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, 2007
|
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
|
|
2911
|
|
37-1516132
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number)
|
|
(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
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
|
Smaller reporting
company o
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the common units held by
non-affiliates of the registrant (treating all executive
officers and directors of the registrant and holders of 10% or
more of the common units outstanding, for this purpose, as if
they may be affiliates of the registrant) was approximately
$355.0 million on June 30, 2007, based on $48.60 per
unit, the closing price of the common units as reported on the
NASDAQ Global Market on such date.
At February 29, 2008, 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
2007 ANNUAL REPORT
Table of
Contents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
PART I
|
|
Items 1 and 2.
|
|
|
Business and Properties
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
Item 1A.
|
|
|
Risk Factors
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
Item 1B.
|
|
|
Unresolved Staff Comments
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
Item 3.
|
|
|
Legal Proceedings
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
Item 4.
|
|
|
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
|
|
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related Unitholder
Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
Item 6.
|
|
|
Selected Financial Data
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
Item 7.
|
|
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Item 7A.
|
|
|
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
Item 8.
|
|
|
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
Item 9.
|
|
|
Changes In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 9A.
|
|
|
Controls and Procedures
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
Item 9B.
|
|
|
Other Information
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
|
|
Directors, Executive Officers of Our General Partner and
Corporate Governance
|
|
|
124
|
|
|
Item 11.
|
|
|
Executive and Director Compensation
|
|
|
128
|
|
|
Item 12.
|
|
|
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
and Related Unitholder Matters
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
Item 13.
|
|
|
Certain Relationships, Related Party Transactions and Director
Independence
|
|
|
146
|
|
|
Item 14.
|
|
|
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
|
|
Exhibits
|
|
|
150
|
|
LVT Unit Agreement |
LVT Feedstock Purchase Agreement |
HDW Diesel Feedstock Purchase Agreement |
Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP |
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 |
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 |
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 |
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 expected completion date, the estimated cost, and
the resulting increases in production levels, (ii) expected
settlements with the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) or other environmental liabilities,
(iii) the expected purchase price, goodwill, and future
benefits and risks of the Penreco acquisition, (iv) future
compliance with our debt covenants and (v) the probability
of the achievement of a certain financial performance target
related to executive compensation programs, 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. The
risk factors and other factors noted throughout this
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 results of our hedging activities;
|
|
|
|
the availability of, and our ability to consummate, acquisition
or combination opportunities;
|
|
|
|
labor relations;
|
|
|
|
our access to capital to fund expansions or acquisitions 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 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 crude oil and crack spread price fluctuations and
rapid increases or decreases;
|
|
|
|
the impact of current and future laws, rulings and governmental
regulations;
|
|
|
|
shortages or cost increases of power supplies, natural gas,
materials or labor;
|
|
|
|
weather interference with business operations or project
construction;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in the debt and equity markets; and
|
|
|
|
general economic, market or business conditions.
|
Other factors described herein, or factors that are unknown or
unpredictable, could also have a material adverse effect on
future results. 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 Related to Our
Business and Item 7A Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk. We will not
update these statements unless securities laws require us to do
so.
2
References in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
to Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
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 the year ended December 31, 2007,
approximately 63.6% of our gross profit was generated from our
specialty products segment and approximately 36.4% 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 Overview.
Our operating assets, including those acquired in the
acquisition of Penreco, 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 7,200 bpd for
the year ended December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
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 6,800 bpd for the
year ended December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
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 42,000 bpd and had average daily crude oil
throughput of approximately 34,400 bpd for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
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 base
oil throughput capacity of approximately 5,500 bpd.
|
|
|
|
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 base oil throughput capacity of
approximately 1,300 bpd.
|
|
|
|
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 1,400 rail cars to receive crude oil or
distribute our products throughout the United States and Canada.
We also have approximately 4.5 million barrels of aggregate
finished product storage capacity at our refineries.
|
4
Business
Strategies
Our management team is dedicated to increasing the amount of
cash available for distribution on each limited partner unit 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 63.6% of our gross profit for the year
ended December 31, 2007 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. Historically, we
have been able to reduce our exposure to crude oil price
fluctuations in this segment through our ability to pass on
incremental feedstock costs to our specialty products customers
and through our crude oil hedging program. In our fuel products
business, which accounted for 36.4% of our gross profit for the
year ended December 31, 2007, we seek to mitigate our
exposure to fuel margin volatility by maintaining a long-term
hedging program. We believe the diversity of our products, our
broad customer base and our hedging activities 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 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 to
add 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 will enhance our
ability to expand our product offering and to meet our
customers needs.
|
|
|
|
Enhance profitability of our existing
assets. We will 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
increase the profitability of our acquired assets. We intend to
further increase the profitability of our existing asset base
through various measures which 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,
scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2008 with
production ramping up during the second quarter of 2008, to
increase its aggregate crude oil throughput capacity to
approximately 57,000 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
$275 million, excluding post-closing purchase price
adjustments. For additional discussion of this project, please
read Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Overview.
|
5
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 350
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.
Our acquisition of Penreco, which offers approximately 400
specialty products, will further diversify our specialty
products offering.
|
|
|
|
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 900 companies and we are continually seeking new
customers. The acquisition of Penreco added approximately
1,400 companies to our existing customer base. No single
customer accounts for more than 10% of our specialty products
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 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 20 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,
for accessing strategic acquisition opportunities and for
constructing and enhancing the profitability of new assets.
|
Our
Operating Assets
General
We own and operate refining assets in northwest Louisiana, which
consist of: the Princeton refinery, the Cotton Valley refinery
and the Shreveport refinery as well as a terminal in Burnham,
Illinois. Additionally, on January 3, 2008, we acquired
facilities in Karns City, Pennsylvania and Dickinson, Texas in
the Penreco acquisition.
6
The following table sets forth information about our combined
refinery operations. Refinery production volume differs from
sales volume due to changes in inventory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Total sales volume (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
47,663
|
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
|
|
46,953
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(2)
|
|
|
48,354
|
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
Refinery production (bpd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
10,734
|
|
|
|
11,436
|
|
|
|
11,556
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
5,104
|
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
|
|
4,422
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,177
|
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
|
|
1,020
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,951
|
|
|
|
2,038
|
|
|
|
2,354
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,157
|
|
|
|
6,596
|
|
|
|
6,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
25,123
|
|
|
|
26,588
|
|
|
|
25,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
7,780
|
|
|
|
9,430
|
|
|
|
8,278
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
5,736
|
|
|
|
6,823
|
|
|
|
8,891
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
7,749
|
|
|
|
6,911
|
|
|
|
5,080
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
1,348
|
|
|
|
461
|
|
|
|
417
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
22,613
|
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
22,666
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(3)
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
48,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
refineries and sales of inventories. |
|
(2) |
|
Total feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our refineries. The decrease
in feedstock runs for the year ended December 31, 2007 was
due to unscheduled downtime of certain operating units at our
Shreveport refinery as well as reduced production as a result of
incremental refining economics associated with the rising cost
of crude oil. |
|
(3) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other feedstocks at our refineries. The difference
between total refinery production and total feedstock runs is
primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstock and production of end products and volume loss. |
7
Set forth below is information regarding sales of our principal
products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Sales of specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
478.1
|
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
|
$
|
394.4
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
199.8
|
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61.6
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
74.7
|
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
866.7
|
|
|
$
|
913.1
|
|
|
$
|
703.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
307.1
|
|
|
$
|
336.7
|
|
|
$
|
223.6
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
203.7
|
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
225.9
|
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
771.1
|
|
|
$
|
727.9
|
|
|
$
|
585.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. In addition, in 2004,
we modified the crude and vacuum unit to improve fractionation
and extend its useful life. The following table sets forth
historical information about production at our Princeton
refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity (bpd)
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
7,226
|
|
|
|
7,574
|
|
|
|
8,067
|
|
Refinery production (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
5,050
|
|
|
|
5,085
|
|
|
|
5,463
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,055
|
|
|
|
1,072
|
|
|
|
1,163
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
1,093
|
|
|
|
1,386
|
|
|
|
1,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(1)
|
|
|
7,198
|
|
|
|
7,543
|
|
|
|
7,982
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
(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 feedstock and production of end 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 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 feedstock primarily
originates from Texas and north Louisiana and is purchased from
various marketers and gatherers. The Princeton refinery ships
its finished products throughout the country by both truck and
rail car 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 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 products at the 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity (bpd)
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(1)(2)
|
|
|
6,775
|
|
|
|
7,130
|
|
|
|
7,145
|
|
Refinery production (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
5,104
|
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
|
|
4,422
|
|
Asphalt and by-products
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
1,393
|
|
|
|
1,473
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
896
|
|
|
|
966
|
|
|
|
1,191
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(2)
|
|
|
7,573
|
|
|
|
7,720
|
|
|
|
7,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 feedstock and production of end products
and volume loss. |
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
9
receives feedstock for solvent production from the Shreveport
refinery. The Cotton Valley refinery ships finished products
throughout the country by both truck and rail car service.
Shreveport
Refinery
The Shreveport refinery, located on a
240-acre
site in Shreveport, Louisiana, currently has aggregate crude oil
throughput capacity of 42,000 bpd and is 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 15 major
processing units, approximately 3.2 million barrels of
storage capacity in 140 storage tanks and related loading and
unloading facilities and utilities. We have expanded the
refinerys capabilities by adding additional processing and
blending facilities and a second reactor to the high pressure
hydrotreater. In addition, we resumed production of gasoline,
diesel and other fuel products at the refinery. The following
table sets forth historical information about production at our
Shreveport refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity (bpd)
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
34,352
|
|
|
|
36,894
|
|
|
|
35,342
|
|
Refinery production (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
22,613
|
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
22,666
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
5,684
|
|
|
|
6,351
|
|
|
|
6,093
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,177
|
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
|
|
1,020
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
3,345
|
|
|
|
3,817
|
|
|
|
3,483
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(2)(3)
|
|
|
32,819
|
|
|
|
34,950
|
|
|
|
33,262
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our refineries. The decrease
in feedstock runs for the year ended December 31, 2007 was
due to unscheduled downtime of certain units at our Shreveport
refinery as well as reduced production as a result of
incremental refining economics associated with the rising cost
of crude oil. |
|
(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 feedstock and
production of end products and volume loss. |
|
(3) |
|
Total refinery production includes certain interplant solvent
feedstocks supplied to our Cotton Valley refinery. |
We commenced construction of an expansion project in the fourth
quarter of 2006, now scheduled for completion in the first
quarter of 2008 with production ramping up during the second
quarter of 2008, to increase our Shreveport refinerys
aggregate crude oil throughput capacity from approximately
42,000 bpd to approximately 57,000 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 fluctuates 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 are being 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
10
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 to
the Shreveport refinery gathered from local producers.
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 rail car service.
Penreco
Operating Assets
On January 3, 2008, we acquired all outstanding partnership
interests of Penreco, a Texas general partnership, from
ConocoPhillips and M.E. Zukerman Specialty Oil Corporation.
Penreco is a leading producer of high quality, specialty
hydrocarbon products. Penreco has two operating facilities and
seven major specialty product lines which are marketed to a
variety of industries. Penrecos operating assets consist
of:
|
|
|
|
|
Karns City, Pennsylvania 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, Texas 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.
|
Burnham
Terminal and Other Logistics Assets
Our Burnham, Illinois terminal receives specialty products from
each of our facilities 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
facilities and plays a key role in moving our products to the
end-user market by providing the following services:
|
|
|
|
|
distribution;
|
|
|
|
blending to achieve specified products; and
|
|
|
|
storage and inventory management.
|
We also lease a fleet of approximately 1,400 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.
11
Crude Oil
and Feedstock Supply
We purchase crude oil from major oil companies as well as from
various gatherers and marketers in Texas and north Louisiana.
The Shreveport refinery can also receive 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.
For the year ended December 31, 2007, we purchased
approximately 42.0% of our crude oil supply from a subsidiary of
Plains under a term contract that expires in April 2008, 43.4%
of our crude oil supply through evergreen crude oil supply
contracts, which are typically terminable on 30 days
notice by either party, and the remaining 14.6% of our crude oil
supply on the spot market. 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, 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
price risk. Please read Item 7A Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Commodity
Price Risk for a discussion of our crude oil hedging
program.
With the acquisition of Penreco we entered into long-term supply
agreements with ConocoPhillips for various feedstocks that are
key to Penrecos operations for terms ranging from 3 to
10 years. In addition, certain products of our existing
refineries can be used as feedstocks by the Penreco facilities.
