over fair value
of the net assets acquired in the Penreco acquisition. In
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(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. The 2008
annual impairment review resulted in no impairment charge. For
more information, refer to Note 6.
Other
Intangible Assets
Other intangible assets primarily consist of supply agreements,
customer relationships, non-compete agreements and patents
acquired in the Penreco acquisition. 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 6.
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 market value of the long-lived asset. Fair
market value is determined primarily using anticipated cash
flows 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.
86
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (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 generally does not
require collateral. 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, default
percentages 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,
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
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. Related to these qualifications, the Company
requested a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) with respect to the qualifying nature of
income generated from the Penreco assets and business
operations. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the IRS provided a
favorable ruling. 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,
2008 and 2007. 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.
Effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted the
provisions of Financial Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of
SFAS Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes. The Interpretation clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes by prescribing a recognition
threshold and measurement methodology for the financial
statement recognition and measurement of a tax position to be
taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The
implementation of the Interpretation did not have a material
effect on the Companys financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
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.
87
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Derivatives
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. In accordance with
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities, which was amended in June 2000 by
SFAS No. 138, Accounting for Certain Derivative
Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities an
amendment of FASB Statement No. 133, and in May 2003 by
SFAS No. 149, Amendment of Statement 133 on
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, (collectively
referred to as SFAS 133), the Company
recognizes all derivative instruments as either assets or
liabilities at fair value on the balance sheets. The Company
utilizes third party valuations and published market data to
determine the fair value of these derivative instruments. To the
extent a derivative instrument is designated 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
instrument is deferred in accumulated other comprehensive income
(loss), a component of partners capital. The Company
accounts for certain derivatives hedging purchases of crude oil
and natural gas, the sale of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and
the payment of interest as cash flow hedges. The derivative
instruments designated as hedging purchases and sales are
recorded to cost of sales and sales, respectively, in the
consolidated statements of operations, upon recording the
related hedged transaction in sales or cost of sales. The
derivative instruments designated as hedging payments of
interest are recorded in interest expense in the consolidated
statements of operations. For the years ended December 31,
2008, 2007 and 2006, the Company has recorded derivative losses
of $297,319 and $33,576 and a gain of $6, respectively, to sales
and derivative gains of $306,079 and $21,653 and a loss of
$11,070, respectively, to cost of sales in the consolidated
statements of operations. During the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, the Company recorded a
loss of $49,746, a gain of $29 and $0, respectively, on crude
oil collar, interest rate swap and natural gas swap derivative
settlements in realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in
the consolidated statements of operations due to the derivative
transactions not being designated as cash flow hedges. An
interest rate swap loss of $554, a gain of $3 and a loss of $7
for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006,
respectively, was recorded to interest expense in the
consolidated statements of operations. 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 or 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 loss on derivative
instruments in the consolidated statements of operations.
The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an
ongoing basis, whether the derivative instruments that are used
in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting
changes in cash flows of hedged items. The Companys
estimate of the ineffective portion of the hedges for the years
ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, were gains of
$3,730, losses of $5,979 and gains of $4,071, respectively,
which were recorded to unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments and realized loss on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations. The Company recorded the
time value on its crude oil collar derivative instruments, which
is excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness, of $0, a
gain of $709 and a loss of $444, respectively, to unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations for the years ended December 31,
2008, 2007 and 2006.
88
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) is $61,790 as of
December 31, 2008 and, absent a change in the fair market
value of the underlying transactions, will be reclassified to
earnings by December 31, 2011 with balances being
recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
24,878
|
|
2010
|
|
|
27,102
|
|
2011
|
|
|
9,810
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
61,790
|
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance by its counterparties on these derivative
instruments. The Company executes all its derivative instruments
with a small number of counterparties, the majority of which are
large financial institutions with ratings of at least A1 and A+
by Moodys and S&P, respectively. In the event of
default, the Company would potentially be subject to losses on a
derivative instruments 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.
The Company does not expect nonperformance on any derivative
instrument.
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets consist of deferred debt issuance costs,
turnaround costs and deferred transaction costs. Deferred debt
issuance costs were $8,899 and $1,358 as of December 31,
2008 and 2007, 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 $2,160 and $990 at December 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
Turnaround costs represent capitalized costs associated with the
Companys periodic major maintenance and repairs and were
$9,491 and $682 as of December 31, 2008 and 2007,
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 $2,586 and $2,930 at December 31, 2008 and
2007, respectively.
Deferred transaction costs primarily represent costs incurred by
the Company as a result of its acquisition of Penreco and were
$0 and $2,191 at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Earnings
per Unit
The Partnership calculates earnings per unit in accordance with
SFAS No. 128, Earnings Per Share, as
interpreted by Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue
No. 03-06,
Participating Securities and the Two
Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128. Under
this pronouncement, common and subordinated limited units
represent separate classes of limited partner units that require
two-class presentation under SFAS No. 128. Therefore,
the Partnership calculates basic and diluted earnings per unit
on a discrete quarterly basis assuming the minimum quarterly
distribution, prorated if necessary, is paid on all common units
outstanding and that all undistributed earnings or losses in the
period are fully allocated to limited partner units and the
general partner based on their contractual participation rights
as if all of the earnings or losses for the period had been
distributed.
Shipping
and Handling Costs
The Company adheres to
EITF 00-10,
Accounting for Shipping and Handling Fees and Costs. This
EITF requires the classification of shipping and handling costs
billed to customers in sales and the classification of
89
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
shipping and handling costs incurred in cost of sales, or to be
disclosed if classified elsewhere. The Company has reflected
$84,702, $54,026, and $56,922, respectively, for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, in transportation
expense in the consolidated statements of operations, of which a
significant portion is billed to customers.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (the Statement). The
Statement applies to assets and liabilities required or
permitted to be measured at fair value under other accounting
pronouncements. The Statement defines fair value, establishes a
framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosure
requirements about fair value, but does not provide guidance
whether assets and liabilities are required or permitted to be
measured at fair value. The Statement is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company
adopted the Statement on January 1, 2008 and applied the
various disclosures as required by the Statement. The adoption
of this Statement did not have a material affect on the
Companys financial position or results of operations. In
February 2008, the FASB agreed to defer for one year the
effective date of the Statement for certain nonfinancial assets
and liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed
at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis.
In April 2007, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FIN 39-1,
Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39 (the
Position), which amends certain aspects of FASB
Interpretation Number 39, Offsetting of Amounts Related to
Certain Contracts. The Position permits companies to offset
fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash
collateral or the obligation to return cash collateral against
fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments
executed with the same counterparty under a master netting
arrangement. The Position is effective for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007. The Companys
accounting policy is to not offset fair value amounts recognized
for the right to reclaim cash collateral or the obligation to
return cash collateral against fair value amounts recognized for
derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under
the same master netting arrangement. As of December 31,
2008, the Company has provided cash margin of $4.0 million
in credit support to certain of its hedging counterparties.
In December 2007, the FASB issued FASB Statement
No. 141(R), Business Combinations (the
Statement). The Statement applies to the financial
accounting and reporting of business combinations. The Statement
is effective for business combination transactions for which the
acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first
annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15,
2008. The Company anticipates that the Statement will not have a
material effect on its financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161,
Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133
(SFAS 161). SFAS 161 requires entities
that utilize derivative instruments to provide qualitative
disclosures about their objectives and strategies for using such
instruments, as well as any details of credit-risk-related
contingent features contained within derivatives. SFAS 161
also requires entities to disclose additional information about
the amounts and location of derivatives located within the
financial statements, how the provisions of SFAS 133 have
been applied, and the impact that hedges have on an
entitys financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows. SFAS 161 is effective for fiscal years and
interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with
early application encouraged. The Company currently provides an
abundance of information about its hedging activities and use of
derivatives in its quarterly and annual filings with the SEC,
including many of the disclosures contained within
SFAS 161. Thus, the Company currently does not anticipate
the adoption of SFAS 161 will have a material impact on the
disclosures already provided.
In March 2008, the FASB issued EITF Issue
No. 07-4,
Application of the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement
No. 128 to Master Limited Partnerships
(EITF 07-4).
EITF 07-4
requires master limited partnerships to treat 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.
EITF 07-4
requires that
90
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
undistributed earnings be allocated to the partnership interests
based on the allocation of earnings to capital accounts as
specified in the respective partnership agreement. When
distributions exceed earnings,
EITF 07-4
requires that net income be reduced by the actual distributions
with the resulting net loss being allocated to capital accounts
as specified in the respective partnership agreement.
EITF 07-4
is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning
after December 15, 2008. The Company is evaluating the
potential impacts of
EITF 07-4.
In April 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. 142-3,
Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets,
(FSP
No. 142-3)
that amends the factors considered in developing renewal or
extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
(SFAS No. 142). FSP
No. 142-3
requires a consistent approach between the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142 and the
period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of
an asset under SFAS No. 141(R), Business
Combinations. FSP
No. 142-3
also requires enhanced disclosures when an intangible
assets expected future cash flows are affected by an
entitys intent
and/or
ability to renew or extend the arrangement. FSP
No. 142-3
is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2008 and is applied
prospectively. Early adoption is prohibited. The Company does
not expect the adoption of FSP
No. 142-3
will have a material impact on its consolidated results of
operations or financial condition.
|
|
3.
|
Acquisition
of Penreco
|
On January 3, 2008 the Company acquired Penreco, a Texas
general partnership, for $269,118, net of the cash acquired.
Penreco was owned by ConocoPhillips Company and M.E. Zukerman
Specialty Oil Corporation. Penreco manufactures and markets
highly-refined products and specialty solvents, including white
mineral oils, petrolatums, natural petroleum sulfonates,
cable-filling compounds, refrigeration oils, food-grade
compressor lubricants and gelled products. The acquisition
included facilities in Karns City, Pennsylvania and Dickinson,
Texas, as well as several long-term supply agreements with
ConocoPhillips Company.
The Company believes that this acquisition provides several key
strategic benefits, including market synergies within its
solvents and lubricating oil product lines, additional
operational and logistics flexibility and overhead cost
reductions resulting from the acquisition. The acquisition also
broadens the Companys customer base and gives the Company
access to new markets.
As a result of the acquisition, the assets and liabilities
previously held by Penreco and results of the operations of
these assets have been included in the Companys
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of
operations since the date of acquisition. The unaudited pro
forma summary results of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2007 below combine the results of operations
of Calumet and Penreco as if the acquisition had occurred on
January 1, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
2,069,832
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
100,915
|
|
Basic and diluted net income per limited partner unit
|
|
$
|
2.85
|
|
91
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The Company recorded $48,335 of goodwill as a result of this
acquisition, all of which was recorded within the Companys
specialty products segment. The allocation of the aggregate
purchase price is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of
|
|
|
|
Purchase Price
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
$
|
42,049
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
66,392
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
70
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
91,790
|
|
Other noncurrent assets
|
|
|
288
|
|
Intangibles
|
|
|
59,325
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
48,335
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(29,014
|
)
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(7,331
|
)
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
(2,786
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
269,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of intangible assets listed in the table above as
of January 3, 2008, based upon a third party appraisal,
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
Customer relationships
|
|
$
|
28,482
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Supplier agreements
|
|
|
21,519
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Patents
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Non-competition agreements
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Distributor agreements
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
59,325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average amortization period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
The Company formulated its plan associated with the involuntary
termination of certain non-union Penreco employees and accrued
$1,829 for such costs, which are included in the acquisition
liabilities. All affected employees have been terminated and
substantially all liabilities have been paid as of
December 31, 2008.
|
|
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
have been 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.
|
Shreveport
Refinery Expansion
|
As of December 31, 2007, the Company had invested $254,414
in its Shreveport refinery expansion project. Through
December 31, 2008, the Company has invested an additional
$119,630 for a total of $374,044 in its Shreveport refinery
expansion project. The project was completed and operational in
May 2008. Additionally, for the years ended December 31,
2007 and 2008, the Company had invested $65,633 and $40,753,
respectively, in the
92
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Shreveport refinery for other capital expenditures including
projects to improve efficiency, de-bottleneck certain operating
units and for new product development.
|
|
6.
|
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
|
The Company has recorded $48,335 of goodwill as a result of the
Penreco acquisition, all of which is recorded within the
Companys specialty products segment.
Other intangible assets consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
Average Life
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Customer relationships
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
28,482
|
|
|
$
|
(4,071
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,276
|
|
|
$
|
(2,165
|
)
|
Supplier agreements
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
21,519
|
|
|
|
(7,539
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patents
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
(313
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-competition agreements
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
|
(768
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributor agreements
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
(758
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalty agreements
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
4,116
|
|
|
|
(490
|
)
|
|
|
2,679
|
|
|
|
(330
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
63,441
|
|
|
$
|
(13,939
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,955
|
|
|
$
|
(2,495
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets associated with supplier agreements,
non-competition agreements, patents and distributor agreements
are being amortized on an accelerated basis in order to properly
match expense with the estimated future cash flows 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 based upon an assumed
rate of annual customer attrition. For the year ended
December 31, 2008, the Company recorded amortization
expense of intangible assets of $13,721, as compared to $719 and
$521 for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively. The Company estimates that amortization of
intangible assets will be $11,409, $8,808, $6,972, and $5,728
for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2010, 2011, and
2012, respectively.
|
|
7.
|
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 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, 2008, 2007,
and 2006 was $16,003, $10,277 and $10,894, respectively.
As of December 31, 2008, 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
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
12,665
|
|
2010
|
|
|
10,154
|
|
2011
|
|
|
8,133
|
|
2012
|
|
|
6,223
|
|
2013
|
|
|
4,438
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
4,075
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
45,688
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Historically, the Company has purchased a portion of its crude
oil under a contract that contained minimum purchase
requirements. This contract expired during 2008 and the Company
has fulfilled all commitments under the contract. Total
purchases under this contract were $690,359, $515,268 and
$470,538 for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and
2006, respectively. The Company is currently purchasing all of
its crude oil under evergreen contracts or on a spot basis. As
of December 31, 2008, the estimated minimum purchase
requirements under our crude oil contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
149,613
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
149,613
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In connection with the closing of the Penreco acquisition 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 $37,365 of feedstock for the
LVT unit in each of the next four years based on pricing
estimates as of December 31, 2008. 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 360 employees out of a total
of approximately 630 covered by various collective bargaining
agreements. These agreements have expiration dates of
March 31, 2010, April 30, 2010, October 31, 2011
and January 31, 2012.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to certain claims and
litigation incidental to its business, including claims made by
various taxing and regulatory authorities, such as the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), IRS and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), as the result of audits or reviews of the
Companys business. 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
94
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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. In particular, the LDEQ has
proposed penalties totaling approximately $400 and supplemental
projects 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. The Company anticipates
that any penalties that may be assessed due to the alleged
violations will be consolidated in a settlement agreement that
the Company anticipates executing with the LDEQ in connection
with the agencys Small Refinery and Single Site
Refinery Initiative described below. The Company has
recorded a liability for the proposed penalty within other
current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
Environmental expenses are recorded within other expenses in the
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company is party to ongoing discussions on a voluntary basis
with the LDEQ regarding the Companys participation in that
agencys 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 Company
expects that the LDEQs primary focus under the state
initiative will be on four compliance and enforcement concerns:
(i) Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source
Review; (ii) New Source Performance Standards for fuel gas
combustion devices, including flares, heaters and boilers;
(iii) Leak Detection and Repair requirements; and
(iv) Benzene Waste Operations National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The Company is in discussions with
the LDEQ regarding its participation in this regulatory
initiative and the Company anticipates that it will be entering
into a settlement agreement with the LDEQ pursuant to which the
Company will be required to make emissions reductions requiring
capital investments between approximately $1,000 and $3,000 in
total over a three to five year period at its three Louisiana
refineries. Because the settlement agreement is also expected to
resolve the alleged air emissions issues at the Companys
Cotton Valley and Princeton refineries and consolidate any
penalties associated with such issues, the Company further
anticipates that a penalty of approximately $400 will be
assessed in connection with this settlement agreement.
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. During 2008, the Company determined that it
will incur approximately $700 of costs during 2009 at its Cotton
Valley refinery in connection with continued remediation of
groundwater impacts at that site.
The Company also is in separate discussions with the EPA to
resolve alleged deficiencies in risk management planning in
connection with a fire-related incident arising out of tank
cleaning and vacuum truck operations at its
95
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Shreveport refinery on October 30, 2008. The incident
involved a third-party contractor and resulted in damage to an
on-site
aboveground storage tank. Following an investigation of the
matter, EPA issued five violations against the Company,
alleging, among other things, inadequate contractor training and
oversight, and has proposed a penalty of $230. The Company is
currently evaluating its response to the EPA with respect to the
matter.
The Company is indemnified by Shell Oil Company
(Shell), 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.
The Company is indemnified on a limited basis by ConocoPhillips
Company and M.E. Zuckerman Specialty Oil Corporation, former
owners of Penreco, for pending, threatened, contemplated or
contingent environmental claims against Penreco, if any, that
were not known and identified as of the Penreco acquisition
date. A significant portion of these indemnifications will
expire two years from January 1, 2008 if there are no
claims asserted by the Company and are generally subject to a
$2,000 limit.
Health
and Safety
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, state and local government
authorities and citizens. 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
commissioned studies to assess the adequacy of its process
safety management practices at its Shreveport refinery.
Depending on the findings made in these studies, the Company may
incur capital expenditures over the next several years to
enhance these practices so that it may maintain its compliance
with applicable OSHA regulations at the refinery. While the
Company does not expect these expenditures to be material at
this time, it has not yet received the reports from the
engineering firms conducting the studies to reach final
resolution. The Company believes that its operations are in
substantial compliance with OSHA and similar state laws.
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, 2008 and 2007, the Company had
outstanding standby letters of credit of $21,355 and $96,676,
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, 2008 and 2007, the Company had availability to
issue letters of credit of $51,865 and $103,324, respectively,
under its revolving credit facility. As discussed in
Note 8, as of December 31, 2008 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, which bears interest at 4.0%.
96
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Borrowings under new senior secured first lien term loan with
third-party lenders, interest at rate of three-month LIBOR plus
4.00% (6.15% at December 31, 2008), interest and principal
payments quarterly with borrowings due January 2015, effective
interest rate of 7.84%
|
|
$
|
375,085
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured first lien term loan with
third-party lenders, interest at rate of three-month LIBOR plus
3.50% (8.74% at December 31, 2007), interest and principal
payments quarterly with borrowings due December 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,099
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured revolving credit agreement with
third-party lenders, interest at prime plus 0.50% (3.75% and
7.25% at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively),
interest payments monthly, borrowings due January 2013
|
|
|
102,539
|
|
|
|
6,958
|
|
Capital lease obligations, interest at 8.25%, interest and
principal payments quarterly with borrowings due January 2012
|
|
|
2,640
|
|
|
|
2,834
|
|
Less unamortized discount on new senior secured first lien term
loan with third-party lenders
|
|
|
(15,173
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
465,091
|
|
|
|
39,891
|
|
Less current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,811
|
|
|
|
943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
460,280
|
|
|
$
|
38,948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The borrowing capacity at December 31, 2008 under the
revolving credit facility was $175,759 with $51,865 available
for additional borrowings based on collateral and specified
availability limitations. The revolving credit facility has a
first priority lien on the Companys cash, accounts
receivable and inventory and a second priority lien on the
Companys fixed assets.
On January 3, 2008, the Partnership closed a new $435,000
senior secured first lien term loan facility which includes a
$385,000 term loan and a $50,000 prefunded letter of credit
facility to support crack spread hedging. The proceeds of the
term loan were used to (i) finance a portion of the
acquisition of Penreco, (ii) fund the anticipated growth in
working capital and remaining capital expenditures associated
with the Shreveport refinery expansion project,
(iii) refinance the existing term loan and (iv) to the
extent available, for general partnership purposes. The new term
loan bears interest at a rate equal (i) with respect to a
Eurodollar Loan, the Eurodollar Rate plus 400 basis points
and (ii) with respect to a Base Rate Loan, the Base Rate
plus 300 basis points (as defined in the term loan credit
agreement). The letter of credit facility to support crack
spread hedging bears interest at 4.0%.
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 matures in January 2015. 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.
On January 3, 2008, the Partnership amended its existing
senior secured revolving credit facility dated as of
December 9, 2005, Pursuant to this amendment, the revolving
credit facility lenders agreed to, among other things,
(i) increase the total availability under the revolving
credit facility up to $375,000 and (ii) conformed certain
of the financial covenants and other terms in the revolving
credit facility to those contained in the term loan credit
agreement. The existing senior secured revolving credit facility
matures on January 3, 2013.
During 2008, the Company has experienced adverse financial
conditions primarily attributable with historically high crude
oil costs and the impact of the Shreveport refinery expansion
project cost overruns and the delay in
97
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
the startup of the expansion project. 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,
2008, it was in compliance with all financial covenants under
its credit agreements. The Companys ability to maintain
compliance with these financial covenants in the quarter ended
December 31, 2008 was substantially enhanced by the
significant increase in specialty products segment gross profit
during the third and fourth quarters resulting from increased
selling prices for specialty products in the third quarter and
reductions in the cost of crude oil throughout the third and
fourth quarters. 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 on future
measurement dates. These steps have included increasing
specialty products sales prices, increasing crude oil price
hedging for the specialty products segment and reducing working
capital.
While assurances cannot be made regarding its future compliance
with the financial covenants in its credit agreements and being
cognizant of the general uncertain economic environment, the
Company anticipates that its strategic initiatives listed above
will allow it to maintain compliance with such financial
covenants and to continue to improve its Adjusted EBITDA,
liquidity and distributable cash flow.
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, 2008, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
4,811
|
|
2010
|
|
|
4,594
|
|
2011
|
|
|
4,460
|
|
2012
|
|
|
4,175
|
|
2013
|
|
|
106,389
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
355,835
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
480,264
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2007, the Company entered into a capital lease for catalyst
which will expire in 2012. Assets recorded under this capital
lease obligation are included in property, plant and equipment
consists of $3,736 and $3,565 as of December 31, 2008 and
2007, respectively. As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, the
Company had recorded $669 and $0, respectively, in amortization
for capital lease assets. The assets were placed in service in
2008.
98
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
As of December 31, 2008, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under capital leases as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
1,133
|
|
2010
|
|
|
845
|
|
2011
|
|
|
660
|
|
2012
|
|
|
330
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
2,968
|
|
Less amount representing interest
|
|
|
328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligation
|
|
|
2,640
|
|
Less obligations due within one year
|
|
|
961
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term capital lease obligation
|
|
$
|
1,679
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company had the following derivative instruments outstanding
as of December 31, 2008 and 2007.
Crude
Oil Collar and Swap Contracts Specialty Products
Segment
The Company utilizes combinations of options and swaps to manage
crude oil price risk and volatility of cash flows in its
specialty products segment. The Companys policy is
generally to enter into crude oil derivative contracts that
match its expected future cash out flows for up to 70% of its
anticipated crude oil purchases related to its specialty
products production. At December 31, 2008, the Company had
approximately 7,700 barrels per day of crude oil hedges
expiring in January 2009 through March 2009 and is at the lower
end of its targeted volume range of hedges for the specialty
products segment. These positions generally will be short term
in nature and expire within three to nine months from execution;
however, the Company may execute derivative contracts for up to
two years forward if its expected future cash flows support
lengthening its position.
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
four-way crude oil collar 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 $2,067 of losses in
unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2009
|
|
|
217,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
50.32
|
|
|
$
|
60.32
|
|
|
$
|
70.32
|
|
|
$
|
80.32
|
|
February 2009
|
|
|
84,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
38.33
|
|
|
|
48.33
|
|
|
|
58.33
|
|
|
|
68.33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
301,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
46.98
|
|
|
$
|
56.98
|
|
|
$
|
66.98
|
|
|
$
|
76.98
|
|
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following two-way
crude oil collar 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 $10,277 of losses in unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations for the year ended December 31,
2008.
99
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold Put
|
|
|
Bought Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2009
|
|
|
186,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
$
|
68.57
|
|
|
$
|
90.83
|
|
February 2009
|
|
|
112,000
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
74.85
|
|
|
|
96.25
|
|
March 2009
|
|
|
93,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
79.37
|
|
|
|
101.67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
391,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
72.94
|
|
|
$
|
94.96
|
|
At December 31, 2007, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its specialty
products segment, all of which were designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2008
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
67.85
|
|
|
$
|
77.85
|
|
|
$
|
87.85
|
|
|
$
|
97.85
|
|
February 2008
|
|
|
232,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
76.13
|
|
|
|
86.13
|
|
|
|
96.13
|
|
|
|
106.13
|
|
March 2008
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
77.63
|
|
|
|
87.63
|
|
|
|
97.63
|
|
|
|
107.63
|
|
April 2008
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
74.30
|
|
|
|
84.30
|
|
|
|
94.30
|
|
|
|
104.30
|
|
May 2008
|
|
|
62,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
74.30
|
|
|
|
84.30
|
|
|
|
94.30
|
|
|
|
104.30
|
|
June 2008
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
74.30
|
|
|
|
84.30
|
|
|
|
94.30
|
|
|
|
104.30
|
|
July 2008
|
|
|
62,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
74.30
|
|
|
|
84.30
|
|
|
|
94.30
|
|
|
|
104.30
|
|
August 2008
|
|
|
62,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
74.30
|
|
|
|
84.30
|
|
|
|
94.30
|
|
|
|
104.30
|
|
September 2008
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
74.30
|
|
|
|
84.30
|
|
|
|
94.30
|
|
|
|
104.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,094,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.01
|
|
|
$
|
84.01
|
|
|
$
|
94.01
|
|
|
$
|
104.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
91,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
90.92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude
Oil Swap Contracts Fuel Products
Segment
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage crude oil price
risk and volatility of cash flows in its fuel products segment.
The Companys policy is generally to enter into crude oil
swap contracts for a period no greater than five years forward
and for no more than 75% of crude purchases used in fuels
production. At December 31, 2008, the Company had the
following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,025,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
$
|
66.26
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,047,500
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
7,300,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
67.29
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
3,009,000
|
|
|
|
8,244
|
|
|
|
76.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
18,521,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
68.41
|
|
100
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil sales in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges. As a result of
these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the Company
recognized $14,278 of unrealized gains in unrealized gain
(loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements
of operations in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
$
|
62.66
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,825,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
62.66
|
|
At December 31, 2007, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products
segment, all of which were designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,184,000
|
|
|
|
24,000
|
|
|
|
67.87
|
|
Second Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,184,000
|
|
|
|
24,000
|
|
|
|
67.87
|
|
Third Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,208,000
|
|
|
|
24,000
|
|
|
|
66.54
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,116,000
|
|
|
|
23,000
|
|
|
|
66.49
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
8,212,500
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
7,482,500
|
|
|
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
67.27
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
2,096,500
|
|
|
|
5,744
|
|
|
|
67.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
26,483,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
66.97
|
|
Fuels
Product Swap Contracts
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 and gasoline swap contracts for a period no
greater than five years forward and for no more than 75% of
forecasted fuels sales.
Diesel
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2008, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,170,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
$
|
80.51
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,183,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
4,745,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.41
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
2,371,000
|
|
|
|
6,496
|
|
|
|
90.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
11,861,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
82.48
|
|
101
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2007, 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 except
for 42,520 barrels in 2008. As a result of certain of these
barrels not being designated as hedges, the Company recognized
$941 of losses in unrealized (loss) gain on derivative
instruments in the consolidated statements of operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
1,319,500
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
82.81
|
|
Second Quarter 2008
|
|
|
1,319,500
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
82.81
|
|
Third Quarter 2008
|
|
|
1,334,000
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
81.42
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2008
|
|
|
1,334,000
|
|
|
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
81.42
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
4,745,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
4,745,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.41
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
1,641,000
|
|
|
|
4,496
|
|
|
|
79.93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
16,438,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
80.94
|
|
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
855,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
$
|
73.83
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
864,500
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
874,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
874,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,555,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
75.28
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
638,000
|
|
|
|
1,748
|
|
|
|
83.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
6,660,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
75.30
|
|
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline purchases in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges. As a result of
these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the Company
recognized $15,851 of losses in unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
$
|
60.53
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,825,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
60.53
|
|
102
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2007, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
864,500
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
76.98
|
|
Second Quarter 2008
|
|
|
864,500
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
76.98
|
|
Third Quarter 2008
|
|
|
874,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
74.79
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2008
|
|
|
782,000
|
|
|
|
8,500
|
|
|
|
74.62
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
3,467,500
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,737,500
|
|
|
|
7,500
|
|
|
|
75.10
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
455,500
|
|
|
|
1,248
|
|
|
|
74.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
10,045,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.91
|
|
Natural
Gas Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage natural gas price
risk and volatility of cash flows. Certain of these swap
contracts are designated as cash flow hedges of the future
purchase of natural gas. 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, 2008, the
Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas
purchases, of which 90,000 MMBtus are designated as hedges.
As a result of a portion of these derivative instruments not
being designated as hedges, the Company recognized $1,223 of
losses in unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMBtus
|
|
|
$/MMBtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
330,000
|
|
|
$
|
10.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
330,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
10.38
|
|
At December 31, 2007, the Company had the following
derivatives related to natural gas purchases, all of which are
designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMBtu
|
|
|
$/MMBtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
850,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.76
|
|
Third Quarter 2008
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.30
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2008
|
|
|
90,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.30
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
90,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,090,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.66
|
|
Interest
Rate Swap Contracts
In 2008, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to its current variable rate
senior secured first lien term loan which closed January 3,
2008. The Company has 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.
103
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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 the 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 as of December 31,
2008. For the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company
recorded $2,188 of losses in unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2008. 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 which is not designated as a
cash flow hedge.
|
|
10.
|
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 in accordance
with SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements. The fair
value of our long-term debt was $305,084 at December 31, 2008.