We believe that adequate supplies of feedstocks are available
for the Penreco facilities.
Markets
and Customers
We produce a full line of specialty products, including premium
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 sales department works closely with the
laboratories at the refineries and our technical department to
help create specialized blends that will work optimally for our
customers.
Markets
Specialty Products. The specialty products
market represents a small portion of the overall petroleum
refining industry in the United States. Of the nearly 150
refineries currently in operation in the United States, only a
small number of the refineries are considered specialty products
producers and only a few compete with us in terms of the number
of products produced.
Our specialty products are utilized in applications across a
broad range of industries, including in:
|
|
|
|
|
industrial goods such as 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 or barges. For the year ended
December 31, 2007, about 48.3% of our
12
specialty products were shipped in our fleet of approximately
1,400 leased rail cars with the remaining 51.7% of our specialty
products shipped in trucks owned and operated by several
different third-party carriers. We have the capability to ship
large quantities via barge if necessary. For shipments outside
of North America, which accounted for less than 10% of our
consolidated sales in 2007, 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 the year ended December 31, 2007, we sold
approximately 10,000 bpd of gasoline into the Louisiana,
Texas and Arkansas markets, and we sold our 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 also sell
the majority of our diesel fuel locally, but similar to
gasoline, we occasionally sell the excess volumes to upstream
marketers during times of high diesel production or for
competitive reasons.
The Shreveport refinery also has the capacity to produce about
10,500 bpd of commercial jet fuel that can be marketed to
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 make
solvents. Jet fuel sales volumes change as the margin between
diesel and jet fuel change. We have a sales contract with
Barksdale for approximately 2,700 bpd of jet fuel. This
contract is effective until April 2008 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 rail car to other producers. FCC feedstock is sold to other
refiners as a feedstock for their FCC units. Butanes are
primarily available in the summer months and are primarily sold
to local marketers. If the butane is not sold, it is blended
into our gasoline production.
Customers
Specialty Products. We have a diverse customer
base for our specialty products, with approximately 2,300 active
accounts, including customers of Penreco. 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 70 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 option to ship our fuel products to the Midwest through
the TEPPCO pipeline, should the need arise. No single customer
of our fuel products segment account for more than 10% of our
consolidated sales.
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 routine and
required 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, record keeping and reporting, hazard
communication and process safety management. We have implemented
a quality system that meets the requirements of the QS 9000/
13
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 from time to time in
industrial accidents. 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
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, on scales substantially larger
than ours. These competitors may have greater flexibility in
responding to or absorbing market changes occurring in one or
more of these segments. We distinguish our competitors according
to the products that they produce. Set forth below is a
description of our competitors according to products.
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 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.
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
14
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) a number of similar matters at the Princeton refinery.
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 review and periodic renewal. Aside
from the alleged air violations discussed above 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 implemented the sulfur standard with respect to
gasoline and also 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
only in the beginning stages of discussion with the LDEQ and,
consequently, while no significant compliance and enforcement
expenditures have been requested as a result of the these
discussions, we anticipate that we will ultimately be
15
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.
In response to recent studies suggesting that emissions of
carbon dioxide and certain other gases may be contributing to
warming of the Earths atmosphere, the current session of
the U.S. Congress is considering climate change-related
legislation to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. One bill
recently approved by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, known as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security
Act or S.2191, would require a 70% reduction in emissions of
greenhouse gases from sources within the United States between
2012 and 2050. The Lieberman-Warner bill proposes a cap
and trade scheme of regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions a ban on emissions above a defined
reducing annual cap. Covered parties will be authorized to emit
greenhouse emissions through the acquisition and subsequent
surrender of emission allowances that may be traded or acquired
on the open market. A vote on this bill by the full Senate is
expected to occur before mid-year 2008. In addition, at least
17 states have already taken legal measures to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily through the planned
development of greenhouse gas emission inventories
and/or
regional greenhouse gas cap and trade programs. Most of these
cap and trade programs require either major sources of
emissions, such as electric power plants, or major producers of
fuels, such as refineries or gas processing plants, to acquire
and surrender emission allowances. The number of allowances
available for purchase is reduced each year until the overall
greenhouse gas emission reduction goal is achieved. Depending on
the particular program, we could be required to purchase and
surrender allowances, either for greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from our operations or from combustion of fuels we
produce. Although we would not be impacted to a greater degree
than other similarly situated refiners of crude oil, a stringent
greenhouse gas control program could have an adverse effect on
our cost of doing business and could reduce demand for the crude
oil we refine.
Also, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Courts decision
on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, the
EPA may be required to regulate carbon dioxide and other
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 EPA
has indicated that it will issue a rulemaking notice to address
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles
and automobile fuels, although the date for issuance of this
notice has not been finalized. 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 under certain Clean Air Act programs. New
federal or state restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide
that may be imposed in areas of the United States in which we
conduct business could also adversely affect our cost of doing
business and demand for the crude 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
16
substantial compliance with the existing requirements of RCRA
and similar state and local laws, and the cost involved in
complying with these requirements is not material.
We currently own or operate, and have in the past owned or
operated, properties that for many years have been used for
refining and terminal activities. These properties have in the
past been operated by third parties whose treatment and disposal
or release of petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes was not under
our control. Although we used operating and disposal practices
that were standard in the industry at the time, petroleum
hydrocarbons or wastes have been released on or under the
properties owned or operated by us. These properties and the
materials disposed or released on them may be subject to CERCLA,
RCRA and analogous state laws. Under such laws, we could be
required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes or
property contamination, or to perform remedial activities to
prevent future contamination.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of our refinery sites. The remedial projects are being
overseen by the appropriate state agencies. Based on current
investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled
or remedied without having a material adverse effect on our
financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable
and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs
will not become material.
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 received an
OSHA citation in the fourth quarter of 2007 for various process
safety violations at our Shreveport refinery which resulted in a
penalty totaling $0.1 million. We plan to have an informal
conference with OSHA in mid-March 2008 to clarify the citations
received and contest the citation amount. With the exception of
this citation, 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
in 2001. The indemnity is unlimited in amount and duration, but
requires us to
17
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 two years from January 1, 2008
without any claims having been asserted by us and are generally
subject to a $2.0 million limit.
The federal Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
of 2007 requires the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), to issue regulations establishing risk-based
performance standards for the security of chemical and
industrial facilities, including oil and gas facilities that are
deemed to present high levels of security risk. The
DHS issued an interim final rule in April 2007 regarding
risk-based performance standards to be attained pursuant to the
act and, on November 20, 2007, further issued an
Appendix A to the interim rules that establish chemicals of
interest and their respective threshold quantities that may
trigger compliance with these interim rules. We have not yet
determined the extent to which our facilities are subject to the
interim rules or the associated costs to comply, but it is
possible that such costs could be substantial.
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 the facilities, with insurers in amounts
and with coverage and deductibles that we, with the advice of
our insurance advisors and brokers, believe are reasonable and
prudent. We cannot, however, ensure that this insurance will be
adequate to protect us from all material expenses related to
potential future claims for personal and property damage or that
these levels of insurance will be available in the future at
economical prices. We are not fully insured against certain
risks because such risks are not fully insurable, coverage is
unavailable, or premium costs, in our judgment, do not justify
such expenditures.
Seasonality
The operating results for the fuel products segment and the
selling prices of asphalt products we produce can be seasonal.
Asphalt demand is generally lower in the first and fourth
quarters of the year as compared to the second and third
quarters due to the seasonality of annual road construction.
Demand for gasoline is generally higher during the summer months
than during the winter months due to seasonal increases in
highway traffic. In addition, our natural gas costs can be
higher during the winter months. As a result, our operating
results for the first and fourth calendar quarters may be lower
than those for the second and third calendar quarters of each
year 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 Liquidity and
Capital Resources Debt and Credit Facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acres
|
|
Location
|
|
Shreveport refinery
|
|
240
|
|
Shreveport, Louisiana
|
Princeton refinery
|
|
208
|
|
Princeton, Louisiana
|
Cotton Valley refinery
|
|
77
|
|
Cotton Valley, Louisiana
|
Burnham terminal
|
|
11
|
|
Burnham, Illinois
|
Karns City facility
|
|
225
|
|
Karns City, Pennsylvania
|
Dickinson facility
|
|
28
|
|
Dickinson, Texas
|
18
Office
Facilities
In addition to our facilities and terminal discussed above, we
occupy approximately 23,500 square feet of executive 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. 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 either terminate our lease of or sublease
the facility in The Woodlands, Texas during 2008.
Employees
As of February 29, 2008, our general partner employs
approximately 640 people who provide direct support to the
Companys operations. Of these employees, approximately 300
are covered by collective bargaining agreements, including
approximately 150 employees of 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, 2008 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 as of 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, 2009. The Dickinson, Texas facility
employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with
the International Union of Operating Engineers that will expire
on March 31, 2010. None of the employees at the Burnham
terminal are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Our
general partner considers its employee relations to be good,
with no history of work stoppages.
Address,
Internet Website and Availability of Public Filings
Our principal executive offices are located at 2780 Waterfront
Pkwy. E. 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.
19
Item 1A. Risk
Factors
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;
|
|
|
|
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 losses and may not
make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.
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 and fuel products prices and the
prices for crude oil and other feedstocks. The cost to acquire
our feedstocks and the price at which we can ultimately sell our
refined products depend upon numerous factors beyond our control.
20
A widely used benchmark in the fuel products industry to measure
market values and margins is the
3/2/1
crack spread, which represents the approximate gross
margin resulting from processing one barrel of 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
3/2/1 crack
spread, as reported by Bloomberg L.P., averaged as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Time Period
|
|
Crack spread
|
|
|
1990 to 1999
|
|
$
|
3.04
|
|
2000 to 2004
|
|
$
|
4.61
|
|
2005
|
|
$
|
10.63
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
10.70
|
|
First quarter 2007
|
|
$
|
12.47
|
|
Second quarter 2007
|
|
$
|
24.30
|
|
Third quarter 2007
|
|
$
|
12.06
|
|
Fourth quarter 2007
|
|
$
|
8.07
|
|
Calendar year 2007
|
|
$
|
14.27
|
|
Our actual refinery 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
year ended December 31, 2007, excluding the effects of
hedges, we experienced a 10.4% increase in the cost of crude oil
per barrel as compared to a 3.4% 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. Natural gas prices
have historically been volatile.
For example, daily prices as reported on the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX) ranged between $5.38 and $8.64 per
million British thermal units, or MMBtu, in 2007 and between
$4.20 and $10.62 per MMBtu in
21
2006. 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 44.2% and 42.3% of our
total operating expenses included in cost of sales for the years
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, 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. 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. For
example, we generally have entered into monthly crude collars to
hedge up to 14,000 bpd of crude purchases related to our
specialty products segment, which had average total daily
production for the year ended December 31, 2007 of
25,123 bpd. Thus, we could be exposed to significant crude
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 flows 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
asset reconfiguration and enhancement initiatives, including the
current expansion project at our Shreveport refinery, may not
result in revenue or cash flow increases, may be subject to
significant cost overruns and are subject to regulatory,
environmental, political, legal and economic risks, which could
adversely affect our business, operating results, cash flows and
financial condition.
We plan to grow our business in part through the reconfiguration
and enhancement of our refinery assets. As a specific current
example, we are in the process of completing an expansion
project at our Shreveport refinery to increase throughput
capacity and crude oil processing flexibility. This construction
project and the construction of other additions or modifications
to our existing refineries 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. As a result, these
projects may not be completed at the budgeted cost, on schedule,
or at all.
22
We currently anticipate that our expansion project at the
Shreveport refinery will be completed by the first quarter of
2008 with production ramping up during the second quarter of
2008 and will cost approximately $300 million to complete,
an increase of $80 million from our previous estimate and
an increase of $190 million from our initial estimate. This
increase is primarily due to increased construction labor costs
and relatively lower productivity than earlier expected and
therefore a delay in the startup of the project. We may suffer
additional significant delays to the expected completion date or
significant additional cost overruns as a result of increases in
construction costs, shortages of workers or materials,
transportation constraints, adverse weather, regulatory and
permitting challenges, unforeseen difficulties or labor issues.