The fair value of long-term debt materially approximated the
carrying value at December 31, 2007. 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, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
11.
|
Fair
Value Measurements
|
In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157).
SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States, and expands disclosures
about fair value measurements. The Company has adopted the
provisions of SFAS 157 as of January 1, 2008 for
financial instruments. In February 2008, the FASB agreed to
defer for one year the effective date of SFAS 157 for
certain nonfinancial assets and liabilities, except those that
are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial
statements on a recurring basis.
SFAS 157 establishes 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, as required by SFAS No. 157,
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, 2008, the Company held certain assets
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, natural gas and interest
rates, and investments associated with the Companys
non-contributory defined benefit plan (Pension Plan).
104
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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 single A or better. The
fair values of the Companys derivative instruments for
crude oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas 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, 2008, the Companys
asset was reduced by approximately $6,186 and its liability was
reduced by $564. Based on the use of various unobservable
inputs, principally non-performance risk and unobservable inputs
in forward years for gasoline 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.
The Companys assets measured at fair value on a recurring
basis subject to the disclosure requirements of SFAS 157 at
December 31, 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,780
|
|
|
|
103,780
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90,337
|
|
|
|
90,337
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
12,018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
12,018
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
194,117
|
|
|
$
|
206,135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119,202
|
)
|
|
$
|
(119,202
|
)
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,429
|
)
|
|
|
(1,429
|
)
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,345
|
)
|
|
|
(12,345
|
)
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,769
|
)
|
|
|
(5,769
|
)
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(138,745
|
)
|
|
$
|
(138,745
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (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, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative
|
|
|
|
Instruments, Net
|
|
|
Fair value at January 1, 2008
|
|
$
|
(600,051
|
)
|
Realized losses
|
|
|
58,833
|
|
Unrealized gains (losses)
|
|
|
17,141
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
58,610
|
|
Purchases, issuances and settlements
|
|
|
(21,709
|
)
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3
|
|
|
542,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
55,372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gains or losses included in net income attributable to
changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to financial
assets and liabilities held as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
3,454
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All settlements from derivative instruments that are deemed
effective and were designated as cash flow hedges as
defined in SFAS 133, are included in sales for gasoline and
diesel 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, as defined in SFAS 133, 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. See Note 9 for further information on
SFAS 133 and hedging.
On November 20, 2007, the Partnership completed an offering
of its common units in which it sold 2,800,000 common units to
the underwriters of the offering at a price to the public of
$36.98 per common unit. This issuance was made pursuant to the
Partnerships Registration Statement on
Form S-3
(File
No. 333-145657)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2007. The proceeds received by the Partnership
(net of underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses but
before its general partners capital contribution) from
this offering were $98,206. The use of proceeds from the
offering was to: (i) repay all its borrowings under its
revolving credit facility, which were approximately $59,300 on
November 20, 2007, (ii) fund approximately $25,100 of
the purchase price for the Penreco acquisition and (iii) to
the extent available, for general partnership purposes.
Underwriting discounts totaled $4,401. The general partner
contributed $2,113 to retain its 2% general partner interest.
Of the 19,166,000 common units outstanding at December 31,
2008, 13,085,985 are held by the public, with the remaining
6,080,015 held by the Companys affiliates. All of the
13,066,000 subordinated units are held by the Companys
affiliates. The Companys ability to issue new units is
limited to 6,533,000 units in certain circumstances where
the use of proceeds is not deemed to be accretive to existing
unitholders at the time of the offering.
Upon expiration of the subordination period, each outstanding
subordinated unit will convert into one common unit and will
then participate pro rata with the other common units in
distributions of available cash as defined in the Companys
partnership agreement. The subordination period will end on the
first day of any quarter beginning after
106
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
December 31, 2010 in which the Company meets certain
financial tests provided for in its partnership agreement.
Significant information regarding rights of the limited partners
include 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.
|
|
|
|
During the subordination period, the general partner, without
approval of the limited partners, may cause the Company to issue
up to 6,533,000 of additional common units. After the
subordination period, 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.
|
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 4.0 to 1 and a
Consolidated Interest Coverage Ratio of no less than 2.50 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 Consolidated Leverage Ratio steps down
from 4.0 to 1 to 3.75 to 1 and the Consolidated Interest
Coverage Ratio steps up from 2.50 to 1 to 2.75 to 1 effective
with the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Calumets distribution policy is as defined in its
partnership agreement. For the years ended December 31,
2008 and 2007, Calumet made distributions of $66,140 and
$77,045, respectively, to its partners.
|
|
13.
|
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
107
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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.
On December 28, 2007 and December 30, 2008,
non-employee directors of our general partner were granted
phantom units under the terms of the Plan as part of their
director compensation package related to fiscal years 2007 and
2008, respectively. These phantom units have a four year service
period, beginning on January 1, 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. 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 units as of
December 31, 2008, and the changes during the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Nonvested Phantom Units
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested at January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
7,296
|
|
|
|
33.63
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(1,824
|
)
|
|
|
33.63
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
5,472
|
|
|
$
|
33.63
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
6,480
|
|
|
|
37.00
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(3,444
|
)
|
|
|
35.22
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
8,508
|
|
|
$
|
35.56
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
30,192
|
|
|
|
7.79
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(10,992
|
)
|
|
|
16.38
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
27,708
|
|
|
$
|
12.91
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006,
compensation expense of $179, $121 and $61, respectively, was
recognized in the consolidated statements of operations related
to vested unit grants. As of December 31, 2008 and 2007,
there was a total of $358 and $303 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, 2008 and 2007, was $86 and $128.
|
|
14.
|
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
108
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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 $1,782, $950, and
$1,109 for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and
2006, respectively. The plan also includes a profit-sharing
component. Contributions under the profit-sharing component are
determined by the board of directors of the Companys
general partner and are discretionary. The Companys profit
sharing contribution was $1,123, $689, and $870 for the years
ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, 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 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. Effective
January 31, 2009, the Company has amended the Pension Plan.
The amendment removes the salaried employee from accumulating
additional benefits subsequent to January 31, 2009. All
information presented below has been adjusted for this
curtailment, which resulted in a reduction in the Companys
benefit obligation of $2,311.
The components of net periodic pension and other post retirement
benefits cost for the year ended December 31, 2008 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
945
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,298
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Expected return on assets
|
|
|
(1,341
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension cost
|
|
$
|
902
|
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company made
contributions of $193 and $63 to its Pension Plan and Other
Plans, respectively, and expects to make no contributions in
2009.
109
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Change in projected benefit obligation (PBO):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at January 3, 2008
|
|
$
|
20,097
|
|
|
$
|
872
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
945
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,298
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
(2,311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(630
|
)
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
1,613
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(116
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
20,896
|
|
|
$
|
839
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at January 3, 2008
|
|
$
|
18,183
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Benefit payments
|
|
|
(630
|
)
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
Actual return on assets
|
|
|
(5,612
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(116
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
Employer contribution
|
|
|
193
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
12,018
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status benefit obligation in excess of plan
assets
|
|
$
|
(8,878
|
)
|
|
$
|
(839
|
)
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
(2,311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
1,613
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Unexpected loss on plan assets
|
|
|
6,952
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
(2,624
|
)
|
|
$
|
(869
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets consisted
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
(8,878
|
)
|
|
$
|
(839
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
6,254
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
(2,624
|
)
|
|
$
|
(869
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accumulated benefit obligation for the Pension Plan was
$20,896 as of December 31, 2008. 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
$8,878 as of December 31, 2008. As of December 31,
2008, the Company had no prior service costs or transition gains
(losses) but recorded actuarial losses of $6,224 in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) in the consolidated balance
sheets.
The effective portion of the minimum pension liability
classified in accumulated other comprehensive loss is $6,224 as
of December 31, 2008. In 2009, the Company expects to
recognize $419 and $0, respectively, of losses
110
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
from accumulated other comprehensive loss for the Companys
Pension Plan and Other Postretirement Benefits Plan.
The significant weighted average assumptions used for the year
ended December 31, 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Other Post Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Discount rate for benefit obligations
|
|
|
6.18
|
%
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
Discount rate for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
6.58
|
%
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
7.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase for benefit obligations
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
For measurement purposes, a 8.6% annual rate of increase in the
per capita cost of covered health care benefits was assumed for
2009. 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 January 3, 2008. 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 and Other Plans asset
allocations, as of December 31, 2008 by asset category, are
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Employee
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
U.S. equities
|
|
|
77
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Foreign equities
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
Policy
The investment objective of the Penreco Pension Plan Trust (the
Trust) is to generate a long-term rate of return
which will fund the related pension liabilities and minimize the
Companys contributions to the Trust. Trust assets are to
be invested with an emphasis on providing a high level of
current income through fixed income investments and longer-term
capital appreciation through equity investments. Trust assets
are targeted to achieve an investment return of 7.50% or more
compounded annually over any
5-year
period. Due to the long-term nature of pension liabilities, the
Trust will assume moderate risk only to the extent necessary to
achieve its return objective.
The Trust pursues its investment objectives by investing in a
customized profile of asset allocation which corresponds to the
investment return target. Full discretion in portfolio
investment decisions is given to Wells Fargo & Company
or its affiliates (the Manager), subject to the
investment policy guidelines. The Manager is required to utilize
fiduciary care in all investment decisions and is expected to
minimize all costs and expenses involved with the managing of
these assets.
111
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
With consideration given to the long-term goals of the Trust,
the following ranges reflect the long-term strategy for
achieving the stated objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 the prudent
expert standard as mandated by ERISA. In the event market
environments create asset exposures outside of the policy
guidelines, reallocations will be made in an orderly manner.
Fixed
Income Guidelines
U.S. Treasury, agency securities, and corporate bond issues
rated investment grade or higher are considered
appropriate for this portfolio. Written approval will be
obtained to hold securities downgraded below investment
grade by either Moodys or Standard &
Poors. Money market and fixed-income funds that are
consistent with the stated investment objective of the Trust are
also considered acceptable.
Excluding U.S. Treasury and agency obligations, money
market or fixed-income mutual funds, no single issuer shall
exceed more than 10% of the total portfolio market value. The
average maturity range shall be consistent with the objective of
providing a high level of current income and long-term growth
within the acceptable risk level established for the Trust.
Equity
Guidelines
Any equity security that is on the Managers working list
is considered appropriate for this portfolio. Equity mutual
funds that are consistent with the stated investment objective
of the Trust are also considered acceptable. No individual
equity position, with the exception of equity mutual funds,
should exceed 10% of the total market value of the Trusts
assets.
Performance of investment results will be reviewed, at least
semiannually, by the Calumet Retirement Savings Committee
(CRSC) and annually at a joint meeting between the
CRSC and the Manager. Written communication regarding investment
performance occurs quarterly. Any major changes in the
Managers investment strategy will be communicated to the
Chairman of the CRSC on an ongoing basis and as frequently as
necessary. The Manager shall be informed of special situations
affecting Trust investments including substantial withdrawal or
funding pattern changes and changes in investment policy
guidelines and objectives.
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid in the years
indicated as of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Other Post Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
773
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
2010
|
|
|
820
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
2011
|
|
|
870
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
2012
|
|
|
949
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,041
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
2014 to 2018
|
|
|
6,527
|
|
|
|
342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
10,980
|
|
|
$
|
777
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
15.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006,
the Company had sales to related parties owned by a limited
partner of $7,973, $4,726 and $904, respectively. Trade accounts
and other receivables from related parties at December 31,
2008 and 2007 were $1,828 and $497, respectively. The Company
also had purchases from related parties owned by a limited
partner, excluding crude purchases related to the Legacy
agreement discussed below, during the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 of $615, $1,730 and
$1,228, respectively. Accounts payable to related parties,
excluding accounts payable related to Legacy agreement discussed
below, at December 31, 2008 and 2007 were $774 and $907,
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
Co., L.P. (Legacy). Legacy is owned in part by one
of the Companys limited partners, an affiliate of the
Companys general partner, the Companys chief
executive officer and president, F. William Grube, and Jennifer
G. Straumins, the Companys senior vice president. Based on
historical usage, the estimated volume of crude oil to be sold
by Legacy and purchased by the Company is approximately
6,000 barrels per day. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, the Company had crude oil purchases of
$140,180 from Legacy. Accounts payable to Legacy at
December 31, 2008 related to this agreement were $6,395.
A limited partner has provided certain administrative and
accounting services to the Company for an annual fee. Such
services included, but were not necessarily limited to, advice
and assistance concerning aspects of the operation, planning,
and human resources of the Company. Payments for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 were $0, $227 and $549,
respectively. The Company terminated these services during the
year ended December 31, 2007.
The Company previously participated in a self-insurance program
for medical benefits with a limited partner and several other
related companies. In connection with this program,
contributions were made to a voluntary employees benefit
association (VEBA) trust. Contributions made by the Company to
the VEBA for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and
2006 totaled $0, $876 and $3,093, respectively. The Company
terminated participation in this related party VEBA during the
year ended December 31, 2007 and established a new VEBA of
which it is the sole participant and administered by its general
partner.
During 2006 and prior, the Company had placed a portion of its
insurance underwriting requirements, including general
liability, automobile liability, excess liability, workers
compensation as well as directors and officers
liability with a commercial insurance brokerage business. A
member of the board of directors of our general partner serves
as an executive of this commercial insurance brokerage company.
The total premiums paid to this company by Calumet for the years
ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 were $634, $889 and
$1,647 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, 2008 and 2007.
The Company previously participated in a self-insurance program
for workers compensation with a limited partner and
several other related companies. In connection with this
program, contributions were made to the limited partner.
Contributions made by the Company to the limited partner for the
years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 totaled $0,
$254 and $213, respectively. The Company terminated
participation in this plan during the year ended
December 31, 2007 and established a self-insurance program
on a standalone basis.
The Company previously participated in a self-insurance program
for general liability with a limited partner and several related
companies. In connection with this program, contributions were
made to the limited partner. Contributions made by the Company
to the limited partner for the years ended December 31,
2008, 2007 and 2006 totaled $0, $998 and $563, respectively. The
Company terminated participation in this plan during the year
ended December 31, 2007 and established a self-insurance
program on a standalone basis.