Thus, construction to expand our Shreveport refinery or
construction of other additions or modifications to our existing
refineries may occur over an extended period of time and we may
not receive any material increases in revenues and cash flows
until the project is completed, if at all. Moreover, we may
encounter difficulties or delays during the ramp up of
production subsequent to the completion of the Shreveport
refinery expansion project or other projects. For further
discussion of the Shreveport expansion project, please read
Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources Capital
Expenditures.
If we
are unable to integrate the Penreco acquisition as expected, our
future financial performance may be negatively
impacted.
Integration of the Penreco business and operations with our
existing business and operations will be a complex,
time-consuming and costly process, particularly given that the
acquisition substantially increased our size, expanded our
product line beyond products we have historically sold and
diversified the geographic areas in which we operate. A failure
to successfully integrate the Penreco business and operations
with our existing business and operations in a timely manner may
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows. The
difficulties of combining the acquired operations include, among
other things:
|
|
|
|
|
operating a larger combined organization and adding operations;
|
|
|
|
difficulties in the assimilation of the assets and operations of
the acquired business;
|
|
|
|
customer or key employee loss from the acquired business;
|
|
|
|
changes in key supply or feedstock agreements related to the
acquired business;
|
|
|
|
the diversion of managements attention from other business
concerns;
|
|
|
|
integrating personnel from diverse business backgrounds and
organizational cultures, including unionized employees
previously employed by Penreco;
|
|
|
|
managing relationships with new customers and suppliers for whom
we have not previously provided products or services;
|
|
|
|
maintaining an effective system of internal controls related to
the acquired business;
|
|
|
|
integrating internal controls, compliance under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other regulatory compliance and
corporate governance matters;
|
|
|
|
an inability to complete other internal growth projects
and/or
acquisitions due to constraints on time and resources;
|
|
|
|
difficulties integrating new technology systems that we have not
historically used in our operations or financial reporting;
|
|
|
|
an increase in our indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
potential environmental or regulatory compliance matters or
liabilities including, but not limited to, the matters
associated with the Environmental Protection Agency, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and title
issues, including certain liabilities arising from the operation
of the acquired business before the acquisition;
|
|
|
|
coordinating geographically disparate organizations, systems and
facilities;
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
coordinating with the labor unions which represent substantially
all of Penrecos operating personnel; and
|
|
|
|
coordinating and consolidating corporate and administrative
functions.
|
Further, unexpected costs and challenges may arise whenever
businesses with different operations or management are combined,
and we may experience unanticipated delays in realizing the
benefits of the acquisition.
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 $37.1 million of outstanding
indebtedness under our credit facilities as of December 31,
2007 and availability for borrowings of $120.5 million
under our senior secured revolving credit facility. We continue
to have the ability to incur additional debt, including the
ability to borrow up to $225.0 million as of
December 31, 2007 under our senior secured revolving credit
facility, subject to borrowing base limitations in our credit
agreement. On January 3, 2008, we entered into a new senior
secured first lien term loan credit facility for
$385.0 million. We also amended the senior secured
revolving credit facility to increase total availability on the
revolver up to $375.0 million. As of January 3, 2008,
we have total outstanding debt of $385.0 million on the
senior secured term loan and have the ability to borrow up to
$375.0 million under the amended senior secured revolving
credit facility, subject to borrowing base limitations. For
further discussion of the new term loan 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. 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
24
our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take
actions such as reducing distributions, reducing or delaying our
business activities, acquisitions, investments
and/or
capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or
refinancing our indebtedness, or seeking additional equity
capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to effect
any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.
Our
newly acquired Penreco assets 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 newly acquired Penreco assets 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 new suppliers.
Each of our new 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 of the risks
we face in connection with the Penreco acquisition, including
integration risks and the risk that a substantial portion of its
business may not produce qualifying income for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.
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 Texas and North Louisiana.
For the year ended December 31, 2007, subsidiaries of
Plains and Genesis Crude Oil, L.P. supplied us with
approximately 63.1% and 8.8%, respectively, of our total crude
oil supplies under term contracts and evergreen crude oil supply
contracts. Each of our refineries is dependent on one or both of
these suppliers and the loss 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.
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
25
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 most 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 feedstock 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
|
|
|
|
availability of raw materials.
|
26
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 continuing our discussions on a voluntary basis with the
LDEQ regarding our participation in that agencys
Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery Initiative.
While no specific compliance and enforcement expenditures have
been requested as a result of our discussions, we anticipate
that we will ultimately be required to make emissions reductions
requiring capital investments between an aggregate of
$1.0 million and $3.0 million over a three to five
year period at the Companys three Louisiana refineries. As
a part of this initiative, we also expect to settle
$0.4 million of penalties assessed by the LDEQ.
We received an OSHA citation in the fourth quarter of 2007 for
various process safety violations at our Shreveport refinery
which resulted in a penalty totaling $0.1 million. We plan
to have an informal conference with OSHA in mid-March 2008 to
clarify the citations received and contest the citation amount.
We also estimate we will incur potential expenditures of
$0.8 million to remediate OSHA compliance issues as a part
of the Penreco acquisition.
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 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
27
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.
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
28
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 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.
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.
|
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
29
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, including our newly
acquired Penreco operating 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 in connection with the Penreco acquisition
contain operating and financial restrictions similar to the
items listed above, which we believe will generally be at least
as restrictive as our credit agreements in effect prior to
January 3, 2008. Financial covenants in the new term loan
credit agreement and the amended revolving credit facility
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 starting with the
quarter ended June 30, 2009 and a minimum consolidated
interest coverage ratio of not less than 2.50 to 1.00 with a
step up to 2.75 to 1.00 starting 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 facility
or it may not be on terms that are acceptable to us.
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 (7.25% as of December 31, 2007). Borrowings
under our previous term loan facility bore interest at a
floating rate (8.74% as of December 31, 2007). 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 new 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.
Our
business and operations could be adversely affected by terrorist
attacks.
The U.S. government may continue to issue public warnings
that indicate that energy assets might be specific targets of
terrorist organizations. The continued threat of terrorism and
the impact of military and other actions will likely lead to
increased volatility in prices for natural gas and crude oil and
could affect the markets for our products. These developments
have subjected our operations to increased risk and, depending
on their ultimate magnitude, could have a material adverse
affect on our business. We do not carry any terrorism risk
insurance.
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
from the refineries 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 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
and in 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
30
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 facilities.
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 2008,
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 2009 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. For example, in 2006,
Penrecos financial performance was significantly impacted
by a 99-day
work stoppage at its Karns City, Pennsylvania facility due to a
labor dispute. 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.
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 57.2% 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 57.2% limited partner interest in us. In addition, The
Heritage Group and the families of our
31
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 and Related Party
Transactions Omnibus Agreement.
Although Mr. Grube is prohibited from competing with us
pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, the owners of
our general partner, other than The Heritage Group, are not
prohibited from competing with us.
Our
partnership agreement limits our general partners
fiduciary duties to our unitholders and restricts the remedies
available to unitholders for actions taken by our general
partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary
duty.
Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the
standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held
by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership
agreement:
|
|
|
|
|
Permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its
individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our
general partner. This entitles our general partner to consider
only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no
duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of,
or factors affecting, us,
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
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 to 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
did not elect our general partner or its board of directors, and
will 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 were
dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they
will 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 initially to remove the general
partner without its consent because the general partner and its
affiliates will 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 58.4% 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.
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.
33
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.
Subsequent to the completion of our follow-on offering on
November 20, 2007, we had 2,551,144 units available
under the basket. If the Penreco acquisition and Shreveport
refinery expansion project are determined to increase cash flow
per unit, our general partner will be able to replenish the
basket with the number of units issued to finance the Shreveport
refinery expansion project and the Penreco acquisition. If we
are able to demonstrate accretion with respect to both of these
transactions, our basket will return to its original level, or
6,533,000 common units.
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 30.1% 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 58.4% 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, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on
this or any other tax matter affecting us, other than as
specifically described herein with respect to the Penreco
assets. Please read The Penreco assets and
operations we acquired may be subject to federal income tax,
which would substantially reduce cash available for
distribution, below.
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
36
based upon our current operations that we are so treated, a
change in our business (or a change in current law) could 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 will be 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 are
considering substantive changes to the existing federal income
tax laws that affect certain publicly traded partnerships. Any
modification to the federal income tax laws and interpretations
thereof may or may not be applied retroactively. Although the
currently proposed legislation would not appear to affect our
tax treatment as a partnership, we are unable to predict whether
any of these changes, or other proposals, 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 to unitholders.
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 conclusions of our
counsel expressed in this prospectus or from the positions we
take. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court
proceedings to sustain some or all of our counsels
conclusions or the positions we take. A court may not agree with
some or all of our counsels conclusions or 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
37
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.
Tax
gain or loss on disposition of common units could be more or
less than expected.
If you sell your common units, you will recognize a gain or loss
equal to the difference between the amount realized and your tax
basis in those common units. Because distributions in excess of
your allocable share of our net taxable income decrease your tax
basis in your common units, the amount, if any, of such prior
excess distributions with respect to the units you sell will, in
effect, become taxable income to you if you sell such units at a
price greater than your tax basis in those units, even if the
price you receive is less than your 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 you
sell your units, you may incur a tax liability in excess of the
amount of cash you 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. If you are a tax
exempt entity or a
non-U.S. person,
you should consult your tax advisor 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.
The
Penreco assets and operations we acquired may be subject to
federal income tax, which would substantially reduce cash
available for distribution.
Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under
Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a
publicly traded partnership such as ours to be treated as a
corporation for federal income tax purposes. In order to
maintain our status as a partnership for U.S. federal
income tax purposes, 90% or more of our gross income in each tax
year must be qualifying income under Section 7704 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
38
We have requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to the
qualifying nature of the income generated by the Penreco assets
and operations upon which, if granted, we may rely with respect
such income. If the IRS is unwilling or unable to provide a
favorable ruling with respect to the Penreco income in a timely
manner, it may be necessary for us to own the Penreco assets and
conduct the acquired Penreco business operations in a taxable
corporate subsidiary. In such case, this corporate subsidiary,
like our existing corporate subsidiary, would be subject to
corporate-level tax on its taxable income at the applicable
federal corporate income tax rate of 35% as well as any
applicable state income tax rates. Imposition of a corporate
level tax would significantly reduce the anticipated cash
available for distribution from the Penreco assets and
operations to us and, in turn, would reduce our cash available
for distribution to our unitholders. Moreover, if the IRS were
to successfully assert that this corporation had more tax
liability than we currently anticipate or legislation was
enacted that increased the corporate tax rate, our cash
available for distribution to our unitholders would be further
reduced. Additionally, the qualifying nature of other income
from such acquisition may be in question and require a private
letter ruling from the IRS as described above.
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, and, accordingly,
our counsel is unable to opine as to the validity of this
method. 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.
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. Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. has
not rendered an opinion regarding the treatment of a unitholder
where common units are loaned to a short seller to cover a short
sale of common units; therefore, 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.
39
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. 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 to penalties for failure to comply
with those requirements. We own assets
and/or do
business in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
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.
40
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. During each quarter in the year ended
December 31, 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, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter(1)
|
|
$
|
21.70
|
|
|
$
|
27.95
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
(2)
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
27.11
|
|
|
$
|
36.94
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
28.79
|
|
|
$
|
32.58
|
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
29.80
|
|
|
$
|
44.21
|
|
|
$
|
0.60
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the period from January 26, 2006, the day our
common units began trading on the NASDAQ, through March 31,
2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects the pro rata portion of the $0.45 quarterly
distribution per unit paid, representing the period from the
January 31, 2006 closing of our initial public offering
through March 31, 2006. |
As of February 29, 2008, there were approximately
17 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 29, 2008,
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 established trading
market. The last reported sale price of our common units by
NASDAQ on February 29, 2008 was $30.17.
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.
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
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 14, 2008, we paid a quarterly cash distribution of
$0.63 per unit on all outstanding units totaling
$21.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2007
to all unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 4, 2008.
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 $3.5 million to
our general partner in incentive distributions pursuant to its
incentive distribution rights during the year ended
December 31, 2007.
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.
|
42
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 (which we define 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 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. As of the
closing of our initial public offering, 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.
|
43
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;
|
|
|
|
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.
44
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
the 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.
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
|
%
|
45
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 that
was issued in this offering, 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 from this initial public offering, 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 issued in our
initial public offering 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.
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, 2005, 2004 and 2003 and
for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, are
derived from the consolidated financial statements of the
Predecessor. 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.
None of the assets or liabilities of the Predecessors
Rouseville wax processing facility, Reno wax packaging facility
and Bareco wax marketing joint venture, which are included in
the historical financial statements, were contributed to us at
the closing of the initial public offering on 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 refinery 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,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per unit data)
|
|
|
Summary of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
|
$
|
430,381
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,456,492
|
|
|
|
1,436,108
|
|
|
|
1,147,117
|
|
|
|
501,973
|
|
|
|
385,396
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
181,356
|
|
|
|
204,940
|
|
|
|
141,955
|
|
|
|
37,643
|
|
|
|
44,985
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
19,614
|
|
|
|
20,430
|
|
|
|
22,126
|
|
|
|
13,133
|
|
|
|
9,432
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
54,026
|
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
|
|
46,849
|
|
|
|
33,923
|
|
|
|
28,139
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
3,662
|
|
|
|
3,592
|
|
|
|
2,493
|
|
|
|
2,309
|
|
|
|
2,419
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,854
|
|
|
|
863
|
|
|
|
871
|
|
|
|
839
|
|
|
|
905
|
|
Restructuring, decommissioning and asset impairments(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
6,694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income (loss)
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
|
|
67,283
|
|
|
|
(12,878
|
)
|
|
|
(2,604
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income (loss) of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(427
|
)
|
|
|
867
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4,717
|
)
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
|
|
(22,961
|
)
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
|
|
(9,493
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,944
|
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
(6,882
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(12,484
|
)
|
|
|
(30,309
|
)
|
|
|
2,830
|
|
|
|
39,160
|
|
|
|
(961
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(1,297
|
)
|
|
|
12,264
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(7,788
|
)
|
|
|
7,228
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(919
|
)
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
|
(17,825
|
)
|
|
|
(27,365
|
)
|
|
|
(54,357
|
)
|
|
|
21,159
|
|
|
|
(2,327
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
83,375
|
|
|
|
95,768
|
|
|
|
12,926
|
|
|
|
8,281
|
|
|
|
(4,931
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
$
|
12,926
|
|
|
$
|
8,281
|
|
|
$
|
(4,931
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per unit data)
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.63
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average units:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common basic
|
|
|
16,678
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated basic
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common diluted
|
|
|
16,680
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated diluted
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data (at period end):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
442,882
|
|
|
$
|
191,732
|
|
|
$
|
127,846
|
|
|
$
|
126,585
|
|
|
$
|
89,938
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
678,857
|
|
|
|
531,651
|
|
|
|
401,924
|
|
|
|
319,396
|
|
|
|
219,066
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
167,977
|
|
|
|
78,752
|
|
|
|
44,759
|
|
|
|
58,027
|
|
|
|
32,263
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
39,891
|
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
267,985
|
|
|
|
214,069
|
|
|
|
146,853
|
|
Total partners capital
|
|
|
399,644
|
|
|
|
385,267
|
|
|
|
43,940
|
|
|
|
37,802
|
|
|
|
29,521
|
|
Cash Flow Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flow provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
167,546
|
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
|
$
|
(34,001
|
)
|
|
$
|
(612
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,048
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(260,875
|
)
|
|
|
(75,803
|
)
|
|
|
(12,903
|
)
|
|
|
(42,930
|
)
|
|
|
(11,940
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
12,409
|
|
|
|
(22,183
|
)
|
|
|
40,990
|
|
|
|
61,561
|
|
|
|
4,884
|
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
$
|
53,155
|
|
|
$
|
25,077
|
|
|
$
|
11,331
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
104,272
|
|
|
|
104,458
|
|
|
|
85,821
|
|
|
|
34,711
|
|
|
|
6,110
|
|
Operating Data (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume(2)
|
|
|
47,663
|
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
|
|
46,953
|
|
|
|
24,658
|
|
|
|
23,616
|
|
Total feedstock runs(3)
|
|
|
48,354
|
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
26,205
|
|
|
|
25,007
|
|
Total refinery production(4)
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
48,331
|
|
|
|
26,297
|
|
|
|
25,204
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
|
(2) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
refineries and sales of inventories. |
|
(3) |
|
Feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil and
other feedstocks processed at our refineries. |
|
(4) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other refinery feedstocks at our refineries. The
difference between total refinery production and total feedstock
runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstock and production of end 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 test
thereunder. Our credit agreements in effect at December 31,
2007 required us to maintain a consolidated leverage ratio of
consolidated debt to Adjusted EBITDA, after giving effect to any
proposed distributions, of no greater than 3.75 to 1 in order to
make distributions to our unitholders. On January 3, 2008,
we entered into a new senior secured term loan credit facility
and amended our existing senior secured revolving credit
facility. Our new agreements new required us to maintain a
consolidated leverage ratio of consolidated debt to Adjusted
EBITDA, after giving effect to any proposed distributions, of no
greater than 4.0 to 1 in order to make distributions to our
unitholders, with a step down to a ratio of 3.75 to 1 starting
with the quarter ended June 30, 2009. 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 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,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net income to EBITDA and Adjusted
EBITDA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
$
|
12,926
|
|
|
$
|
8,281
|
|
|
$
|
(4,931
|
)
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
5,069
|
|
|
|
11,997
|
|
|
|
29,843
|
|
|
|
9,869
|
|
|
|
9,493
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
14,275
|
|
|
|
11,821
|
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
|
|
6,927
|
|
|
|
6,769
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
$
|
53,155
|
|
|
$
|
25,077
|
|
|
$
|
11,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized losses (gains) from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities
|
|
$
|
3,487
|
|
|
$
|
(13,145
|
)
|
|
$
|
27,586
|
|
|
$
|
7,788
|
|
|
$
|
(7,228
|
)
|
Non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,766
|
|
|
|
(1,276
|
)
|
|
|
2,250
|
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and accrued non-recurring
expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
(1,934
|
)
|
|
|
(1,983
|
)
|
|
|
3,314
|
|
|
|
3,122
|
|
|
|
(243
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
104,272
|
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
$
|
85,821
|
|
|
$
|
34,711
|
|
|
$
|
6,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA and EBITDA to net cash
provided by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
104,272
|
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
$
|
85,821
|
|
|
$
|
34,711
|
|
|
$
|
6,110
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (losses) gains from mark to market accounting for
hedging activities
|
|
|
(3,487
|
)
|
|
|
13,145
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(7,788
|
)
|
|
|
7,228
|
|
Non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,766
|
)
|
|
|
1,276
|
|
|
|
(2,250
|
)
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and accrued non-recurring
expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
1,934
|
|
|
|
1,983
|
|
|
|
(3,314
|
)
|
|
|
(3,122
|
)
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
102,719
|
|
|
$
|
119,586
|
|
|
$
|
53,155
|
|
|
$
|
25,077
|
|
|
$
|
11,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(4,638
|
)
|
|
|
(11,997
|
)
|
|
|
(29,843
|
)
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
|
|
(9,493
|
)
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
(501
|
)
|
|
|
(190
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,693
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
874
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
294
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Equity in (loss) income of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427
|
|
|
|
(867
|
)
|
Dividends received from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,470
|
|
|
|
750
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
352
|
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
|
|
4,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(15,038
|
)
|
|
|
16,031
|
|
|
|
(56,878
|
)
|
|
|
(19,399
|
)
|
|
|
(4,670
|
)
|
Inventory
|
|
|
3,321
|
|
|
|
(2,554
|
)
|
|
|
(25,441
|
)
|
|
|
(20,304
|
)
|
|
|
15,547
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
(4,121
|
)
|
|
|
16,183
|
|
|
|
569
|
|
|
|
(11,596
|
)
|
|
|
(563
|
)
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
3,418
|
|
|
|
(13,143
|
)
|
|
|
31,598
|
|
|
|
5,046
|
|
|
|
(6,265
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
89,225
|
|
|
|
33,993
|
|
|
|
(13,268
|
)
|
|
|
25,764
|
|
|
|
(1,809
|
)
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(4,150
|
)
|
|
|
657
|
|
|
|
5,293
|
|
|
|
957
|
|
|
|
1,004
|
|
Other, including changes in noncurrent assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(3,082
|
)
|
|
|
5,063
|
|
|
|
(5,346
|
)
|
|
|
(401
|
)
|
|
|
1,197
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
$
|
167,546
|
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
|
$
|
(34,001
|
)
|
|
$
|
(612
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,048
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) when used in the present tense,
prospectively or for historical periods since January 31,
2006 and Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership
(Predecessor) for historical periods prior to
January 31, 2006 where applicable. These historical
consolidated financial statements include the results of
operations of the Predecessors Rouseville and Reno
facilities, which have been closed. The following discussion
analyzes the financial condition and results of operations of
Calumet for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 and
the Predecessor for the year ended December 31, 2005. 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 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. Our business is organized
into two segments: specialty products and fuel products. In our
specialty products segment, we process crude oil 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 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 the
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 the
Shreveport refinery are included in our fuel products segment.
The fuels produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at the Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries
are included in our specialty products segment. For the year
ended December 31, 2007, approximately 63.6% of our gross
profit was generated from our specialty products segment and
approximately 36.4% of our gross profit was generated from our
fuel products segment.
Our fuel products segment began operations in 2004, when we
substantially completed the approximately $39.7 million
reconfiguration of the Shreveport refinery to add motor fuels
production, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, to its
existing specialty products slate as well as to increase overall
feedstock throughput. The project was fully completed in
February 2005. The reconfiguration was undertaken to capitalize
on strong fuels refining margins, or crack spreads, relative to
historical levels, to utilize idled assets, and to enhance the
profitability of the Shreveport refinerys specialty
products segment by increasing overall refinery throughput.
Further, we are nearing completion on an expansion project at
our Shreveport refinery to increase throughput capacity and
feedstock flexibility. Please read Liquidity and Capital
Resources Capital Expenditures.
On January 3, 2008, we closed the acquisition of Penreco, a
Texas general partnership, for a purchase price of approximately
$275 million, subject to customary post-closing purchase
price adjustments. 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 includes plants in Karns City, Pennsylvania and
Dickinson, Texas, as well as several long-term supply agreements
with ConocoPhillips Company. The transaction was funded through
a portion of the combined proceeds from a public equity offering
and a new senior secured first lien term loan credit facility.
For further discussion please read Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt and Credit Facilities.
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.
52
Our primary raw material is crude oil 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, 2007, we have hedged approximately
26.5 million barrels of fuel products through December 2011
at an average refining margin of $11.69 per barrel with average
refining margins ranging from a low of $11.15 in 2011 to a high
of $12.63 in 2008. 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.
|
Sales volumes. We view the volumes of
specialty 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 refineries. 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 an important measure 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, 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 cost 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 the 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.
53
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth information about our combined
refinery operations. Refinery production volume differs from
sales volume due to changes in inventory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Total sales volume (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
47,663
|
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
|
|
46,953
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(2)
|
|
|
48,354
|
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
Refinery production (bpd)(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
10,734
|
|
|
|
11,436
|
|
|
|
11,556
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
5,104
|
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
|
|
4,422
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,177
|
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
|
|
1,020
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,951
|
|
|
|
2,038
|
|
|
|
2,354
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,157
|
|
|
|
6,596
|
|
|
|
6,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
25,123
|
|
|
|
26,588
|
|
|
|
25,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
7,780
|
|
|
|
9,430
|
|
|
|
8,278
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
5,736
|
|
|
|
6,823
|
|
|
|
8,891
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
7,749
|
|
|
|
6,911
|
|
|
|
5,080
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
1,348
|
|
|
|
461
|
|
|
|
417
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
22,613
|
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
22,666
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
48,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
refineries and sales of inventories. |
|
(2) |
|
Feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil and
other feedstocks processed at our refineries. The decrease in
feedstock runs for the year ended December 31, 2007 was due
to unscheduled downtime of certain operating units at our
Shreveport refinery as well as reduced production as a result of
incremental refining economics associated with the rising cost
of crude oil. |
|
(3) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other refinery feedstocks at our refineries. The
difference between total refinery production and total feedstock
runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstock and production of end products and volume loss. |
54
The following table sets forth information about the
consolidated sales of our principal products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
478.1
|
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
|
$
|
394.4
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
199.8
|
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61.6
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
74.7
|
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
866.7
|
|
|
|
913.1
|
|
|
|
703.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
307.1
|
|
|
|
336.7
|
|
|
|
223.6
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
203.7
|
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
225.9
|
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
771.1
|
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
585.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
The following table reflects our consolidated results of
operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
1,637.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,456.4
|
|
|
|
1,436.1
|
|
|
|
1,147.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
181.4
|
|
|
|
204.9
|
|
|
|
142.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
19.6
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
54.0
|
|
|
|
56.9
|
|
|
|
46.9
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
Restructuring, decommissioning and asset impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
101.2
|
|
|
|
123.1
|
|
|
|
67.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
(9.0
|
)
|
|
|
(23.0
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
(6.9
|
)
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(12.5
|
)
|
|
|
(30.3
|
)
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
(27.6
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(17.8
|
)
|
|
|
(27.3
|
)
|
|
|
(54.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income before income taxes
|
|
|
83.4
|
|
|
|
95.8
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
82.9
|
|
|
$
|
95.6
|
|
|
$
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
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 the year ended
December 31, 2007 from $1,641.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2006. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
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 other 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 million increase in sales in the fuel
products segment.