113
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
16.
|
Segments
and Related Information
|
Under the provisions of SFAS No. 131, Disclosures
about Segments of an Enterprise 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, 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
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
72,709
|
|
|
|
56,031
|
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,740
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33,938
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
388
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(898
|
)
|
Loss on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55,379
|
)
|
Gain on sale of mineral rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,770
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(257
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,437
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
167,702
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
167,702
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
167,702
|
|
114
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
866,716
|
|
|
$
|
771,132
|
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
691,592
|
|
|
|
32,651
|
|
|
|
724,243
|
|
|
|
(724,243
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,558,308
|
|
|
$
|
803,783
|
|
|
$
|
2,362,091
|
|
|
$
|
(724,243
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
17,775
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,775
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,775
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
42,282
|
|
|
|
58,918
|
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,717
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,944
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,781
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(919
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(501
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
261,015
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
261,015
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
261,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
913,143
|
|
|
$
|
727,905
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
653,842
|
|
|
|
34,135
|
|
|
|
687,977
|
|
|
|
(687,977
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,566,985
|
|
|
$
|
762,040
|
|
|
$
|
2,329,025
|
|
|
$
|
(687,977
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
15,027
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,027
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,027
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
83,526
|
|
|
|
39,607
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,045
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(190
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
76,064
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
76,064
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
76,064
|
|
115
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Segment assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
2,208,741
|
|
|
$
|
1,462,996
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
|
1,483,457
|
|
|
|
1,019,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined segments
|
|
|
3,692,198
|
|
|
|
2,482,145
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
(2,611,136
|
)
|
|
|
(1,803,288
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,081,062
|
|
|
$
|
678,857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.
|
Geographic
Information
|
International sales accounted for less than 10% of consolidated
sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2008,
2007 and 2006. 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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
841,225
|
|
|
$
|
478,132
|
|
|
$
|
509,933
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
419,831
|
|
|
|
199,843
|
|
|
|
201,931
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
142,525
|
|
|
|
61,621
|
|
|
|
61,192
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
30,389
|
|
|
|
52,449
|
|
|
|
41,268
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
144,065
|
|
|
|
74,671
|
|
|
|
98,819
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,578,035
|
|
|
|
866,716
|
|
|
|
913,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
332,669
|
|
|
|
307,144
|
|
|
|
336,681
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
379,739
|
|
|
|
203,659
|
|
|
|
207,148
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
186,675
|
|
|
|
225,868
|
|
|
|
176,372
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
11,876
|
|
|
|
34,461
|
|
|
|
7,704
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
910,959
|
|
|
|
771,132
|
|
|
|
727,905
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 2008, 2007 and 2006.
116
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
17.
|
Quarterly
Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Total (1)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
594,723
|
|
|
$
|
671,220
|
|
|
$
|
724,371
|
|
|
$
|
498,680
|
|
|
$
|
2,488,994
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
34,834
|
|
|
|
60,882
|
|
|
|
76,974
|
|
|
|
81,193
|
|
|
|
253,883
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
(3,392
|
)
|
|
|
41,808
|
|
|
|
(12,515
|
)
|
|
|
18,536
|
|
|
|
44,437
|
|
Basic and diluted net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
0.96
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
|
$
|
2.41
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
(0.91
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.96
|
|
|
$
|
(1.60
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
|
$
|
(1.00
|
)
|
Weighted average limited partner common units outstanding
basic
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units outstanding
diluted
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
19,166,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner subordinated units
outstanding basic and diluted
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Total(1)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
351,113
|
|
|
$
|
421,726
|
|
|
$
|
428,084
|
|
|
$
|
436,925
|
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
55,034
|
|
|
|
60,471
|
|
|
|
37,875
|
|
|
|
27,976
|
|
|
|
181,356
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
28,210
|
|
|
|
37,418
|
|
|
|
9,456
|
|
|
|
7,790
|
|
|
|
82,874
|
|
Basic and diluted net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
0.94
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
2.63
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
0.94
|
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units outstanding
basic
|
|
|
16,366,000
|
|
|
|
16,366,000
|
|
|
|
16,366,000
|
|
|
|
17,613,826
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units outstanding
diluted
|
|
|
16,367,000
|
|
|
|
16,368,000
|
|
|
|
16,369,000
|
|
|
|
17,615,246
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner subordinated units
outstanding basic and diluted
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The sum of the four quarters may not equal the total year due to
rounding. |
On January 22, 2009, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.45 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$14,800, for the quarter ended December 31, 2008. The
distribution was paid on February 13, 2009 to unitholders
of record as of the close of business on February 3, 2009.
This quarterly distribution of $0.45 per unit equates to $1.80
per unit, or $59,202 on an annualized basis.
117
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
On January 26, 2009, the Company entered into a crude oil
supply agreement with Legacy Resources Co., L.P.
(Legacy) an affiliate of the Companys general
partner. Under the agreement, it is contemplated that Legacy
will supply the Companys 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 is 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 and purchased by the Company
under this Agreement is up to 15,000 barrels per day.
Legacy is owned in part by The Heritage Group, an affiliate of
the Companys general partner, in part by the
Companys general partners chief executive officer
and president, F. William Grube, and in part by the
Companys general partners senior vice president,
Jennifer G. Straumins.
118
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, 2008. 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, 2008, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 27, 2009
119
CALUMET
GP, LLC
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
313
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $2,121
|
|
|
103,993
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109,587
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
118,524
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
71,199
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
1,803
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
4,021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
305,447
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
659,684
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
48,335
|
|
Other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
49,502
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
18,390
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,081,358
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND MEMBERS CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
87,460
|
|
Accounts payable related party
|
|
|
6,395
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
6,865
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
6,833
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
9,662
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,811
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
15,827
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
137,853
|
|
Pension and post-retirement benefit obligations
|
|
|
9,717
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
460,280
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
607,850
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
242,632
|
|
Members capital
|
|
|
175,310
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
55,566
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members capital
|
|
|
230,876
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and members capital
|
|
$
|
1,081,358
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated balance sheet.
120
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 we consolidate our interest in the
Partnership (collectively Calumet or the Company).
Calumet is engaged in the production and marketing of crude
oil-based specialty lubricating oils, fuels, solvents and waxes.
Calumet owns refineries located in Princeton, Louisiana, Cotton
Valley, Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana, Karns City,
Pennsylvania, Dickenson, Texas and a terminal located in
Burnham, Illinois.
On January 3, 2008, Calumet closed on its acquisition of
Penreco, a Texas general partnership. See Note 4.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the GP received
cash distributions of $1,018 from the Partnership and
distributed $1,018 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.
121
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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
24,955
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
43,735
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
49,834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
118,524
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $27,517 higher as of
December 31, 2008.
Accounts
Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. Accounts receivables are generally due
within 30 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,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
786
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
1,448
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
|
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.
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
3,249
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to 40 years)
|
|
|
6,626
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to 20 years)
|
|
|
711,122
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to 10 years)
|
|
|
2,682
|
|
Assets under capital leases (4 years)
|
|
|
4,015
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
25,065
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
752,759
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(93,075
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
659,684
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122
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, 2008, the Company
incurred $41,159 of interest expense of which $7,221 was
capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.
The Company has not recorded an asset retirement obligation as
of December 31, 2008 because such potential obligations cannot
be measured since it is not possible to estimate the settlement
dates.
Accumulated depreciation above includes $669 of depreciation
expense related to the Companys capitalized lease assets.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of purchase price over fair value
of the net assets acquired in the Penreco acquisition. In
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(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. The 2008
annual impairment review resulted in no impairment charge. For
more information, refer to Note 6.
Other
Intangible Assets
Other intangible assets primarily consist of supply agreements,
customer relationships, non-compete agreements and patents
acquired in the Penreco acquisition. 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 6.
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 market value of the long-lived asset. Fair
market value is determined primarily using anticipated cash
flows 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.
123
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 generally does not
require collateral. 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, default
percentages 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,
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
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 limited liability company, 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, Calumet Penreco, LLC 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 members, with earnings of
the Company included in members earnings.
In the event that the Partnerships taxable income did not
meet certain qualification requirements, it would be taxed as a
corporation. Related to these qualifications, the Partnership
requested a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) with respect to the qualifying nature of
income generated from the Penreco assets and business
operations. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the IRS provided a
favorable ruling. 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,
2008. The Companys income taxes generally remain subject
to examination by major tax jurisdictions for a period of three
years.
Effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted the
provisions of Financial Interpretation No. 48,Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of
SFAS Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes. The Interpretation clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes by prescribing a recognition
threshold and measurement methodology for the financial
statement recognition and measurement of a tax position to be
taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The
implementation of the Interpretation did not have a material
effect on the Companys financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
Derivatives
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. In accordance with
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities, which was amended in June 2000 by
SFAS No. 138, Accounting for Certain Derivative
Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities an
amendment of FASB Statement No. 133, and in May 2003 by
SFAS No. 149, Amendment of Statement 133 on
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, (collectively
referred to as SFAS 133), the Company
recognizes all derivative instruments as either assets or
liabilities at fair value on the balance sheets. The Company
utilizes third party valuations and published market data to
determine the fair value of these derivative instruments. To the
extent a derivative instrument is designated 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
instrument is deferred in accumulated other comprehensive income
(loss), a component of partners capital. The Company
accounts for certain derivatives hedging purchases of crude oil
and natural gas, the sale of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and
the payment of interest as
124
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
cash flow hedges. The derivative instruments designated as
hedging purchases and sales are recorded to cost of sales and
sales in the consolidated statements of operations,
respectively, upon recording the related hedged transaction in
sales or cost of sales. The derivative instruments designated as
hedging payments of interest are recorded in interest expense in
the consolidated statements of operations. For the year ended
December 31, 2008, the Company has recorded derivative
losses of $297,319 to sales and derivative gains of $306,079 to
cost of sales in the consolidated statements of operations.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company
recorded a loss of $49,746 on crude oil collar, interest rate
swap and natural gas swap derivative settlements in realized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations due to the derivative transactions not
being designated as cash flow hedges. An interest rate swap loss
of $554 for the year ended December 31, 2008, was recorded
to interest expense in the consolidated statements of
operations. 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
or 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 loss on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an
ongoing basis, whether the derivative instruments that are used
in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting
changes in cash flows of hedged items. The Companys
estimate of the ineffective portion of the hedges for the year
ended December 31, 2008 was a gain of $3,730 which was
recorded to unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments and
realized loss on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations.
The effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) is $61,790 as of
December 31, 2008 and, absent a change in the fair market
value of the underlying transactions, will be reclassified to
earnings by December 31, 2011 with balances being
recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
24,878
|
|
2010
|
|
|
27,102
|
|
2011
|
|
|
9,810
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
61,790
|
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance by its counterparties on these derivative
instruments. The Company executes all its derivative instruments
with a small number of counterparties, the majority of which are
large financial institutions with ratings of at least A1 and A+
by Moodys and S&P, respectively. In the event of
default, the Company would potentially be subject to losses on a
derivative instruments 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.
The Company does not expect nonperformance on any derivative
instrument.
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets consist of deferred debt issuance costs
and turnaround costs. Deferred debt issuance costs were $8,899
as of December 31, 2008 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 $2,160 at December 31, 2008.
125
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 were
$9,491 as of December 31, 2008. The Company capitalizes
these costs and amortizes the cost on a straight-line basis over
the lives of the turnaround assets. These amounts are net of
accumulated amortization of $2,586 at December 31, 2008.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (the Statement). The
Statement applies to assets and liabilities required or
permitted to be measured at fair value under other accounting
pronouncements. The Statement defines fair value, establishes a
framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosure
requirements about fair value, but does not provide guidance
whether assets and liabilities are required or permitted to be
measured at fair value. The Statement is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company
adopted the Statement on January 1, 2008 and applied the
various disclosures as required by the Statement. The adoption
of this Statement did not have a material affect on the
Companys financial position or results of operations. In
February 2008, the FASB agreed to defer for one year the
effective date of the Statement for certain nonfinancial assets
and liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed
at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis.
In April 2007, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. FIN 39-1,
Amendment of FASB Interpretation No. 39 (the
Position), which amends certain aspects of FASB
Interpretation Number 39, Offsetting of Amounts Related to
Certain Contracts. The Position permits companies to offset
fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash
collateral or the obligation to return cash collateral against
fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments
executed with the same counterparty under a master netting
arrangement. The Position is effective for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007. The Companys
accounting policy is to not offset fair value amounts recognized
for the right at reclaim cash collateral or the obligation to
return cash collateral against fair value amounts recognized for
derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under
the same master netting arrangements. As of December 31, 2008,
the Company has provided cash margin of $4.0 million in credit
support to certain of its hedging counterparties.
In December 2007, the FASB issued FASB Statement
No. 141(R), Business Combinations (the
Statement). The Statement applies to the financial
accounting and reporting of business combinations. The Statement
is effective for business combination transactions for which the
acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first
annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15,
2008. The Company anticipates that the Statement will not have a
material effect on its financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161,
Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133
(SFAS 161). SFAS 161 requires entities
that utilize derivative instruments to provide qualitative
disclosures about their objectives and strategies for using such
instruments, as well as any details of credit-risk-related
contingent features contained within derivatives. SFAS 161
also requires entities to disclose additional information about
the amounts and location of derivatives located within the
financial statements, how the provisions of SFAS 133 have
been applied, and the impact that hedges have on an
entitys financial position, results of operations, and
cash flows. SFAS 161 is effective for fiscal years and
interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with
early application encouraged. The Company currently provides an
abundance of information about its hedging activities and use of
derivatives in its quarterly and annual filings with the SEC,
including many of the disclosures contained within
SFAS 161. Thus, the Company currently does not anticipate
the adoption of SFAS 161 will have a material impact on the
disclosures already provided.
In March 2008, the FASB issued EITF Issue
No. 07-4,
Application of the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement
No. 128 to Master Limited Partnerships
(EITF 07-4).
EITF 07-4
requires master limited partnerships to treat 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.
EITF 07-4
requires that
126
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
undistributed earnings be allocated to the partnership interests
based on the allocation of earnings to capital accounts as
specified in the respective partnership agreement. When
distributions exceed earnings,
EITF 07-4
requires that net income be reduced by the actual distributions
with the resulting net loss being allocated to capital accounts
as specified in the respective partnership agreement.
EITF 07-4
is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning
after December 15, 2008. The Company is evaluating the
potential impacts of
EITF 07-4.
In April 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. 142-3,
Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible Assets,
(FSP
No. 142-3)
that amends the factors considered in developing renewal or
extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
(SFAS No. 142). FSP
No. 142-3
requires a consistent approach between the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset under SFAS No. 142 and the
period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of
an asset under SFAS No. 141(R), Business
Combinations. FSP
No. 142-3
also requires enhanced disclosures when an intangible
assets expected future cash flows are affected by an
entitys intent
and/or
ability to renew or extend the arrangement. FSP
No. 142-3
is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2008 and is applied
prospectively. Early adoption is prohibited. The Company does
not expect the adoption of FSP
No. 142-3
will have a material impact on its consolidated results of
operations or financial condition.
|
|
4.
|
Acquisition
of Penreco
|
On January 3, 2008 the Company acquired Penreco, a Texas
general partnership, for $269,118, net of the cash acquired.
Penreco was owned by ConocoPhillips Company and M.E. Zukerman
Specialty Oil Corporation. Penreco manufactures and markets
highly-refined products and specialty solvents, including white
mineral oils, petrolatums, natural petroleum sulfonates,
cable-filling compounds, refrigeration oils, food-grade
compressor lubricants and gelled products. The acquisition
included facilities in Karns City, Pennsylvania and Dickinson,
Texas, as well as several long-term supply agreements with
ConocoPhillips Company.
The Company believes that this acquisition provides several key
strategic benefits, including market synergies within its
solvents and lubricating oil product lines, additional
operational and logistics flexibility and overhead cost
reductions resulting from the acquisition. The acquisition also
broadens the Companys customer base and gives the Company
access to new markets.
As a result of the acquisition, the assets and liabilities
previously held by Penreco and results of the operations of
these assets have been included in the Companys
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of
operations since the date of acquisition.
The Company recorded $48,335 of goodwill as a result of this
acquisition, all of which was recorded within the Companys
specialty products segment. The allocation of the aggregate
purchase price is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
$
|
42,049
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
66,392
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
70
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
91,790
|
|
Other noncurrent assets
|
|
|
288
|
|
Intangibles
|
|
|
59,325
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
48,335
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(29,014
|
)
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(7,331
|
)
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
(2,786
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
269,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The components of intangible assets listed in the table above as
of January 3, 2008, based upon a third party appraisal,
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
Customer relationships
|
|
$
|
28,482
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Supplier agreements
|
|
|
21,519
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Patents
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Non-competition agreements
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Distributor agreements
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
59,325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average amortization period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
The Company formulated its plan associated with the involuntary
termination of certain non-union Penreco employees and accrued
$1,829 for such costs, which are included in the acquisition
liabilities. All affected employees have been terminated and
substantially all liabilities have been paid as of
December 31, 2008.
|
|
5.
|
Shreveport
Refinery Expansion
|
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company
invested an additional $119,630 for a total investment of
$374,044 in its Shreveport refinery expansion project. The
project was completed and operational in May 2008. Additionally,
for the years ended December 31, 2008, the Company had
invested $40,753 in the Shreveport refinery for other capital
expenditures including projects to improve efficiency,
de-bottleneck certain operating units and for new product
development.
|
|
6.
|
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
|
The Company has recorded $48,335 of goodwill as a result of the
Penreco acquisition, all of which is recorded within the
Companys specialty products segment.
Other intangible assets consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
Average Life
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Customer relationships
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
28,482
|
|
|
$
|
(4,071
|
)
|
Supplier agreements
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
21,519
|
|
|
|
(7,539
|
)
|
Patents
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
(313
|
)
|
Non-competition agreements
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5,732
|
|
|
|
(768
|
)
|
Distributor agreements
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
(758
|
)
|
Royalty agreements
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
4,116
|
|
|
|
(490
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
63,441
|
|
|
$
|
(13,939
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets associated with supplier agreements,
non-competition agreements, patents and distributor agreements
are being amortized on an accelerated basis in order to properly
match expense with the estimated future cash flows 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 based upon an assumed
rate of annual customer attrition.
128
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
7.
|
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 and office facilities
that extend through August 2015. Renewal options are available
on certain of these leases in which the Company is the lessee.
As of December 31, 2008, 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
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
12,665
|
|
2010
|
|
|
10,154
|
|
2011
|
|
|
8,133
|
|
2012
|
|
|
6,223
|
|
2013
|
|
|
4,438
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
4,075
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
45,688
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historically, the Company has purchased a portion of its crude
oil under a contract that contained minimum purchase
requirements. This contract expired during 2008 and the Company
has fulfilled all commitments under the contract. Total
purchases under this contract were $690,359 for the year ended
December 31, 2008. The Company is currently purchasing all
of its crude oil under evergreen contracts or on a spot basis.
As of December 31, 2008, the estimated minimum purchase
requirements under our crude oil contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
149,613
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
149,613
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In connection with the closing of the Penreco acquisition 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 $37,365 of feedstock for
the LVT unit in each of the next four years based on pricing
estimates as of December 31, 2008. 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.
129
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Labor
Matters
The Company has approximately 360 employees out of a total
of approximately 630 covered by various collective bargaining
agreements. These agreements have expiration dates of
March 31, 2010, April 30, 2010, October 31, 2011
and January 31, 2012.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to certain claims and
litigation incidental to its business, including claims made by
various taxing and regulatory authorities, such as the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), IRS and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), as the result of audits or reviews of the
Companys business. 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. In particular, the LDEQ has
proposed penalties totaling approximately $400 and supplemental
projects 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. The Company anticipates
that any penalties that may be assessed due to the alleged
violations will be consolidated in a settlement agreement that
the Company anticipates executing with the LDEQ in connection
with the agencys Small Refinery and Single Site
Refinery Initiative described below. The Company has
recorded a liability for the proposed penalty within other
current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
Environmental expenses are recorded within other expenses in the
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company is party to ongoing discussions on a voluntary basis
with the LDEQ regarding the Companys participation in that
agencys 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
130
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
enforcement strategy to address federal Clean Air Act compliance
issues at the nations largest petroleum refineries. The
Company expects that the LDEQs primary focus under the
state initiative will be on four compliance and enforcement
concerns: (i) Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New
Source Review; (ii) New Source Performance Standards for
fuel gas combustion devices, including flares, heaters and
boilers; (iii) Leak Detection and Repair requirements; and
(iv) Benzene Waste Operations National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The Company is in discussions with
the LDEQ regarding its participation in this regulatory
initiative and the Company anticipates that it will be entering
into a settlement agreement with the LDEQ pursuant to which the
Company will be required to make emissions reductions requiring
capital investments between approximately $1,000 and $3,000 in
total over a three to five year period at its three Louisiana
refineries. Because the settlement agreement is also expected to
resolve the alleged air emissions issues at the Companys
Cotton Valley and Princeton refineries and consolidate any
penalties associated with such issues, the Company further
anticipates that a penalty of approximately $400 will be
assessed in connection with this settlement agreement.
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. During 2008, the Company determined that it
will incur approximately $700 of costs during 2009 at its Cotton
Valley refinery in connection with continued remediation of
groundwater impacts at that site.
The Company also is in separate discussions with the EPA to
resolve alleged deficiencies in risk management planning in
connection with a fire-related incident arising out of tank
cleaning and vacuum truck operations at its Shreveport refinery
on October 30, 2008. The incident involved a third-party
contractor and resulted in damage to an
on-site
aboveground storage tank. Following an investigation of the
matter, EPA issued five violations against the Company,
alleging, among other things, inadequate contractor training and
oversight, and has proposed a penalty of $230. The Company is
currently evaluating its response to the EPA with respect to the
matter.
The Company is indemnified by Shell Oil Company
(Shell), 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.
The Company is indemnified on a limited basis by ConocoPhillips
Company and M.E. Zuckerman Specialty Oil Corporation, former
owners of Penreco, for pending, threatened, contemplated or
contingent environmental claims against Penreco, if any, that
were not known and identified as of the Penreco acquisition
date. A significant portion of these indemnifications will
expire two years from January 1, 2008 if there are no
claims asserted by the Company and are generally subject to a
$2,000 limit.
Health
and Safety
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, state and local government
authorities and citizens. 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
commissioned studies to assess the adequacy of its process
safety management practices at its Shreveport refinery.
Depending on the findings made in these studies, the
131
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Company may incur capital expenditures over the next several
years to enhance these practices so that it may maintain its
compliance with applicable OSHA regulations at the refinery.
While the Company does not expect these expenditures to be
material at this time, it has not yet received the reports from
the engineering firms conducting the studies to reach final
resolution. The Company believes that its operations are in
substantial compliance with OSHA and similar state laws.
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, 2008, the Company had outstanding
standby letters of credit of $21,355 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, 2008, the Company
had availability to issue letters of credit of $51,865 under its
revolving credit facility. As discussed in Note 8, as of
December 31, 2008 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, which bears
interest at 4.0%.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Borrowings under new senior secured first lien term loan with
third-party lenders, interest at rate of three-month LIBOR plus
4.00% (6.15% at December 31, 2008), interest and principal
payments quarterly with borrowings due January 2015, effective
interest rate of 7.84%
|
|
$
|
375,085
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured first lien term loan with
third-party lenders, interest at rate of three-month LIBOR plus
3.50% (8.74% at December 31, 2007), interest and principal
payments quarterly with borrowings due December 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured revolving credit agreement with
third-party lenders, interest at prime plus 0.50% (3.75% and
7.25% at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively),
interest payments monthly, borrowings due January 2013
|
|
|
102,539
|
|
Capital lease obligations, interest at 8.25%, interest and
principal payments quarterly with borrowings due January 2012
|
|
|
2,640
|
|
Less unamortized discount on new senior secured first lien term
loan with third-party lenders
|
|
|
(15,173
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
465,091
|
|
Less current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
4,811
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
460,280
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The borrowing capacity at December 31, 2008 under the
revolving credit facility was $175,759, with $51,865 available
for additional borrowings based on collateral and specified
availability limitations. The revolving credit facility has a
first priority lien on the Companys cash, accounts
receivable and inventory and a second priority lien on the
Companys fixed assets.
On January 3, 2008, the Partnership closed a new $435,000
senior secured first lien term loan facility which includes a
$385,000 term loan and a $50,000 prefunded letter of credit
facility to support crack spread hedging. The proceeds of the
term loan were used to (i) finance a portion of the
acquisition of Penreco, (ii) fund the anticipated growth in
working capital and remaining capital expenditures associated
with the Shreveport refinery expansion project,
(iii) refinance the existing term loan and (iv) to the
extent available, for general partnership purposes. The new term
loan bears interest at a rate equal (i) with respect to a
Eurodollar Loan, the Eurodollar Rate plus 400 basis
132
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
points and (ii) with respect to a Base Rate Loan, the Base
Rate plus 300 basis points (as defined in the term loan
credit agreement). The letter of credit facility to support
crack spread hedging bears interest at 4.0%.
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 matures in January 2015. 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.
On January 3, 2008, the Partnership amended its existing
senior secured revolving credit facility dated as of
December 9, 2005, Pursuant to this amendment, the revolving
credit facility lenders agreed to, among other things,
(i) increase the total availability under the revolving
credit facility up to $375,000 and (ii) conformed certain
of the financial covenants and other terms in the revolving
credit facility to those contained in the term loan credit
agreement. The existing senior secured revolving credit facility
matures on January 3, 2013.
During 2008, the Company has experienced adverse financial
conditions primarily attributable with historically high crude
oil costs and the impact of the Shreveport refinery expansion
project cost overruns and the delay in the startup of the
expansion project. 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, 2008, it was in
compliance with all financial covenants under its credit
agreements. The Companys ability to maintain compliance
with these financial covenants in the quarter ended
December 31, 2008 was substantially enhanced by the
significant increase in specialty products segment gross profit
during the third and fourth quarters resulting from increased
selling prices for specialty products in the third quarter and
reductions in the cost of crude oil throughout the third and
fourth quarters. 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 on future
measurement dates. These steps have included increasing
specialty products sales prices, increasing crude oil price
hedging for the specialty products segment and reducing working
capital.
While assurances cannot be made regarding its future compliance
with the financial covenants in its credit agreements and being
cognizant of the general uncertain economic environment, the
Company anticipates that its strategic initiatives listed above
will allow it to maintain compliance with such financial
covenants and to continue to improve its Adjusted EBITDA,
liquidity and distributable cash flow.
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.
133
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
As of December 31, 2008, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
4,811
|
|
2010
|
|
|
4,594
|
|
2011
|
|
|
4,460
|
|
2012
|
|
|
4,175
|
|
2013
|
|
|
106,389
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
355,835
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
480,264
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2007, the Company entered into a capital lease for catalyst
which will expire in 2012. Assets recorded under this capital
lease obligation are included in property, plant and equipment
consists of $3,736 as of December 31, 2008. As of
December 31, 2008, the Company had recorded $669 in
amortization for capital lease assets. The assets were placed in
service in 2008.
As of December 31, 2008, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under capital leases as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
1,133
|
|
2010
|
|
|
845
|
|
2011
|
|
|
660
|
|
2012
|
|
|
330
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
2,968
|
|
Less amount representing interest
|
|
|
328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligation
|
|
|
2,640
|
|
Less obligations due within one year
|
|
|
961
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term capital lease obligation
|
|
$
|
1,679
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company had the following derivative instruments outstanding
as of December 31, 2008.
Crude
Oil Collar and Swap Contracts Specialty Products
Segment
The Company utilizes combinations of options and swaps to manage
crude oil price risk and volatility of cash flows in its
specialty products segment. The Companys policy is
generally to enter into crude oil derivative contracts that
match its expected future cash out flows for up to 70% of its
anticipated crude oil purchases related to its specialty
products production. At December 31, 2008, the Company had
approximately 7,700 barrels per day of crude oil hedges
expiring in January 2009 through March 2009 and the Company is
at the lower end of its targeted volume range of hedges for the
specialty products segment. These positions generally will be
short term in nature and expire within three to nine months from
execution; however, the Company may execute derivative contracts
for up to two years forward if its expected future cash flows
support lengthening its position.
134
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
four-way crude oil collar 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 $2,067 of losses in
unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2009
|
|
|
217,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
50.32
|
|
|
$
|
60.32
|
|
|
$
|
70.32
|
|
|
$
|
80.32
|
|
February 2009
|
|
|
84,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
38.33
|
|
|
|
48.33
|
|
|
|
58.33
|
|
|
|
68.33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
301,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
46.98
|
|
|
$
|
56.98
|
|
|
$
|
66.98
|
|
|
$
|
76.98
|
|
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following two-way
crude oil collar 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 $10,277 of losses in unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statements of operations for the year ended December 31,
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold Put
|
|
|
Bought Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2009
|
|
|
186,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
$
|
68.57
|
|
|
$
|
90.83
|
|
February 2009
|
|
|
112,000
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
74.85
|
|
|
|
96.25
|
|
March 2009
|
|
|
93,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
79.37
|
|
|
|
101.67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
391,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
72.94
|
|
|
$
|
94.96
|
|
Crude
Oil Swap Contracts Fuel Products
Segment
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, 2008, the Company had the
following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,025,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
$
|
66.26
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,047,500
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
2,070,000
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
66.26
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
7,300,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
67.29
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
3,009,000
|
|
|
|
8,244
|
|
|
|
76.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
18,521,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
68.41
|
|
135
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil sales in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges. As a result of
these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the Company
recognized $14,278 of unrealized gains in unrealized gain (loss)
on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
$
|
62.66
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
62.66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,825,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
62.66
|
|
Fuels
Product Swap Contracts
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 and gasoline swap contracts for a period no
greater than five years forward and for no more than 75% of
forecasted fuels sales.