Specialty products segment sales for the year ended
December 31, 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 the year ended
December 31, 2006 to approximately 8.4 million barrels
in the year ended December 31, 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 operating 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
57
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 the year ended December 31,
2007 increased $43.2 million, or 5.9%, due to a 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. 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 operating 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 the year ended December 31, 2007 as
compared to the prior year.
Gross Profit. Gross profit decreased
$23.6 million, or 11.5%, to $181.4 million for the
year ended December 31, 2007 from $204.9 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006. Gross profit for our
specialty and fuel products segments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
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 the year ended December 31, 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 the year ended December 31, 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 the year ended
December 31, 2007 from $20.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 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.
58
Transportation. Transportation expenses
decreased $2.9 million, or 5.1%, to $54.0 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007 from $56.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 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 transportation rates.
Interest expense. Interest expense decreased
$4.3 million, or 47.8%, to $4.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007 from $9.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2006. This decrease was primarily due to
increased capitalized interest as a result of capital
expenditures on the Shreveport refinery expansion project.
Interest income. Interest income decreased
$1.0 million to $1.9 million in the year ended
December 31, 2007 from $3.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 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 for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to $3.0 million for the
year ended December 31, 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 the year ended December 31, 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 gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Realized loss on derivative
instruments decreased $17.8 million to a $12.5 million
loss in the year ended December 31, 2007 from a
$30.3 million loss in the year ended December 31,
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 the year ended December 31, 2007 from a
$12.3 million gain for the year ended December 31,
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.
59
Year
Ended December 31, 2006 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Sales. Sales increased $352.0 million, or
27.3%, to $1,641.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $1,289.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2005. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Sales by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
|
$
|
394.4
|
|
|
|
29.3
|
%
|
Solvents
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
|
|
39.3
|
%
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
40.2
|
%
|
Fuels(1)
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
(6.2
|
)%
|
Asphalt and other by-products(2)
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products
|
|
|
913.1
|
|
|
|
703.3
|
|
|
|
29.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
9,165,000
|
|
|
|
8,900,000
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
336.7
|
|
|
$
|
223.6
|
|
|
|
50.6
|
%
|
Diesel
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
(10.3
|
)%
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
|
|
45.4
|
%
|
By-products(3)
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
(23.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
585.8
|
|
|
|
24.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
9,211,000
|
|
|
|
8,238,000
|
|
|
|
11.8
|
%
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
|
27.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
18,376,000
|
|
|
|
17,138,000
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents fuels produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at the Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents asphalt and other by-products produced in connection
with the production of specialty products at the Princeton,
Cotton Valley and Shreveport refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents by-products produced in connection with the
production of fuels at the Shreveport refinery. |
This $352.0 million increase in sales resulted primarily
from a $209.9 million increase in sales by the specialty
products segment and a $142.0 million increase in sales in
the fuel products segment.
Specialty products segment sales for the year ended
December 31, 2006 increased $209.9 million, or 29.9%,
primarily due to a 26.1% increase in the average selling price
per barrel across all product lines and a more favorable product
mix of lubricating oils and solvents. Average selling prices per
barrel for lubricating oils, solvents, waxes, fuels, and asphalt
and other by-products increased at rates comparable to or in
excess of the overall 15.6% increase in the cost of crude oil
per barrel during the period. In addition, specialty products
segment sales were positively affected by a 3.0% increase in
volumes sold, from approximately 8.9 million barrels in the
year ended December 31, 2005 to approximately
9.2 million barrels in the year ended December 31,
2006 due to increased sales volumes for lubricating oils and
solvents, partially offset by decreased sales volume of fuels.
Fuel products segment sales for the year ended December 31,
2006 increased $142.0 million, or 24.2%, partially due to
an 11.1% increase in the average selling price per barrel.
Average selling prices per barrel for gasoline, diesel, jet
fuel, and by-products increased at rates comparable to or less
than the overall 15.2% increase in the cost of crude oil per
barrel for the period due to market conditions. Fuel products
segment sales were also
60
positively affected by an 11.8% increase in volumes sold
attributable to the
ramp-up of
the fuels operations at the Shreveport refinery in the first
quarter of 2005. The settlement of our fuel products cash flow
hedges had an immaterial impact on fuel products segment sales
for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Gross Profit. Gross profit increased
$63.0 million, or 44.4%, to $204.9 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006 from $142.0 million for
the year ended December 31, 2005. Gross profit for our
specialty and fuel products segments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Gross profit by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
154.0
|
|
|
$
|
74.9
|
|
|
|
105.7
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
16.9
|
%
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
$
|
50.9
|
|
|
$
|
67.1
|
|
|
|
(24.1
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
204.9
|
|
|
$
|
142.0
|
|
|
|
44.4
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
12.5
|
%
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
This $63.0 million increase in total gross profit includes
an increase in gross profit of $79.2 million in the
specialty products segment offset by a $16.2 million
decrease in gross profit in the fuel products segment.
The increase in the specialty products segment gross profit was
primarily due the average selling price per barrel increasing by
26.1%, which was more than the increase in the average cost of
crude oil of 15.6% during the period. This was primarily driven
by price increases across all product lines and a more favorable
product mix of lubricating oils and solvents. Specialty products
segment gross profit was also positively affected by 3.0%
increase in sales volumes, primarily driven by solvents and
waxes. The sales price and volume increases were partially
offset by the recognition of $9.4 million of derivative
losses on our cash flow hedges of crude oil and natural gas
purchases reflected in cost of sales in the consolidated
statements of operations. The segment gross profit was also
positively affected by lower operating costs due to lower costs
for plant fuel and maintenance.
The decrease in the fuel products segment gross profit of
$16.2 million was primarily the result of the average per
barrel selling price increasing by 11.1%, which was less than
the increase in the average cost of crude oil per barrel of
15.2%. Fuel products segment gross profit was also negatively
impacted by approximately $13.4 million due primarily to
increases in other material costs from the use of certain
gasoline blendstocks in the third and fourth quarter of 2006 to
maintain compliance with environmental regulations. The Company
does not believe it will be necessary to purchase such gasoline
blendstocks in 2007. Further contributing to the decrease in
segment gross profit was the recognition of $1.7 million of
derivative losses from our cash flow hedges of fuel products
sales and crude oil purchases. These decreases were partially
offset by an 11.8% increase in sales volumes, primarily in
gasoline and jet fuel.
Selling, general and administrative. Selling,
general and administrative expenses decreased $1.7 million,
or 7.7%, to $20.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $22.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2005. This decrease primarily reflects
decreased employee compensation costs due to incentive bonuses.
This decrease was offset by increased general and administrative
costs incurred as a result of being a public company.
Transportation. Transportation expenses
increased $10.1 million, or 21.5%, to $56.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2006 from $46.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase in
transportation expense over the period is due to significant
price increases for rail transportation services as well as the
3.0% increase in sales volumes for the specialty products
segment for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to
the same period in 2005.
Restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments. Restructuring, decommissioning and
asset impairment expenses were $2.3 million for the year
ended December 31, 2005, and we incurred no such expenses
in 2006.
61
The charges recorded in 2005 related to decommissioning and
asset impairment costs of the Reno wax packaging assets. No
other assets impairments occurred in 2006.
Interest expense. Interest expense decreased
$13.9 million, or 60.7%, to $9.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2006 from $23.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2005. This decrease was primarily due to
the debt refinancing in December 2005 and the repayment of debt
with the proceeds of the initial public offering and follow-on
equity offering, which closed on January 31, 2006 and
July 5, 2006, respectively.
Interest income. Interest income increased
$2.7 million to $3.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $0.2 million in the year ended
December 31, 2005. This increase was primarily due to the
investment of the remaining proceeds from our follow-on equity
offering, which closed on July 5, 2006, after the pay down
of indebtedness. The Predecessor did not have significant cash
or cash equivalents balances during 2005.
Debt extinguishment costs. Debt extinguishment
costs decreased to $3.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to $6.9 million for the
year ended December 31, 2005. The $6.9 million
recognized in the year ended December 31, 2005 is the
result of the repayment of existing credit facilities in the
fourth quarter of 2005 using the proceeds of credit agreements
entered into in that same period. For the year ended
December 31, 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 gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Realized loss on derivative
instruments increased $33.1 million to a $30.3 million
loss in the year ended December 31, 2006 from a
$2.8 million gain in the year ended December 31, 2005.
This increased loss primarily was the result of the unfavorable
settlement of crude oil and fuel products margin derivative
contracts, which experienced decreases in market value due to
rising crack spreads upon their settlement during the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to 2005.
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments increased $39.9 million, to a
$12.3 million gain in the year ended December 31, 2006
from a $27.6 million loss for the year ended
December 31, 2005. This increase is primarily due to the
entire mark-to-market change of our derivative instruments being
recorded to unrealized loss on derivative instruments in the
prior year. Calumet designated certain of these derivatives as
cash flow hedges on April 1, 2006 and has subsequently
recorded the mark-to-market change on the effective portion of
these hedges to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) on
the consolidated balance sheets.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Our principal sources of cash have included cash flow from
operations, proceeds from public equity offerings, issuance of
private debt, and bank borrowings. Principal uses of cash have
included capital expenditures, growth in working capital,
partner distributions and debt service. We expect that our
principal uses of cash in the future will be for working
capital, distributions to our limited partners and general
partner, debt service, 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. We frequently enter
into confidentiality agreements, letters of intent and other
preliminary agreements with third parties in the ordinary course
of business as we evaluate potential growth opportunities for
our business. Our compliance with these agreements could result
in additional costs, such as engineering fees, legal fees,
consulting fees,
and/or
termination fees that we do not anticipate to be material to our
liquidity or operations.
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, 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 would likely produce a corollary material adverse
effect on our borrowing capacity.
62
The following table summarizes our primary sources and uses of
cash in the periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
$
|
167.5
|
|
|
$
|
166.8
|
|
|
$
|
(34.0
|
)
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
$
|
(260.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(75.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12.9
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
$
|
12.4
|
|
|
$
|
(22.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
41.0
|
|
Operating Activities. Operating activities
provided $167.5 million in cash during the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to $166.8 million in cash
during the year ended December 31, 2006. The cash provided
by operating activities during the year ended December 31,
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 primarily due to a decrease in net
income of $12.7 million. The reduction in working capital
was primarily due to a $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.
Operating activities provided $166.8 million in cash during
the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to using
$34.0 million in cash during the year ended
December 31, 2005. The cash provided by operating
activities during the year ended December 31, 2006
primarily consisted of net income, after adjusting for non-cash
items, of $113.9 million and $52.9 million of working
capital improvements. Net income, after adjustments for non-cash
items, increased to $113.9 million in 2006 from
$32.0 million in 2005 primarily due to an increase in net
income of $82.7 million. The improvements in working
capital were primarily due to a $34.0 million increase in
accounts payable due to improvements in payment terms with crude
oil suppliers and the issuance of letters of credit, a
$29.7 million decrease in accounts receivable as a result
of decreased sales volume in the fourth quarter of 2006 as
compared to the same period in 2005 and lower prepaid expenses
driven by decreased prepaid crude oil purchases.
Investing Activities. Cash used in investing
activities increased to $260.9 million during the year
ended December 31, 2007 as compared to $75.8 million
during the year ended December 31, 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 relates 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.
Cash used in investing activities increased to
$75.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2006
as compared to $12.9 million during the year ended
December 31, 2005. This increase was primarily due to the
$65.5 million of additions to property, plant and equipment
related to the Shreveport refinery expansion project during
2006, with no comparable expenditures in 2005. In 2005, capital
expenditures primarily consisted of an upgrade to the capacity
and enhancement of the product mix at our Cotton Valley refinery.
Financing Activities. Financing activities
provided cash of $12.4 million for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to using $22.2 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006. This increase is
primarily related to decreased repayments on debt in 2007 as
compared to 2006, offset by reduced proceeds from public
offerings of $100.3 million and increased distributions to
partners of $38.8 million.
Financing activities used cash of $22.2 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006 compared to providing
$41.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005.
This decrease is primarily due to the use of cash from
operations to make distributions to partners of
$45.2 million. In addition, we used all of the proceeds of
our initial public offering and a portion of the proceeds of a
follow-on public offering to pay down debt during the year ended
December 31, 2006. The remaining proceeds from our 2006
follow-on public equity offering were invested in highly liquid
short-term investments and were utilized as needed to fund the
Shreveport refinery expansion project.
63
On January 16, 2008, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.63 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$21.7 million, for the quarter ended December 31,
2007. The distribution was paid on February 14, 2008 to
unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 4, 2008. This quarterly distribution of $0.63 per
unit equates to $2.52 per unit, or $87.0 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
expenditures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Capital improvement expenditures
|
|
$
|
248.8
|
|
|
$
|
69.9
|
|
|
$
|
10.1
|
|
Replacement capital expenditures
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
Environmental expenditures
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
261.0
|
|
|
$
|
76.1
|
|
|
$
|
13.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We anticipate that future capital improvement requirements will
be provided through long-term borrowings, other debt financings,
equity offerings
and/or cash
on hand. Until the Shreveport refinery expansion project and the
Penreco acquisition are demonstrated to increase cash flow from
operations on a per unit basis, as discussed in Item 1A
Risk Factors, our ability to raise additional
capital through the sale of common units in certain
circumstances is limited to 2,551,144 common units.
During 2007 and 2006, we have invested significantly in
expanding and enhancing the operations of our Shreveport
refinery. We have invested approximately $254.6 million and
$70.9 million in 2007 and 2006, respectively. Of these
investments, $254.4 million relates to our Shreveport
refinery expansion project, an increase of $3.7 million
from the amount disclosed in our press release filed on the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
on February 20, 2008.
The Shreveport expansion project is expected to increase
throughput capacity by 35% from 42,000 bpd to
57,000 bpd. As part of the Shreveport refinery expansion
project, we plan to enhance the Shreveport refinerys
ability to process sour crude by 8,000 bpd, bringing total
capacity to process sour crude oil to 13,000 bpd. Of the
anticipated 57,000 bpd throughput capacity upon completion
of the expansion project, we expect the refinery to have the
capacity to process approximately 42,000 bpd of sweet crude
oil and 13,000 bpd of sour crude oil, with the remainder
coming from interplant feedstocks. Progress continues on the
expansion project and we expect it to be completed by the first
quarter of 2008 and fully operational by the second quarter of
2008. We now estimate that the total cost of the Shreveport
refinery expansion project will be approximately
$300.0 million, an increase of $80.0 million from our
previous estimate. This increase is primarily due to increased
construction labor costs and relatively lower productivity than
earlier expected and therefore a delay in the startup of the
project
Additionally, we have invested $65.6 million and
$5.4 million, respectively, in 2007 and 2006 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 anticipate an
additional $45.6 million will be incurred in 2008 related
to these projects.
In July 2006, we completed a follow-on public offering of
3.3 million common units, raising $103.5 million to
fund a significant portion of the Shreveport expansion project.
The net proceeds of this offering and our new senior
64
secured first lien term loan facility executed on
January 3, 2008 and to the extent necessary, our amended
revolving credit facility and cash flow from operations, will be
used to finance the remaining Shreveport refinery expansion
project costs.
Debt
and Credit Facilities
As of December 31, 2007, we had borrowings of
$30.1 million under our senior secured first lien term loan
facility and borrowings of $7.0 million under our senior
secured revolving credit facility. Our letters of credit
outstanding as of December 31, 2007 were $96.7 million
under the revolving credit facility and $50.0 million under
the $50.0 million letter of credit facility to support
crack spread hedging.
On January 3, 2008, we repaid all of our existing
indebtedness under the 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. The credit facilities in place as of
January 3, 2008 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.
|
The amended revolving credit facility borrowings are limited by
advance rates of percentages of eligible accounts receivable and
inventory (the borrowing base) as defined by the revolving
credit agreement.
The amended revolving credit facility currently bears interest
at prime or LIBOR plus a basis points margin. This margin is
currently at 175 basis points; however, it fluctuates based
on 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, 2007, we had availability on our revolving
credit facility of $120.5 million, based upon its
$224.1 million borrowing base, $96.7 million in
outstanding letters of credit, and $7.0 million of
outstanding borrowings. On January 31, 2008, our
availability under the amended revolving credit facility was
$186.1 million, which increased primarily due to the
addition of eligible inventory and accounts receivable as a
result of the Penreco acquisition.
The new 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. 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 and matures in January 2015. Under the
terms of our new term loan facility, we applied a portion of the
net proceeds to the acquisition of Penreco. We are required to
make mandatory repayments of approximately $1.0 million at
the end of each fiscal quarter, beginning with the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2008 and ending with the fiscal
quarter ending September 30, 2014, with the remaining
balance due at maturity on January 3, 2015.
Our letter of credit facility to support crack spread hedging
bears interest at a rate of 4.0% and it 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 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 or 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
65
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. 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. For fiscal year 2008, the
credit facilities permit the inclusion of a prorated portion of
Penrecos estimated Adjusted EBITDA from 2007 in measuring
compliance with this covenant. 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 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.
In addition, at any time that our borrowing capacity under our
revolving credit facility falls below $35.0 million, we
must 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).
We anticipate that we will continue to be in compliance with the
financial covenants contained in our credit facilities and will,
therefore, be able to make distributions to our unitholders.
In addition, our credit agreements contain various covenants
that limit, among other things, our ability 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 forward for at least
60% and no more than 90% of our anticipated fuels production,
and for a rolling 13-24 months forward for at least 50% and
no more than 90% of our anticipated fuels production.
If an event of default exists under our credit agreements, the
lenders will be able to accelerate the maturity of the credit
facilities and exercise other rights and remedies. An event of
default is defined as nonpayment of principal interest, fees or
other amounts; failure of any representation or warranty to be
true and correct when made or confirmed; failure to perform or
observe covenants in the credit agreement or other loan
documents, subject to certain grace periods; payment defaults in
respect of other indebtedness; cross-defaults in other
indebtedness if the effect of such default is to cause the
acceleration of such indebtedness under any material agreement
if such default could have a material adverse effect on us;
bankruptcy or insolvency events; monetary judgment defaults;
asserted invalidity of the loan documentation; and a change of
control in us. We believe we are in compliance with all debt
covenants and have adequate liquidity to conduct our business.
Equity
Transactions
On January 31, 2006, we completed the initial public
offering of our common units and sold 5,699,900 of those units
to the public at $21.50 per common unit. We also sold a total of
750,100 common units to certain other investors at a price of
$19.995 per common unit. In addition, on February 8, 2006,
we sold an additional 854,985 common units at a price to the
public of $21.50 per common unit pursuant to the
underwriters over-allotment option. We received total net
proceeds of approximately $144.4 million. The net proceeds
were used to: (i) repay
66
indebtedness and accrued interest under the first lien term loan
facility in the amount of approximately $125.7 million,
(ii) repay indebtedness under the secured revolving credit
facility in the amount of approximately $13.1 million and
(iii) pay transaction fees and expenses in the amount of
approximately $5.6 million.
On July 5, 2006, we completed a follow-on public offering
of common units in which we sold 3,300,000 common units to the
public at $32.94 per common unit and received net proceeds of
$103.5 million. The net proceeds were used (or will be
used) to: (i) repay all of our borrowings under our
revolving credit facility, which were approximately
$9.2 million as of June 30, 2006, (ii) fund the
future construction and other
start-up
costs of the planned expansion project at our Shreveport
refinery and (iii) to the extent available, for general
partnership purposes. The general partner contributed an
additional $2.2 million to us to retain its 2% general
partner interest.
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 public at $36.98 per common unit and received net
proceeds of $98.2 million. The net proceeds were used (or
will be used) to: (i) repay all its borrowings under our
revolving credit facility, which were approximately
$59.3 million on November 20, 2007, (ii) fund
approximately $25.1 million of the purchase price for the
Penreco acquisition and (iii) to the extent available, for
general partnership purposes. The general partner contributed an
additional $2.1 million to us to retain its 2% general
partner interest.
Contractual
Obligations and Commercial Commitments
A summary of our total contractual cash obligations as of
December 31, 2007, 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
|
|
$
|
37,057
|
|
|
$
|
303
|
|
|
$
|
7,563
|
|
|
$
|
29,191
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Interest on long-term debt at contractual rates
|
|
|
26,079
|
|
|
|
5,324
|
|
|
|
10,909
|
|
|
|
9,846
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
3,303
|
|
|
|
854
|
|
|
|
1,689
|
|
|
|
760
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations(1)
|
|
|
44,497
|
|
|
|
9,785
|
|
|
|
16,033
|
|
|
|
11,305
|
|
|
|
7,374
|
|
Letters of credit(2)
|
|
|
146,676
|
|
|
|
96,676
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase commitments(3)
|
|
|
189,544
|
|
|
|
189,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment agreements(4)
|
|
|
1,057
|
|
|
|
343
|
|
|
|
686
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total obligations
|
|
$
|
448,213
|
|
|
$
|
302,829
|
|
|
$
|
36,880
|
|
|
$
|
101,130
|
|
|
$
|
7,374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 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 order to complete our Shreveport refinery expansion project,
we currently anticipate that we will incur additional capital
expenditures of $45.6 million in 2008.
In connection with the closing of the Penreco acquisition on
January 3, 2008, we entered into a feedstock purchase
agreement with ConocoPhillips related to its LVT unit (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 approximately
$67.6 million of feedstock for the LVT unit in each of the
next five years. If the Base Volume is not supplied to us 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.
67
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, 2007, 2006 and
2005. 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 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.
Inventory
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
$107.9 million and $46.7 million higher at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Derivatives
We utilize derivative instruments to minimize our 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 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), we recognize all derivative
transactions as either assets or liabilities at fair value on
the consolidated balance sheets. To the extent designated as an
effective cash flow hedge of an exposure to future changes in
the value of a purchase or sale transaction, the change in fair
value of the derivative is deferred in accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss) on the consolidated balance sheets
until the forecasted transaction being hedged is recognized in
the consolidated statements of operations. Cash flow hedges of
purchases and sales are recorded in cost of goods sold and
sales, respectively, in the consolidated statements of
operations. The realized gain or loss upon the settlement of a
cash flow hedge of interest payments is recorded to interest
expense in the consolidated statement 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 statement of
operations. Upon the settlement of a derivative not designated
as a cash flow hedge, the gain or loss at settlement is recorded
to realized gain or loss on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statement of operations. The company utilizes third
party valuations and published market data to determine the fair
value of these derivatives.
68
The effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) related to these natural gas,
crude oil, interest and fuel products derivative contracts at
December 31, 2007 is $39.6 million and, absent a
change in their fair market value, will be reclassified to
earnings by December 31, 2011 with balances expected to be
recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
(10,874
|
)
|
2009
|
|
|
(17,216
|
)
|
2010
|
|
|
(9,118
|
)
|
2011
|
|
|
(2,433
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109. 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. We adopted the
Interpretation on January 1, 2007 which did not have a
material effect on our financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance
Activities (the Position), which amends certain
provisions in the AICPA Industry Audit Guides, Audits of
Airlines, and APB Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial
Reporting. The Position prohibited the use of the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities
(turnaround costs) and required the use of the direct expensing
method, built-in overhaul method, or deferral method. We adopted
the Position on January 1, 2007 and began using the
deferral method to account for turnaround costs. The net impact
of the adoption on January 1, 2007 was a net increase in
partners capital of $6.6 million. Under this method,
actual costs of an overhaul are capitalized as incurred and
amortized to cost of sales until the next overhaul date. Prior
to the adoption of this standard, we accrued for such overhaul
costs in advance and recorded the charge to cost of sales. As a
result of the adoption of the Position, the Company has restated
prior periods to account for turnaround costs as capitalized
costs, recorded in other noncurrent assets on the consolidated
balance sheets, in lieu of accrued turnaround costs.