Diesel
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2008, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,170,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
$
|
80.51
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,183,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
1,196,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
4,745,000
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
80.41
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
2,371,000
|
|
|
|
6,496
|
|
|
|
90.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
11,861,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
82.48
|
|
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels Sold
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
855,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
$
|
73.83
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
864,500
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
874,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
874,000
|
|
|
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
73.83
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,555,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
75.28
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
638,000
|
|
|
|
1,748
|
|
|
|
83.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
6,660,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
75.30
|
|
136
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2008, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline purchases in its fuel products
segment, none of which are designated as hedges. As a result of
these derivatives not being designated as hedges, the Company
recognized $15,851 of losses in unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Purchased
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
$
|
60.53
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
60.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,825,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
60.53
|
|
Natural
Gas Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage natural gas price
risk and volatility of cash flows. Certain of these swap
contracts are designated as cash flow hedges of the future
purchase of natural gas. 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, 2008, the
Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas
purchases, of which 90,000 MMBtus are designated as hedges.
As a result of a portion of these derivative instruments not
being designated as hedges, the Company recognized $1,223 of
losses in unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMBtus
|
|
|
$/MMBtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
330,000
|
|
|
$
|
10.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
330,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
10.38
|
|
Interest
Rate Swap Contracts
In 2008, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to its current variable rate
senior secured first lien term loan which closed January 3,
2008. The Company has 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 the 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 as of December 31,
2008. For the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company
recorded $2,188 of losses in unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2008. 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 which is not designated as a
cash flow hedge.
137
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
10.
|
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 in accordance
with SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements. The fair
value of our long-term debt was $305,084 at December 31, 2008.
The fair value of long-term debt materially approximated the
carrying value at December 31, 2007. 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, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
11.
|
Fair
Value Measurements
|
In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157).
SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States, and expands disclosures
about fair value measurements. The Company has adopted the
provisions of SFAS 157 as of January 1 2008, for
financial instruments. In February 2008, the FASB agreed to
defer for one year the effective date of SFAS 157 for
certain nonfinancial assets and liabilities, except those that
are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial
statements on a recurring basis.
SFAS 157 establishes 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, as required by SFAS No. 157,
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, 2008, the Company held certain assets
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, natural gas 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 single A or better. The
fair values of the Companys derivative instruments for
crude oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas 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
138
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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,
2008, the Companys asset was reduced by approximately
$6,186 and its liability was reduced by $564. Based on the use
of various unobservable inputs, principally non-performance risk
and unobservable inputs in forward years for gasoline 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.
The Companys assets measured at fair value on a recurring
basis subject to the disclosure requirements of SFAS 157 at
December 31, 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,780
|
|
|
|
103,780
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90,337
|
|
|
|
90,337
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
12,018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
12,018
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
194,117
|
|
|
$
|
206,135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude oil swaps
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119,202
|
)
|
|
$
|
(119,202
|
)
|
Gasoline swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,429
|
)
|
|
|
(1,429
|
)
|
Crude oil options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,345
|
)
|
|
|
(12,345
|
)
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,769
|
)
|
|
|
(5,769
|
)
|
Pension plan investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(138,745
|
)
|
|
$
|
(138,745
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139
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, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative
|
|
|
|
Instruments, Net
|
|
|
Fair value at January 1, 2008
|
|
$
|
(600,051
|
)
|
Realized losses
|
|
|
58,833
|
|
Unrealized gains (losses)
|
|
|
17,141
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
58,610
|
|
Purchases, issuances and settlements
|
|
|
(21,709
|
)
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3
|
|
|
542,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
55,372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gains or losses included in net income attributable to
changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to financial
assets and liabilities held as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
3,454
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All settlements from derivative instruments that are deemed
effective and were designated as cash flow hedges as
defined in SFAS 133, are included in sales for gasoline and
diesel 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, as defined in SFAS 133, 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. See Note 9 for further information on
SFAS 133 and hedging.
|
|
12.
|
Unit-Based
Compensation
|
The Companys general partner adopted a Long-Term Incentive
Plan (the Plan) on January 24, 2006, 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.
On December 28, 2007 and December 30, 2008,
non-employee directors of our general partner were granted
phantom units under the terms of the Plan as part of their
director compensation package related to fiscal years 2007 and
2008, respectively. These phantom units have a four year service
period, beginning on January 1, 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. 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.
140
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
A summary of the Companys nonvested units as of
December 31, 2008, and the changes during the year ended
December 31, 2008 is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Nonvested Phantom Units
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2008, compensation expense
of $179 was recognized in the consolidated statements of
operations related to vested unit grants. As of
December 31, 2008, there was a total of $358 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 year ended December 31,
2008 was $86.
|
|
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 $1,782 for the year ended December 31, 2008. The plan
also includes a profit-sharing component. Contributions under
the profit-sharing component are determined by the board of
directors of the Companys general partner and are
discretionary. The Companys profit sharing contribution
was $1,123 for the year ended December 31, 2008.
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. Effective
January 31, 2009, the Company has amended the Pension Plan.
The amendment removes the salaried employee from accumulating
additional benefits subsequent to January 31, 2009. All
information presented below has been adjusted for this
curtailment, which resulted in a reduction in the Companys
benefit obligation of $2,311.
141
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The components of net periodic pension and other post retirement
benefits cost for the year ended December 31, 2008 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
945
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,298
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Expected return on assets
|
|
|
(1,341
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension cost
|
|
$
|
902
|
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company made
contributions of $193 and $63 to its Pension Plan and Other
Plans, respectively and expects to make no contributions in 2009.
The benefit obligations, plan assets, funded status, and amounts
recognized in the consolidated balance sheets were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Change in projected benefit obligation (PBO):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at January 3, 2008
|
|
$
|
20,097
|
|
|
$
|
872
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
945
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,298
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
(2,311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(630
|
)
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
1,613
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(116
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
20,896
|
|
|
$
|
839
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at January 3, 2008
|
|
$
|
18,183
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Benefit payments
|
|
|
(630
|
)
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
Actual return on assets
|
|
|
(5,612
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Administrative expense
|
|
|
(116
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Employee contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
Employer contribution
|
|
|
193
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
12,018
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status benefit obligation in excess of plan
assets
|
|
$
|
(8,878
|
)
|
|
$
|
(839
|
)
|
Curtailment
|
|
|
(2,311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
1,613
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Unexpected loss on plan assets
|
|
|
6,952
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
(2,624
|
)
|
|
$
|
(869
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets consisted
of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
(8,878
|
)
|
|
$
|
(839
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
6,254
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
(2,624
|
)
|
|
$
|
(869
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The accumulated benefit obligation for the Pension Plan was
$20,896 as of December 31, 2008. 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
$8,878 as of December 31, 2008. As of December 31,
2008, the Company had no prior service costs or transition gains
(losses) but recorded actuarial losses of $6,224 in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) in the consolidated balance
sheets.
The effective portion of the minimum pension liability
classified in accumulated other comprehensive loss is $6,224 as
of December 31, 2008. In 2009, the Company expects to
recognize $419 and $0, respectively, of loss from accumulated
other comprehensive loss for the Companys Pension Plan and
Other Postretirement Benefits Plan.
The significant weighted average assumptions used for the year
ended December 31, 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Other Post Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
Discount rate for benefit obligations
|
|
|
6.18
|
%
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
Discount rate for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
6.58
|
%
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
7.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase for benefit obligations
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase for net periodic benefit costs
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
For measurement purposes, a 8.6% annual rate of increase in the
per capita cost of covered health care benefits was assumed for
2009. 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 January 3, 2008. 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 and Other Plans asset
allocations, as of December 31, 2008 by asset category, are
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Employee
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
U.S. equities
|
|
|
77
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Foreign equities
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
Policy
The investment objective of the Penreco Pension Plan Trust (the
Trust) is to generate a long-term rate of return
which will fund the related pension liabilities and minimize the
Companys contributions to the Trust. Trust assets are to
be invested with an emphasis on providing a high level of
current income through fixed income investments and longer-term
capital appreciation through equity investments. Trust assets
are targeted to achieve an investment return of 7.50% or more
compounded annually over any
5-year
period. Due to the long-term nature of pension liabilities, the
Trust will assume moderate risk only to the extent necessary to
achieve its return objective.
The Trust pursues its investment objectives by investing in a
customized profile of asset allocation which corresponds to the
investment return target. Full discretion in portfolio
investment decisions is given to Wells Fargo & Company
or its affiliates (the Manager), subject to the
investment policy guidelines. The Manager is
143
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
required to utilize fiduciary care in all investment decisions
and is expected to minimize all costs and expenses involved with
the managing of these assets.
With consideration given to the long-term goals of the Trust,
the following ranges reflect the long-term strategy for
achieving the stated objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 the prudent
expert standard as mandated by ERISA. In the event market
environments create asset exposures outside of the policy
guidelines, reallocations will be made in an orderly manner.
Fixed
Income Guidelines
U.S. Treasury, agency securities, and corporate bond issues
rated investment grade or higher are considered
appropriate for this portfolio. Written approval will be
obtained to hold securities downgraded below investment
grade by either Moodys or Standard &
Poors. Money market and fixed-income funds that are
consistent with the stated investment objective of the Trust are
also considered acceptable.
Excluding U.S. Treasury and agency obligations, money
market or fixed-income mutual funds, no single issuer shall
exceed more than 10% of the total portfolio market value. The
average maturity range shall be consistent with the objective of
providing a high level of current income and long-term growth
within the acceptable risk level established for the Trust.
Equity
Guidelines
Any equity security that is on the Managers working list
is considered appropriate for this portfolio. Equity mutual
funds that are consistent with the stated investment objective
of the Trust are also considered acceptable. No individual
equity position, with the exception of equity mutual funds,
should exceed 10% of the total market value of the Trusts
assets.
Performance of investment results will be reviewed, at least
semiannually, by the Calumet Retirement Savings Committee
(CRSC) and annually at a joint meeting between the
CRSC and the Manager. Written communication regarding investment
performance occurs quarterly. Any major changes in the
Managers investment strategy will be communicated to the
Chairman of the CRSC on an ongoing basis and as frequently as
necessary. The Manager shall be informed of special situations
affecting Trust investments including substantial withdrawal or
funding pattern changes and changes in investment policy
guidelines and objectives.
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid in the years
indicated as of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Other Post Retirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Employee Benefits
|
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
773
|
|
|
$
|
98
|
|
2010
|
|
|
820
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
2011
|
|
|
870
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
2012
|
|
|
949
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,041
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
2014 to 2018
|
|
|
6,527
|
|
|
|
342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
10,980
|
|
|
$
|
777
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
14.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the year ended December 31, 2008 the Company had
sales to related parties owned by a limited partner of $7,973.
Trade accounts and other receivables from related parties at
December 31, 2008 were $1,828. The Company also had
purchases from related parties owned by a limited partner,
excluding crude purchases related to the Legacy agreement
discussed below, during the year ended December 31, 2008,
of $615. Accounts payable to related parties, excluding accounts
payable related to Legacy agreement discussed below, at
December 31, 2008 were $774.
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
Co., L.P. (Legacy). Legacy is owned in part by one
of the Companys limited partners, an affiliate of the
Companys general partner, the Companys chief
executive officer and president, F. William Grube, and Jennifer
G. Straumins, the Companys senior vice president. Based on
historical usage, the estimated volume of crude oil to be sold
by Legacy and purchased by the Company is approximately
6,000 barrels per day. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, the Company had crude oil purchases of
$140,180 from Legacy. Accounts payable to Legacy at
December 31, 2008 related to this agreement were $6,395.
During 2006 and prior, the Company had placed a portion of its
insurance underwriting requirements, including general
liability, automobile liability, excess liability, workers
compensation as well as directors and officers
liability with a commercial insurance brokerage business. A
member of the board of directors of our general partner serves
as an executive of this commercial insurance brokerage company.
The total premiums paid to this company by Calumet for the years
ended December 31, 2008, were $634. 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, 2008.
On January 22, 2009, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.45 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$14,800, for the quarter ended December 31, 2008. The
distribution was paid on February 13, 2009 to unitholders
of record as of the close of business on February 3, 2009.
This quarterly distribution of $0.45 per unit equates to $1.80
per unit, or $59,202 on an annualized basis.
On January 26, 2009, the Company entered into a crude oil
supply agreement with Legacy Resources Co., L.P.
(Legacy) an affiliate of the Companys general
partner. Under the agreement, it is contemplated that Legacy
will supply the Companys 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 is 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 and purchased by the Company
under this Agreement is up to 15,000 barrels per day.
Legacy is owned in part by The Heritage Group, an affiliate of
the Companys general partner, in part by the
Companys general partners chief executive officer
and president, F. William Grube, and in part by the
Companys general partners senior vice president,
Jennifer G. Straumins.
145
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
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 US
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 US 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.
Managements assessment of and conclusion on the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting did
not include the internal controls of Calumet Penreco, LLC, which
is included in its 2008 consolidated financial statements and
constituted $266,270,000 of total assets as of December 31,
2008 and $460,778,000 of revenues for the year then ended.
Management also did not perform an evaluation of the internal
control over financial reporting of Calumet Penreco, LLC.
Management assessed the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2008, 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 is effective as of
December 31, 2008.
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.
F. William Grube
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of
Calumet GP, LLC
February 27, 2009
/s/ R.
Patrick Murray, II
R. Patrick Murray, II
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Calumet GP, LLC
February 27, 2009
146
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, 2008, 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
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 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.
As indicated in the accompanying Managements Report on
Internal Control over Financial Reporting, managements
assessment of and conclusion on the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting did not include the internal
controls of Calumet Penreco, LLC, which is included in the 2008
consolidated financial statements of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. and constituted $266,270,000 of total assets as
of December 31, 2008 and $460,778,000 of revenues for the
year then ended. Our audit of internal control over financial
reporting of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. also did
not include an evaluation of the internal control over financial
reporting of Calumet Penreco, LLC.
In our opinion, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, 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, 2008 and 2007 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, partners
capital and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2008 of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. and our report dated February 27, 2009
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 27, 2009
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
147
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 president, 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
Michael L. Smith.
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.
Directors
and Executive Officers
The following table shows information regarding the directors
and executive officers of Calumet GP, LLC as of
February 26, 2009. Directors are elected for one-year terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position with Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
Senior Vice President
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Vice President Crude Oil Supply
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
Vice President Planning and Economics
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
Vice President Sales and Marketing
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Director
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Director
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
Director
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
Director
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Director
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. has served as the chairman
of the board of directors of our general partner since September
2005. Mr. Fehsenfeld also served as the vice chairman of
the board of directors of Calumet Lubricants
148
Co., L.P. since 1990. 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.
F. William Grube has served as the chief executive
officer, president and director of our general partner since
September 2005. Mr. Grube has also served as president and
chief executive officer of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since
1990. From 1973 to 1989, Mr. Grube served as executive vice
president of the Rock Island Refinery. 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, Senior
Vice President of our general partner.
Allan A. Moyes, III has served as executive vice
president of our general partner since September 2005.
Mr. Moyes has also served as executive vice president of
Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since 1997. From 1994 to 1997,
Mr. Moyes served as manager of planning and economics for
Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. From 1989 to 1994, Mr. Moyes
worked for Marathon Oil Company as the technical service manager
at its Indianapolis refinery. From 1978 to 1989, Mr. Moyes
worked in various capacities at the Rock Island Refinery.
Mr. Moyes received his Computer Science degree at Memphis
State Technical University.
Jennifer G. Straumins has served as senior vice president
of our general partner since February 2007. From January 2006
through February 2007, Ms. Straumins served as vice
president investor relations. Ms. Straumins
served in various capacities in financial planning and economics
for Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. from 2002 through 2006. Prior
to joining Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P., 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
president 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 has also served as
the vice president and chief financial officer of Calumet
Lubricants Co., L.P. since 1999 and from 1998 to 1999 served as
its controller. 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.
Robert M. Mills has served as vice president
crude oil supply of our general partner since September 2005.
Mr. Mills has also served as the vice president
crude oil supply of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since 1995 and
from 1993 to 1995 served as manager of supply and distribution.
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 has also served as the vice president
planning and economics of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since
2002. Mr. Smith joined Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. in 1994
and served in various capacities prior to becoming vice
president. Mr. Smith received his B.S. in Geology from
Louisiana Tech University.
William A. Anderson has served as vice
president sales and marketing of our general partner
since September 2005. Mr. Anderson has also served as the
vice president sales and marketing of Calumet
Lubricants Co., L.P. since 2000 and served in various other
capacities for Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. from 1993 to 2000.
Mr. Anderson received his B.A. in Communications from
DePauw 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 M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting
from Tulane University.
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
149
his M.B.A. from Grand Valley State University. He is also a
first cousin of the chairman of the board of directors of our
general partner, Mr. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
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.
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 directors of our general
partner, Mr. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
Michael L. Smith has served as a member of the board of
directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Smith is the chairman of the audit committee of our
board of directors and previously served as executive vice
president and chief financial officer of Wellpoint Inc. (f/k/a
Anthem Inc.), a publicly traded health benefits company, from
1999 until his retirement in January 2005. Mr. Smith
previously served as senior vice president of Anthem and chief
financial officer of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shields
Midwest and Connecticut operations from 1998 to 1999. From 1996
to 1998, he was chief operating officer and chief financial
officer of American Health Network, a former Anthem subsidiary.
Mr. Smith is a member of the board of directors of Kite
Realty Group Trust, Vectren Corporation, hhgregg, Inc. and
Emergency Medical Services Corporation. He also serves on the
Board of Trustees of DePauw University, the board of directors
of the Lumina Foundation for Education and is a member of the
Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Mr. Smith received
his B.A. in Economics from DePauw University.
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 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.
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 and
officers 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
150
approval any of the Partnerships 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
Partnership. 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 Michael L. Smith, 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 a Mr. Smith is an audit
committee financial expert (as defined by the SEC).
Mr. Smith 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 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 and Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) requires directors and officers
of our general partner and persons who beneficially own more
than ten percent of our common units to file with the SEC and
NASDAQ initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in
ownership of such securities. SEC regulations require officers
and directors of our general partner and greater than ten
percent beneficial owners to furnish us with copies of all
Section 16(a) forms they file.
Based solely on a review of the copies of those forms furnished
to the Partnership and written representations from the
applicable officers and directors, the Partnership believes its
officers and directors complied with all applicable
Section 16(a) filing requirements during the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2008.
|
|
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 Partnership, including executive
compensation
151
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
Partnerships performance against a specified financial
target, namely distributable cash flow. The Partnerships
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.
Although short-term compensation elements represent the majority
of total compensation that can be earned and paid to our
executives, the long-term elements as described in
Elements of Executive Compensation Long-Term,
Unit-Based Awards for which the compensation committee and
board of directors approved for implementation beginning with
the 2007 fiscal year will represent a significant portion of
total compensation on a prospective basis to provide a
meaningful incentive for the executives to achieve goals and
objectives focused on long-term unitholder returns.
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 Partnership
financial performance, growth of the Partnership over time,
changes in complexity of the Partnership 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 Partnerships 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 Partnerships
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 Partnerships
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 maintenance 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 10% of the
median of market for companies of similar size to us. In 2008,
the compensation committee retained Mercer Inc.
(Mercer) as a consultant to review our general
partners executive compensation programs. Mercer reported
directly to the 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.
|
152
The following master limited partnerships were included by
Mercer 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, L.P.,
Genesis Energy, L.P., Inergy, L.P., MarkWest Energy Partners,
L.P., Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P., Regency Energy
Partners, L.P. 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
total assets 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. Mercer provided a presentation of its
findings to the compensation committee in October 2008.
The compensation committee used the findings of the Mercer
executive compensation review to validate that total
compensation for Calumets key executives, including each
named executive officer, is competitive with the middle range of
total compensation among a peer group of companies and the
broader market in which Calumet competes for executive talent
when making its compensation decisions. The Mercer 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
below the median of market by less than 5%. While the Mercer
review indicated that aggregate base salaries for key executives
fall near the 25th percentile of the peer group, short-term
incentives for each of the key executives, assuming the target
levels of such incentives are achieved, are near the
75th percentile of the market. As a result of higher
short-term incentives, total cash compensation of our key
executives, in aggregate, falls approximately 10% above the
median of the peer group. Long-term incentives as a percentage
of base salaries for the key executives generally falls below
the 25th percentile of the peer group. In addition,
Mercers findings indicated that upon review of cash
compensation among Calumets executives, relative parity
was generally consistent with market practices.
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 Partnerships executive compensation programs are
designed with the following primary objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
reward strong individual performance that drives positive
Partnership 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.
|
Elements
of Executive Compensation
The compensation committee believes the total compensation and
benefits program for the Partnerships 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.
|
153
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 Partnerships 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 2008 and 2009 were each 4.0%, 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 2008, the compensation committee approved more
significant increases in the base salaries for Mr. Murray
and Ms. Straumins based on increased job complexity due to
the growth of our business.
The compensation committee approved increased salaries for all
of the named executive officers for 2009 as part of its annual
salary review process in consideration of the above factors.
Effective January 1, 2009, the base salaries for
Mr. Moyes, Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and
Ms. Straumins are $296,400, $242,000, $220,000 and
$214,500, respectively. The more significant increase in
Mr. Andersons base salary for 2009 is based on
increased job complexity due to the growth of our business.
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
Partnership 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 Partnerships
financial performance.
The compensation committee establishes minimum, target and
stretch incentive opportunities for each executive officer
expressed as a percentage of base salary. The amount that is
paid out is based on Calumets
154
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
Partnership achieves at least the minimum distributable cash
flow goal. The compensation committee can recommend to the full
Board, however, that cash awards be given notwithstanding the
fact that the Partnership 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 Partnership achieved at least the minimum distributable cash
flow goal. If the minimum, target or stretch level distributable
cash flow amount is achieved, participants in the plan will
receive their minimum, target or stretch cash award opportunity,
respectively. If the Partnerships 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 2008, the minimum
distributable cash flow goal was $90.0 million, the target
goal was $110.0 million and the stretch goal was
$125.0 million.
The following table summarizes the levels of cash award
opportunity for each named executive officer and the actual
percentage earned by them in 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Incentive Award Opportunity as a
|
|
|
|
Percentage of Base Salary
|
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Stretch
|
|
|
Actual Payout
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
|
|
73
|
% (1)
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
|
|
61
|
%
|
R. Patrick Murray, II, William A. Anderson, and Jennifer G.
Straumins
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
150
|
%
|
|
|
61
|
%
|
|
|
|
(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 $548,000. |
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 10% of the median of our peer
group, while placing significant emphasis on the achievement of
the Partnerships 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. The 2008
target distributable cash flow goal was established at a level
that the board of directors believed reflected the reasonable
expectations management had for the financial performance of the
Partnership during the fiscal year and likely to be achieved
given actual distributable cash flow achieved for the 2007
fiscal year. The board of directors set the stretch cash flow
goal at 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
Partnership and therefore not likely to be achieved. For the
2008 fiscal year, the Partnerships distributable cash flow
was above the minimum goal but below its target distributable
cash flow goal. The primary drivers of the Partnership not
meeting its target distributable cash flow goal were the
dramatic increase in the price of crude oil during the first
half of 2008, which negatively impacted the Partnerships
gross profit relative to expected performance, and realized
hedging losses on the Partnerships derivative instruments
which were caused primarily by the rapid decline in crude oil
prices during the second half of 2008, which negatively impacted
the Partnerships Adjusted EBITDA relative to expected
performance.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors has approved new distributable cash flow targets
for the 2009 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by
management. Each of the three distributable cash flow goal
levels for the 2009 fiscal year exceeds its corresponding
distributable cash flow goal level for the 2008 fiscal year in
line with the same expected likelihood of achieving such goal
levels used to set the distributable cash flow goals for 2008.
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.
155
Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan
On December 18, 2008, the board of directors approved the
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan (the Deferred Compensation Plan),
effective January 1, 2009. The compensation committee will
act as plan administrator of the Deferred Compensation Plan. The
compensation committee allows for the participation of the
executive officers in this plan to encourage the officers to
save for retirement and to assist the Partnership 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 Partnership will be
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 will be 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 Partnership 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 account will receive distribution
equivalent rights, which will be credited to the
participants account in the form of additional phantom
units. In its sole discretion, the Partnership may make matching
contributions of phantom units or purely discretionary
contributions of phantom units, in amounts and at times as it
determines.
Plan distributions are payable on the earlier of the date
specified by each participant and the participants
termination of employment. Participants will at all times be
100% vested in amounts they have deferred pursuant to their
annual cash incentive award or annual cash retainer. Partnership
contributions, however, may be subject to a vesting schedule, as
determined by the plan administrator. Certain events such as
death, disability, normal retirement or a change of control of
the Partnership require automatic distribution of the Deferred
Compensation Plan benefits, and will also accelerate any portion
of a participants account that has not already become
vested at that time. Plan benefits will be distributed to
participants in the form of common units, cash or a combination
of common units and cash at the election of the plan
administrator.
Long-Term,
Unit-Based Awards
Long-term unit-based awards may consist of phantom units,
restricted units, unit options, substitution awards, and
distribution equivalent rights. 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 Partnership in meeting its financial
performance objectives.
In fiscal 2008, the annual unit awards to named executive
officers consisted of the contingent right to receive a phantom
units. 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 program,
phantom units are granted only upon the Partnerships
achievement of specified levels of distributable cash flow.
Accordingly, these awards established a direct link between
executive compensation and the Partnerships 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
Partnerships unitholders in the longer-term and reinforces
unit ownership levels among executives.
156
The following table provides the annual unit award opportunity
for each named executive officer. The objective in 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 target and stretch levels were the same
ones used in determining payouts for the cash incentive awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 Phantom Unit Award Opportunity
|
|
|
Phantom Units
|
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Stretch
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II, William A. Anderson, and Jennifer G.
Straumins
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
No phantom units were granted under the program related to
fiscal year 2008 because the Partnership did not achieve at
least its target distributable cash flow goal.
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.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors has approved new distributable cash flow targets
for the 2009 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by management
with the same estimated likelihoods of distributable cash flow
performance levels as described above in Short-Term Cash
Awards. The board of directors also approved increases in
the two potential levels of phantom unit grants for all
participants to be awarded based on whether the Partnership
achieves its specified distributable cash flow goals, namely the
target and stretch distributable cash flow goals, and such
phantom unit grants would include the same time vesting
requirement as potential phantom unit awards offered under the
program in prior fiscal years.
For 2009, as a result of the significant decrease in the trading
price of our common units and our desire to maintain our target
long-term incentive opportunity in line with our peer group, the
number of phantom units that may be awarded upon achievement of
the specified levels of distributable cash flow has been
increased. In addition, Ms. Straumins and
Messrs. Murray and Anderson are eligible to receive the
same number of phantom units as Mr. Moyes based on a goal
of achieving internal parity in potential awards among our named
executive officers. The following table provides the annual unit
award opportunity for each named executive officer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 Phantom Unit Award Opportunity
|
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Stretch
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
|
|
16,200
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II, Allan A. Moyes, III, William A.
Anderson, and Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
7,200
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
|
For further description of this compensation program, please see
Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and
Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table Description of
Phantom Unit Program.
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 assure 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
157
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
Partnership. 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
Partnership 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 Partnership 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 Partnership. 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 2008 fiscal year. The value
of Partnership 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.
Perquisites
We provide certain 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 Partnership, 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 certain named executive officers. 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 Partnership 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.
158
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
Partnership. 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 Partnerships securities. Pursuant to
Calumets Insider Trading Policy, all executive officers
and directors must confer with the Chief Financial Officer
before effecting any put or call options for the
Partnerships securities. Further, the Insider Trading
Policy states that the Partnership 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 E. Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis,
IN 46214.
Employment
Agreement
We have entered into an employment agreement with our chief
executive officer and president, F .William Grube, to ensure he
will perform his role for an extended period of time given his
position and value to the Partnership. 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 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
|
159
|
|
|
|
|
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 Partnership, the
compensation committee believes these potential benefits are
reasonable.
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our named executive officers for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Compensation Table for 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Salary
|
|
|
Plan Compensation (2)
|
|
|
Compensation (3)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
357,000
|
|
|
$
|
261,844
|
|
|
$
|
25,712
|
|
|
$
|
644,556
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
342,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,858
|
|
|
|
350,658
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
332,800
|
|
|
|
654,263
|
|
|
|
31,138
|
|
|
|
1,018,201
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
220,000
|
|
|
|
134,750
|
|
|
|
24,682
|
|
|
|
379,432
|
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
188,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,023
|
|
|
|
195,356
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
152,500
|
|
|
|
224,379
|
|
|
|
30,464
|
|
|
|
407,343
|
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
285,000
|
|
|
|
174,563
|
|
|
|
26,919
|
|
|
|
486,482
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
274,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,455
|
|
|
|
318,455
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
251,592
|
|
|
|
436,175
|
|
|
|
32,184
|
|
|
|
719,951
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
190,000
|
|
|
|
116,375
|
|
|
|
36,336
|
|
|
|
342,711
|
|
Vice President Sales and Marketing
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
182,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,079
|
|
|
|
200,079
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
163,917
|
|
|
|
230,979
|
|
|
|
35,106
|
|
|
|
430,002
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins (1)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
195,000
|
|
|
|
119,438
|
|
|
|
21,940
|
|
|
|
336,378
|
|
Senior Vice President
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
166,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,913
|
|
|
|
172,913
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Ms. Straumins became an executive officer in February 2007. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents amounts earned under the Partnerships Cash
Incentive Compensation Plan. Please read Compensation
Discussion and Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Short-Term Cash Awards. |
|
(3) |
|
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, Mr. Murray,
Mr. Moyes and Ms. Straumins in 2008, as such amounts
for these named executive officers were each less than $10,000
in the aggregate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
401(k) Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matching
|
|
|
Annual
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spousal
|
|
|
Club
|
|
|
Disability
|
|
|
Term Life
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
|
Physical
|
|
|
Vehicle
|
|
|
Travel
|
|
|
Membership
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
24,534
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,178
|
|
|
$
|
25,712
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
23,956
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
726
|
|
|
|
24,682
|
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
25,978
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
941
|
|
|
|
26,919
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
20,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,707
|
|
|
|
965
|
|
|
|
6,545
|
|
|
|
850
|
|
|
|
627
|
|
|
|
36,336
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
21,296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
644
|
|
|
|
21,940
|
|
160
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, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
|
|
Name
|
|
Minimum
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
213,750
|
|
|
$
|
427,500
|
|
|
$
|
855,000
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
$
|
110,000
|
|
|
$
|
220,000
|
|
|
$
|
330,000
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
$
|
142,500
|
|
|
$
|
285,000
|
|
|
$
|
570,000
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
$
|
95,000
|
|
|
$
|
190,000
|
|
|
$
|
285,000
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
$
|
97,500
|
|
|
$
|
195,000
|
|
|
$
|
292,500
|
|
The above table shows the ranges of potential cash incentive
awards granted to executives under Calumets Cash Incentive
Compensation Plan related to fiscal year 2008. 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.