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 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company will
adopt the Statement on January 1, 2008 and apply the
various disclosures as required by the Statement. The Company
anticipates that the Statement will not have a material affect
on its 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 does not
anticipate that the Position will have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
69
In December 2007, 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.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest
Rate Risk
Our profitability and cash flows are affected by changes in
interest rates, specifically LIBOR and prime rates. The primary
purpose of our interest rate risk management activities is to
hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates.
We are exposed to market risk from fluctuations in interest
rates. As of December 31, 2007, we had approximately
$37.1 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, 2006 would be expected to have an impact on
net income and cash flows for 2006 of approximately
$0.4 million. On January 3, 2008, we entered into a
new senior secured first lien term loan facility in connection
with the closing of the Penreco acquisition. This new senior
secured first lien term loan facility also refinanced the
$37.1 million of outstanding term loan borrowings as of
December 31, 2007. For 2008, a one hundred basis point
change in interest rates on our new term loan debt balance of
$385.0 million would be expected to have an impact on net
income and cash flows of $3.9 million.
We have a $225.0 million revolving credit facility as of
December 31, 2007 that was amended on January 3, 2008
to increase the facility to up to $375.0 million, bearing
interest at the prime rate or LIBOR, at our option. We had
borrowings outstanding of $7.0 under this facility as of
December 31, 2007.
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. 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
$8.7 million and our fuel product segment cost of sales by
$9.3 million based on our volumes for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
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. 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. The tenor of 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. 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 for up to five years and no more than 75% of our fuel
products sales on average for each fiscal year.
70
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
$3.1 million based on our results for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
Natural
Gas Hedging Policy
In order to manage our exposure to natural gas prices, we enter
into derivative contracts. Our policy is generally to enter into
natural gas swap contracts during the summer months for
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 $9.0 million based on our results
for the year ended December 31, 2007.
Fuel
Products Hedging Policy
In order to manage our exposure to changes in gasoline, diesel,
and jet fuel selling prices, our policy is generally to enter
into derivative contracts to hedge our fuel products sales for a
period no greater than five years forward and for no more than
75% of anticipated fuels sales on average for each fiscal year,
which is consistent with our crude purchase hedging policy for
our fuel products segment discussed above. We believe this
policy lessens the volatility of our cash flows. In addition, in
connection with our credit facilities, our lenders require us to
obtain and maintain derivative contracts to hedge our fuels
product margins for a rolling two-year period for at least 40%,
and no more than 80%, of our anticipated fuels production. Under
our new senior secured term loan credit facility entered into on
January 3, 2008, we are required to hedge our fuels product
margins for a rolling period of 1 to 12 months forward for
at least 60% and no more than 90% of our anticipated fuels
production, and for a rolling 13 to 24 months forward for
at least 50% and no more than 90% of our anticipated fuels
production.
The unrealized gain or loss on derivatives at a given point in
time is not necessarily indicative of the results realized when
such contracts mature. Please read Derivatives in
Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements for a
discussion of the accounting treatment for the various types of
derivative instruments, and a further discussion of our hedging
policies.
71
Existing
Commodity Derivative Instruments
The following tables provide information about our derivative
instruments related to our fuel products segment as of
December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/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
|
|
|
|
68.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
26,483,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
66.97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
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 by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
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
|
|
72
The following table provides a summary of these derivatives and
implied crack spreads for the crude oil, diesel and gasoline
swaps disclosed above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implied Crack
|
|
Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
Spread ($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,184,000
|
|
|
|
24,000
|
|
|
|
12.63
|
|
Second Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,184,000
|
|
|
|
24,000
|
|
|
|
12.63
|
|
Third Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,208,000
|
|
|
|
24,000
|
|
|
|
12.25
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2008
|
|
|
2,116,000
|
|
|
|
23,000
|
|
|
|
12.42
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
8,212,500
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
11.43
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
7,482,500
|
|
|
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
11.20
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
2,096,500
|
|
|
|
5,744
|
|
|
|
11.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
26,483,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.69
|
|
The following tables provide information about our derivative
instruments related to our specialty products segment as of
December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
91,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
90.92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.64
|
|
73
As of February 8, 2008, the Company has added the following
derivative instruments to the above transactions for our
specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
April 2008
|
|
|
240,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
74.36
|
|
|
$
|
84.36
|
|
|
$
|
94.36
|
|
|
$
|
104.36
|
|
May 2008
|
|
|
124,000
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
73.73
|
|
|
|
83.73
|
|
|
|
93.73
|
|
|
|
103.73
|
|
June 2008
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
74.60
|
|
|
|
84.60
|
|
|
|
94.60
|
|
|
|
104.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
424,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.23
|
|
|
$
|
84.23
|
|
|
$
|
94.23
|
|
|
$
|
104.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
February 2008
|
|
|
87,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
88.08
|
|
March 2008
|
|
|
93,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
88.08
|
|
April 2008
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
90.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
240,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
88.56
|
|
74
|
|
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, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, partners capital, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2007. 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, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidated results
of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2007, 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, 2007,
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 29, 2008
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 29, 2008
75
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
80,955
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $786 and $782,
respectively
|
|
|
109,501
|
|
|
|
97,740
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,496
|
|
|
|
1,260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113,997
|
|
|
|
99,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
107,664
|
|
|
|
110,985
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
7,567
|
|
|
|
1,506
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,802
|
|
Deposits and other current assets
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
1,961
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
229,284
|
|
|
|
335,209
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
442,882
|
|
|
|
191,732
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
6,691
|
|
|
|
4,710
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
678,857
|
|
|
$
|
531,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
167,977
|
|
|
$
|
78,752
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
2,745
|
|
|
|
5,675
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
6,215
|
|
|
|
7,038
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
4,882
|
|
|
|
2,424
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
943
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
57,503
|
|
|
|
2,995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
240,265
|
|
|
|
97,384
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
38,948
|
|
|
|
49,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
279,213
|
|
|
|
146,384
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners capital:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common unitholders (19,166,000 units authorized, issued and
outstanding)
|
|
|
375,925
|
|
|
|
274,719
|
|
Subordinated unitholders (13,066,000 units authorized,
issued and outstanding)
|
|
|
43,996
|
|
|
|
42,347
|
|
General partners interest
|
|
|
19,364
|
|
|
|
15,950
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
|
52,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total partners capital
|
|
|
399,644
|
|
|
|
385,267
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and partners capital
|
|
$
|
678,857
|
|
|
$
|
531,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
76
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands except per unit data)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,456,492
|
|
|
|
1,436,108
|
|
|
|
1,147,117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
181,356
|
|
|
|
204,940
|
|
|
|
141,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
19,614
|
|
|
|
20,430
|
|
|
|
22,126
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
54,026
|
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
|
|
46,849
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
3,662
|
|
|
|
3,592
|
|
|
|
2,493
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,854
|
|
|
|
863
|
|
|
|
871
|
|
Restructuring, decommissioning and asset impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
|
|
67,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4,717
|
)
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
|
|
(22,961
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,944
|
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
(6,882
|
)
|
Realized (loss) gain on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(12,484
|
)
|
|
|
(30,309
|
)
|
|
|
2,830
|
|
Unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments
|
|
|
(1,297
|
)
|
|
|
12,264
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(919
|
)
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(17,825
|
)
|
|
|
(27,365
|
)
|
|
|
(54,357
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income before income taxes
|
|
|
83,375
|
|
|
|
95,768
|
|
|
|
12,926
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
$
|
12,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to Predecessor for the period through
January 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to Calumet
|
|
|
82,874
|
|
|
|
91,170
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum quarterly distribution to common unitholders
|
|
|
(30,021
|
)
|
|
|
(24,413
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
General partners incentive distribution rights
|
|
|
(14,102
|
)
|
|
|
(18,912
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
General partners interest in net income
|
|
|
(939
|
)
|
|
|
(845
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Common unitholders share of income in excess of minimum
quarterly distribution
|
|
|
(13,592
|
)
|
|
|
(18,312
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited partners interest in net income
|
|
|
24,220
|
|
|
|
28,688
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.63
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.63
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units
outstanding basic
|
|
|
16,678
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner subordinated units
outstanding basic
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units
outstanding diluted
|
|
|
16,680
|
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner subordinated units
outstanding diluted
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
77
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, 2005
|
|
$
|
37,802
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
37,802
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
12,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,926
|
|
Change in fair value of cash flow hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,423
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
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)/loss 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
78
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
82,874
|
|
|
$
|
95,578
|
|
|
$
|
12,926
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
(used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
14,585
|
|
|
|
11,760
|
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
Amortization of turnaround costs
|
|
|
3,190
|
|
|
|
3,267
|
|
|
|
2,341
|
|
Non-cash debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
352
|
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
|
|
4,173
|
|
Other non-cash activities
|
|
|
399
|
|
|
|
324
|
|
|
|
526
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,693
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(15,038
|
)
|
|
|
16,031
|
|
|
|
(56,878
|
)
|
Inventories
|
|
|
3,321
|
|
|
|
(2,554
|
)
|
|
|
(25,441
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
(6,061
|
)
|
|
|
9,293
|
|
|
|
6,473
|
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
3,418
|
|
|
|
(13,143
|
)
|
|
|
31,598
|
|
Deposits and other current assets
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
|
|
6,890
|
|
|
|
(5,904
|
)
|
Other noncurrent assets
|
|
|
(6,510
|
)
|
|
|
1,705
|
|
|
|
(7,919
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
89,225
|
|
|
|
33,993
|
|
|
|
(13,268
|
)
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
(2,930
|
)
|
|
|
(2,489
|
)
|
|
|
6,186
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
(823
|
)
|
|
|
2,962
|
|
|
|
3,774
|
|
Asset retirement obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(396
|
)
|
|
|
184
|
|
|
|
(4,567
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
|
167,546
|
|
|
|
166,768
|
|
|
|
(34,001
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(261,015
|
)
|
|
|
(76,064
|
)
|
|
|
(12,963
|
)
|
Proceeds from disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
261
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(260,875
|
)
|
|
|
(75,803
|
)
|
|
|
(12,903
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from borrowings credit agreements with
third parties
|
|
|
303,380
|
|
|
|
335,069
|
|
|
|
1,415,374
|
|
Repayments of borrowings credit agreements with
third parties
|
|
|
(315,824
|
)
|
|
|
(553,554
|
)
|
|
|
(1,197,184
|
)
|
Proceeds from borrowings credit agreement with
limited partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
546,565
|
|
Repayments of borrowings credit agreement with
limited partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(710,839
|
)
|
Payments on capital lease obligation
|
|
|
(906
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from public 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
|
|
|
2,854
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions to Predecessor partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,900
|
)
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
(77,045
|
)
|
|
|
(38,286
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common units for phantom unit grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,641
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
12,409
|
|
|
|
(22,183
|
)
|
|
|
40,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(80,920
|
)
|
|
|
68,782
|
|
|
|
(5,914
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
80,955
|
|
|
|
12,173
|
|
|
|
18,087
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
80,955
|
|
|
$
|
12,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest
|
|
$
|
4,080
|
|
|
$
|
11,986
|
|
|
$
|
22,890
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$
|
150
|
|
|
$
|
175
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of noncash financing and investing
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment acquired under capital lease
|
|
$
|
3,565
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
79
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, 2008,
the Partnership completed follow-on public offerings of its
common units. See Note 8 for further discussion of the
units sold and proceeds from these offerings. As of
December 31, 2007, 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.
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, and Shreveport, Louisiana, and a terminal
located in Burnham, Illinois. On January 3, 2008, the
Partnership closed on its acquisition of Penreco, a Texas
general partnership. See Note 14 for further discussion of
the acquisition of Penreco.
|
|
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 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. Certain reclassifications have been made to
prior years to conform to current year presentation of the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
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.
80
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
20,887
|
|
|
$
|
26,791
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
21,325
|
|
|
|
30,130
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
65,452
|
|
|
|
54,064
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
107,664
|
|
|
$
|
110,985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $107,885 and $46,711 higher at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. During the years
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company recorded
$19,834 and $2,127, respectively, of gains in cost of sales in
the consolidated statements of operations due to the liquidation
of a portion of its LIFO inventory.
Accounts
Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. 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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
|
$
|
456
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
(140
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
786
|
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid
Expenses
Prepaid expenses as of December 31, 2007 include payments
made to crude oil suppliers of $6,537 to prepay for certain of
the Companys future crude oil purchases.