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 Partnership forecast of financial performance
for the coming 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
Partnerships 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. 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 Partnerships
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, our chief executive officer and president, and
Mr. Moyes, our executive vice president, are the only
employees who participate in the Cash Incentive Plan at
Incentive Level 1. The other named executive officers
(Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Straumins),
along with certain other officers, participate in the Cash
Incentive Plan at Incentive Level 2. |
As recommended by the compensation committee and approved by the
board of directors, for the 2009 fiscal year, Mr. Murray,
Mr. Anderson and Ms. Straumins will participate in the
Cash Incentive Plan at Incentive Level 1.
161
Beginning with the 2009 fiscal year, participants in the Cash
Incentive Plan will be eligible to defer all or a portion of all
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.
Description
of Long-Term Incentive Plan
Following is a summary of the major terms and provisions of the
Partnerships 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 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, an aggregate of 43,968 of which have already been
awarded to the non-employee directors 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
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 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 Partnership, 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 distribution equivalent rights, or 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.
2008 Phantom Unit Program. In addition to the
features described above, potential awards under our 2008
Phantom Unit Program range from 1,000 to 6,000 phantom units for
achievement of the target distributable cash flow goal and from
1,500 to 9,000 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
162
the units vest immediately at grant and the remainder vest
ratably over three years on each December 31st. At the
election of the general partner, phantom unit awards may be
settled in either cash or common units.
The following table summarizes the levels of phantom unit awards
available to participants in the 2008 program:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phantom Unit Award Opportunity
|
|
Incentive Level (a)
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Stretch
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
2
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
3
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
4
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
5
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
|
(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. Mr. Moyes is the only employee and named
executive officer who is eligible for a long-term unit-based
award under Incentive Level 2. The other named executive
officers (Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and
Ms. Straumins), along with certain other officers,
participate in the program at Incentive Level 3. |
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 president, dated as of January 31,
2006 (the Effective Date). The term of the
employment agreement is five years and expires on
163
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.
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.
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
Our named executive officers had no outstanding equity awards at
December 31, 2008.
Options
Exercises and Stock Vested
Our named executive officers exercised no options and had no
unit awards vest during the year ended December 31, 2008.
Pension
Benefits
The Partnership has no pension plans that provide for payments
or other benefits for our named executive officers.
Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation
On December 18, 2008, the board of directors approved the
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan (the Deferred Compensation Plan),
to be 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. See Compensation Discussion
and Analysis - Elements of Executive Compensation
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan for additional
discussion of this plan.
Potential
Payments Upon Termination
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, 2008, 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 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.
164
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, 2008, 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) $261,844; and (d) $0, with an aggregate value of
$261,844.
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 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 Partnership.
165
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, 2008, 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) $1,071,000 (or three times
$357,000); (b) $0; (c) $0; (d) $261,844; and
(e) $0, with an aggregate value of $1,332,844.
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,
2008, 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) $261,844, with an aggregate value of
$261,844.
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 $30,000, 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.
Effective April 1, 2009, the board of directors approved,
upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, an
increase in the annual fee paid to non-employee directors from
$30,000 to $50,000, primarily as a result of the increased
complexity of the Partnerships operations since its
initial public offering in January 2006. Fees related to
participation on board of director committees were not revised.
Beginning with the 2009 fiscal year,
166
non-employee directors have the option to defer all or none of
their annual cash fees into the Deferred Compensation Plan which
was approved by the board of directors on December 18,
2008. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Elements of Executive Compensation Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan for additional discussion of
this plan.
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our non-employee directors for the year ended
December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Compensation Table for 2008
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or
|
|
|
Unit
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Paid in Cash
|
|
|
Awards (1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
$
|
37,500
|
|
|
$
|
29,819
|
|
|
$
|
67,319
|
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
39,000
|
|
|
|
29,819
|
|
|
|
68,819
|
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
29,819
|
|
|
|
59,819
|
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
36,500
|
|
|
|
29,819
|
|
|
|
66,319
|
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
29,819
|
|
|
|
59,819
|
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
38,000
|
|
|
|
29,819
|
|
|
|
67,819
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
On December 30, 2008, each non-employee director was
granted 5,032 phantom units with a grant date fair value of
$40,004. With respect to this award, 25% of the phantom units
vested on December 31, 2008, entitling the director to
common units, with an additional 25% vesting on December 31 of
each of the three successive years. Pursuant to Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
Share-Based Payment, $29,819 of compensation cost for
each non-employee director was recognized by the Partnership in
2008 related to the vesting of 25% of the 2008 granted phantom
units, 25% of the 2007 granted phantom units and 25% of the 2006
granted phantom units, or 1,832 common units, on
December 31, 2008. Assumptions used in the calculation of
these amounts are included in Note 13 to our audited
consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K.
As of December 31, 2008, each non-employee director had
4,618 unvested phantom units outstanding with a market value of
$40,454. An aggregate of 27,708 phantom units with a market
value of $242,722 were outstanding as of December 31, 2008. |
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 president. Mr. F.
Fehsenfeld, Jr. is the chairman of the board of directors
of our general partner. Please read Item 13 Certain
Relationships, Related Party Transactions and Director
Independence Crude Oil Purchases and
Specialty Product Sales for descriptions of our
transactions in fiscal year 2008 with certain entities related
to Messrs. Grube and 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.
Report of
the Compensation Committee for the Year Ended December 31,
2008
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
Partnerships Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Members of the Compensation Committee:
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Chairman
F. William Grube
167
|
|
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 26, 2009 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.
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 Kayne
Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P., is 2780 Waterfront Parkway East
Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46214.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Common Units
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Total Units
|
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
The Heritage Group (1)
|
|
|
3,838,940
|
|
|
|
20.03
|
%
|
|
|
8,028,593
|
|
|
|
61.45
|
%
|
|
|
36.82
|
%
|
Calumet, Incorporated (2)
|
|
|
591,886
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
%
|
|
|
1,342,401
|
|
|
|
10.27
|
%
|
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P. (3)
|
|
|
1,199,528
|
|
|
|
6.26
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
3.72
|
%
|
Janet K. Grube (4)
|
|
|
1,179,969
|
|
|
|
6.16
|
%
|
|
|
2,676,173
|
|
|
|
20.48
|
%
|
|
|
11.96
|
%
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. (1)(2)(7)(8)
|
|
|
189,786
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
403,592
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
%
|
|
|
1.84
|
%
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
14,124
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Jennifer G. Straumins (9)
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
10,450
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
William A. Anderson (10)
|
|
|
10,680
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
25,835
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
William S. Fehsenfeld (1)(5)(8)
|
|
|
65,716
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
21,710
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano (1)(6)(8)
|
|
|
38,310
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
7,710
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
All directors and executive officers as a group (12 persons)
|
|
|
443,321
|
|
|
|
2.31
|
%
|
|
|
403,592
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
%
|
|
|
2.63
|
%
|
|
|
|
(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 Nancy A. Smith, each of whom exercises equivalent
voting |
168
|
|
|
|
|
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 and subordinated 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
46268-0123. |
|
(2) |
|
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. Accordingly, 270,877 of the common units
and 614,417 of the subordinated units owned by Calumet,
Incorporated are also shown as being beneficially owned by The
Heritage Group in the table above, and 29,979 of the common
units and 67,992 of the subordinated 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 and subordinated units owned by Calumet, Incorporated
in excess of their respective pecuniary interests in such units. |
|
(3) |
|
As noted in the
Schedule 13G/A
filed with the SEC on February 9, 2009. The filing person
has indicated that it shares voting and dispositive power of
certain of such units. The address for Kayne Anderson Capital
Advisors, L.P. is 1800 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor,
Los Angeles, California 90067. |
|
(4) |
|
Janet K. Grubes holdings include common and subordinated
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 and subordinated 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. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and children
of William S. Fehsenfeld for which he disclaims beneficial
ownership. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse of Nicholas
J. Rutigliano for which he disclaims beneficial ownership. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and certain
children of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., for which he disclaims
beneficial ownership. |
|
(8) |
|
Does not include a total of 682,154 common units and 1,297,650
subordinated 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 Nancy A. Smith, 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 and
subordinated units owned by the trusts, and none of these units
are shown as being beneficially owned by such directors in the
table above. |
|
(9) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by certain children of
Jennifer G. Straumins, for which she disclaims beneficial
ownership. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by certain children of
William A. Anderson, for which he disclaims beneficial ownership. |
169
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The following table summarizes information about our equity
compensation plans as of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
27,708
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
729,992
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
27,708
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
729,992
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 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, Related Party Transactions and Director
Independence
|
Distributions
and Payments to Our General Partner and its Affiliates
Owners of our general partner and their affiliates own 6,110,015
common units and 13,066,000 subordinated units representing an
aggregate 58.3% 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 Information for a summary of cash
distribution levels of the Partnership during the year ended
December 31, 2008.
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;
|
170
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Indemnification
of Directors and Officers
Under our limited partnership agreement and subject to specified
limitations, we will indemnify to the fullest extent permitted
by Delaware law, from and against all losses, claims, damages or
similar events any director or officer, or while serving as a
director or officer, any person who is or was serving as a tax
matters member or as a director, officer, tax matters member,
employee, partner, manager, fiduciary or trustee of our
partnership or any of our affiliates. Additionally, we will
indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by law, from and
against all losses, claims, damages or similar events any person
who is or was an employee (other than an officer) or agent of
our partnership.
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 2008 were approximately
$0.6 million. 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), an exploration and
production company owned in part by The Heritage Group, our
chief executive officer and president, F. William Grube, and
Jennifer G. Straumins, our senior vice president. The total
purchases made by us from Legacy Resources in 2008 were
approximately $140.2 million, which represented purchases
based upon standard index-based, market rates.
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. Because
Legacy is owned in part by one of the Companys limited
partners, an affiliate of our general partner, and our chief
executive officer and president, F. William Grube, the terms of
the agreement were reviewed by the conflicts committee of the
board of directors of the Companys general partner, which
consists entirely of independent directors. The conflicts
committee approved the agreement after determining that the
terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable to the Company.
Based on historical usage, the estimated volume of crude oil to
be sold by Legacy and purchased by the Company is approximately
7,000 barrels per day.
On January 26, 2009, the Company entered into an additional
crude oil supply agreement with Legacy. Under the agreement, it
is contemplated that Legacy will supply the Companys
Shreveport refinery with a portion of its
171
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 is 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 and purchased by the Company
under this Agreement is up to 15,000 barrels per day.
Specialty
Product Sales and Related Purchases
During 2008, 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
president) individually, and certain Grube family trusts for
which Janet K. Grube is sole trustee. The total sales made by us
to TruSouth in 2008 were approximately $7.0 million. As of
December 31, 2008 the balance due us from TruSouth related
to these products sales was approximately $0.03 million.
The total purchases made by us from TruSouth in 2008 for
blending and packaging services were approximately
$0.6 million. As of December 31, 2008 the balance due
from us to TruSouth related to these purchases was approximately
$0.02 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 2008, 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 2008 were
approximately $0.9 million. As of December 31, 2008
the balance due us from Haltermann related to these products
sales was approximately $0.02 million. 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.
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 disproved, the board of directors of our general
partner has adopted the Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. Related Person Transaction Policy (the Policy)
to be followed in connection with all related person
transactions (as defined by the Policy) involving the
Partnership 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
Partnerships last fiscal year (or any currently proposed
transaction) in which: (i) the Partnership 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 Partnerships 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 Partnership than
those generally being provided to or available from unrelated
third parties or fair to the Partnership, taking into account
the totality of the relationships between the parties involved
(including other transactions that may be particularly favorable
or advantageous to the Partnership).
172
The CEO does not have the authority to approve the issuances of
equity or grants of awards under the Partnerships
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.
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, and Executive Officers
of Our General Partner and Corporate Governance for a
discussion of director independence matters.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
The following table details the aggregate fees billed for
professional services rendered by our independent auditor during
2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Audit fees
|
|
$
|
1,651,500
|
|
|
$
|
1,803,000
|
|
Audit related fees
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
Tax fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,657,500
|
|
|
$
|
2,379,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures classified as Audit fees above include
those related to our annual audit, audits of our general
partner, quarterly review procedures and, in 2007, work
performed in connection with our follow-on equity offering.
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.
173
PART IV
(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
Form 10-K:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Agreement with Respect to the Sale of Partnership Interests in
Penreco, a Texas General Partnership, dated October 19,
2007, by and among ConocoPhillips Company and M.E. Zuckerman
Specialty Oil Corporation, as Sellers, and Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P., as Purchaser (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on October 22, 2007 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
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)).
|
|
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 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)).
|
174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.,
L.P., 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., L.P., 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*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.14
|
|
|
|
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
|
.15*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.16
|
|
|
|
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
|
.17*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, dated and
effective January 22, 2009.
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
|
|
23
|
.01
|
|
|
|
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. |
175
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,
President, Chief Executive
Officer and Director of Calumet GP, LLC
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date: March 3, 2009
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
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Calumet GP,
LLC (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Allan
A. Moyes, III
Allan
A. Moyes, III
|
|
Executive Vice President of
Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/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: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Fred
M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
Fred
M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
Director and Chairman of the Board of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James
S. Carter
James
S. Carter
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ William
S. Fehsenfeld
William
S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert
E. Funk
Robert
E. Funk
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Nicholas
J. Rutigliano
Nicholas
J. Rutigliano
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Michael
L. Smith
Michael
L. Smith
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 3, 2009
|
176
Index to
Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Agreement with Respect to the Sale of Partnership Interests in
Penreco, a Texas General Partnership, dated October 19,
2007, by and among ConocoPhillips Company and M.E. Zuckerman
Specialty Oil Corporation, as Sellers, and Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P., as Purchaser (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on October 22, 2007 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
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)).
|
|
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 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.
|
177
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
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.,
L.P., 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., L.P., 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*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.14
|
|
|
|
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
|
.15*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.16
|
|
|
|
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
|
.17*
|
|
|
|
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
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, dated and
effective January 22, 2009.
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
|
|
23
|
.01
|
|
|
|
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. |
178