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.
81
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
1,169
|
|
|
$
|
1,047
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to 40 years)
|
|
|
2,050
|
|
|
|
1,811
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to 20 years)
|
|
|
225,096
|
|
|
|
167,195
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to 10 years)
|
|
|
1,261
|
|
|
|
1,198
|
|
Assets under capital leases (4 years)
|
|
|
3,565
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
264,052
|
|
|
|
68,519
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
497,193
|
|
|
|
239,770
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(54,311
|
)
|
|
|
(48,038
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
442,882
|
|
|
$
|
191,732
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 2007, 2006, and 2005,
the Company incurred $9,328, $10,998, and $23,154, respectively,
of interest expense of which $4,611, $1,968, and $193,
respectively, was capitalized as a component of property, plant
and equipment.
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 that 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 the 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.
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
82
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
on the earnings of the Company, with the exception of Calumet
Sales Company, are the responsibility of the partners, with
earnings of the Company included in partners earnings.
In the event that the Companys taxable income did not meet
certain qualification requirements, the Company would be taxed
as a corporation. Interest and penalties related to income
taxes, if any, would be recorded in income tax expense. The
Company had no unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31,
2007 and December 31, 2006. 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 unitholders 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 unitholders have different investment
bases depending upon the timing and price of acquisition of
their partnership units. Furthermore, each unitholders tax
accounting, which is partially dependent upon the
unitholders 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 unitholders
tax attributes in the partnership is not readily available.
Excise
and Sales Taxes
The Company assesses, collects and remits excise taxes
associated with the sale of its fuel products. Furthermore, the
Company collects and remits sales taxes associated with the sale
of jet fuel. Excise taxes and sales taxes assessed on and
collected from customers are recorded on a net basis within
sales in the Companys consolidated statements of
operations.
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 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 balance sheet. The Company utilizes third party
valuations and published market data to determine the fair value
of these derivatives. 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 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 derivatives 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 derivatives hedging
payments of interest are recorded in interest expense in the
consolidated statements of operations. For the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company has recorded a
derivative loss of $33,576 and a derivative gain of $6,
respectively, to sales and a derivative gain of $21,653 and a
derivative loss of $11,070, respectively, to cost of sales. An
interest rate swap gain of $3 and a loss of $7 for the years
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively, was
recorded to interest expense. 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 gain or loss on derivative
instruments in the consolidated statements of operations.
83
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2005, certain derivatives hedging natural
gas and crude oil purchases for our specialty products segment
were designated as cash flow hedges. Effective April 1,
2006, the Company restructured and designated certain derivative
contracts for its fuel products segment as cash flow hedges of
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel sales and crude oil purchases to
the extent they qualify for hedge accounting, and the effective
portion of these hedges is recorded in accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss) on the consolidated balance sheets
until the underlying transaction hedged is recognized in the
consolidated statements of operations. Prior to this date, the
historical impact of fair value fluctuations in our gasoline,
diesel and crude oil derivative instruments for the fuel
products segment had been reflected in the realized/unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments line items in the
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an
on-going basis, whether the derivatives 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, 2007 and 2006, were losses of $5,979 and gains
of $4,071, respectively, which was recorded to unrealized (loss)
gain on derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations. The Company recorded time value of its crude collars
of $709 and $(444), which is excluded from the assessment of
hedge effectiveness, to unrealized (loss) gain on derivative
instruments in the consolidated statements of operations, for
the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated
other comprehensive loss is $39,641 as of December 31, 2007
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)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
(10,874
|
)
|
2009
|
|
|
(17,216
|
)
|
2010
|
|
|
(9,118
|
)
|
2011
|
|
|
(2,433
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(39,641
|
)
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance with its counterparties on these derivative
transactions. 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 derivative instruments mark to market gains. The
Company requires collateral from its counterparties when the
fair value of the derivatives crosses 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
contract.
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets consist of deferred debt issuance costs,
turnaround costs, intangibles and deferred transaction costs.
Deferred debt issuance costs and other noncurrent assets were
$1,358 and $2,112 as of December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively, and are being amortized on a straight-line basis
over the life of the related debt instruments. These amounts are
net of accumulated amortization of $990 and $562 at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
84
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (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
$682 and $1,477 as of December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively. The Company capitalizes these costs and amortizes
the costs on a straight-line basis over the life of the
turnaround. These amounts are net of accumulated amortization of
$2,930 and $5,227 at December 31, 2007 and 2006.
Intangible assets of $2,460 and $1,031 as of December 31,
2007 and 2006, respectively, consist of assets purchased to
facilitate the sales of horticultural spray oil products and
royalties purchased for the use of certain licensed refining
processes. These intangible assets are being amortized on a
straight-line basis over the assets estimated useful
lives. Accumulated amortization on these intangible assets was
$2,495 and $1,776 at December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively. Annual amortization for 2008 will be $185, with
annual amortization of $116 thereafter.
Deferred transaction costs primarily represent costs incurred by
the Company as a result of its acquisition of Penreco and were
$2,191 as of December 31, 2007.
Earnings
per Unit
The Partnership calculates earnings per unit in accordance with
SFAS 128, Earnings Per Share, as interpreted by
Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 03-06,
Participating Securities and the Two
Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128. Under this
approach, 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 Emerging Issues Task Force (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 shipping
and handling costs incurred in cost of sales, or if classified
elsewhere to be disclosed. The Company has reflected $54,026,
$56,922, and $46,849 for the years ended December 31, 2007,
2006, and 2005, respectively, in transportation expense in the
consolidated statements of operations, of which a significant
portion is billed to customers.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109. 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 Company
adopted the Interpretation on January 1, 2007 which did not
have a material effect on the financial position, results of
operations or cash flows
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance
Activities (the Position), which amends certain
provisions in the AICPA Industry Audit Guides, Audits of
Airlines, and APB Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial
Reporting. The Position prohibited the use of the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities
(turnaround costs) and required the use of the direct expensing
method, built-in overhaul method, or deferral method. The
Company adopted the Position on January 1, 2007 and began
using the deferral method to account for turnaround costs. The
net impact of the adoption on January 1, 2007 was a net
increase in partners capital of $6,582. Under this method,
actual costs of an overhaul are capitalized as incurred and
amortized to cost of sales until the next overhaul date. Prior
to the
85
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
adoption of this standard, the Company accrued for such overhaul
costs in advance and recorded the charge to cost of sales. As a
result of the adoption of the Position, the Company has restated
prior periods to account for turnaround costs as capitalized
costs, recorded in other noncurrent assets on the consolidated
balance sheets, in lieu of accrued turnaround costs.
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 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company will
adopt the Statement on January 1, 2008 and apply the
various disclosures as required by the Statement. The Company
anticipates that the Statement will not have a material affect
on its 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 does not
anticipate that the Position will have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In December 2007, FASB issued FASB Statement No. 141(R),
Business Combinations (the Statement). The Statement
applies 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.
|
|
3.
|
Shreveport
Refinery Expansion
|
During 2007 and 2006, the Company invested $188,922 and $65,492,
respectively, in its Shreveport refinery expansion project. The
Shreveport expansion project is expected to increase throughput
capacity from 42,000 bpd to 57,000 bpd. As part of the
Shreveport refinery expansion project, the Company plans to
increase the Shreveport refinerys ability to process sour
crude by 8,000 bpd, bringing total capacity to process sour
crude oil to 13,000 bpd. Of the anticipated 57,000 bpd
throughput capacity upon completion of the expansion project,
the Company expects the refinery to have the capacity to process
approximately 42,000 bpd of sweet crude oil and
13,000 bpd of sour crude oil, with the remainder coming
from interplant feedstocks. Progress continues on the expansion
project and it is expected it to be completed and fully
operational by the second quarter of 2008. Total cost of the
Shreveport refinery expansion project is estimated to be
approximately $300,000.
Additionally, the Company invested $65,633 and $5,382,
respectively, in 2007 and 2006 in the Shreveport refinery for
other capital expenditures including projects to improve
efficiency, de-bottleneck certain operating units and for new
product development.
|
|
4.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Operating
Leases
The Company has various operating leases for the use of land,
storage tanks, compressor stations, rail cars, equipment,
precious metals, operating unit catalyst and office facilities
that extend through August 2015. Renewal
86
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
options are available on certain of these leases in which the
Company is the lessee. Rent expense for the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 was $10,277, $10,894 and
$8,389, respectively.
As of December 31, 2007, 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
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
9,785
|
|
2009
|
|
|
8,335
|
|
2010
|
|
|
7,698
|
|
2011
|
|
|
6,314
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
12,365
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
44,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective March 1, 2005, the Company entered into a crude
purchase contract with a supplier that contains minimum annual
purchase requirements of approximately 12,000 bpd. Total
purchases under this contract vary based upon monthly crude
prices. To the extent the Company does not meet this
requirement, it would be required to pay $0.25 per barrel on the
difference between the minimum purchase requirement and the
actual purchases. The contract becomes evergreen upon
expiration, but does not contain terms related to purchase
options or escalation clauses. Since inception of the contract,
the Company has taken delivery of all minimum requirements.
Total purchases under this contract were $515,268, $470,538 and
$189,979 for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and
2005, respectively. As of December 31, 2007, the estimated
minimum purchase requirements under this contract and other
crude purchase contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
189,544
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
189,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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), Internal
Revenue Service (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
87
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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 Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has
proposed penalties totaling $391 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) a number of
similar matters at the Princeton refinery. 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 sheet. The
Company recorded. Environmental expenses are recorded within
other expenses on 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 party to ongoing
discussions with the LDEQ and, consequently, while no
significant compliance and enforcement expenditures have been
requested as a result of the Companys discussions, the
Company anticipates that it will ultimately be required to make
emissions reductions requiring capital investments between
approximately $1,000 and $3,000 over a three to five year period
at the Companys three Louisiana refineries.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of our refinery sites. The remedial projects are being
overseen by the appropriate state agencies. Based on current
investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled
or remedied without having a material adverse effect on our
financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable
and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs
will not become material.
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
88
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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.
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, 2007 and 2006, the Company had
outstanding standby letters of credit of $96,676 and $42,775,
respectively, under its senior secured revolving credit
facility. As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company had
availability to issue letters of credit of $103,324 and
$157,225, respectively, under its senior secured revolving
credit facility. As discussed in Note 5 below, as of
December 31, 2007 the Company also had a $50,000 letter of
credit outstanding under the senior secured first lien letter of
credit facility for its fuels hedging program, which bears
interest at 3.50%.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured revolving credit agreement with
third-party lenders, interest at prime (7.25% and 8.25% at
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively), interest
payments monthly, borrowings due December 2010
|
|
$
|
6,958
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured first lien term loan with
third-party lenders, interest at rate of three-month LIBOR plus
3.50% (8.74% and 8.85% at December 31, 2007 and 2006,
respectively), interest and principal payments quarterly with
borrowings due December 2012
|
|
|
30,099
|
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
Capital lease obligations interest at 8.25%, interest and
principal payments quarterly with borrowings due January 2012
|
|
|
2,834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
39,891
|
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
Less current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
943
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
38,948
|
|
|
$
|
49,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The maximum borrowing capacity at December 31, 2007 was
$224,086, with $120,453 available for additional borrowings
based on collateral and specified availability limitations. The
term loan facility borrowings are secured by a first lien on the
property, plant and equipment of the Company and its
subsidiaries. The net proceeds of our initial public offering
were used to repay indebtedness and accrued interest under the
first lien term loan facility in the amount of approximately
$125,700 and repay indebtedness under the secured revolving
credit facility in the amount of approximately $13,100. In
addition, in August 2007 the Company repaid approximately
$19,000 on its senior secured first lien term loan facility
using its senior secured revolving credit facility pursuant to
an amendment of the revolving credit facility. After these
repayments, the term loan requires quarterly principal payments
of $76 through December 2011 and quarterly principal payments of
approximately $11,800 thereafter until maturing in December
2012. The Company is in compliance with all covenants and
restrictions defined in these credit agreements.
On January 3, 2008, the Partnership closed a new $435,000
senior secured first lien term loan facility (the New 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
89
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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 New Term Loan Facility). The letter of
credit facility to support crack spread hedging bears interest
at 4.0%. Lenders under the New Term Loan Facility have a first
priority lien on our fixed assets and a second priority lien on
our cash, accounts receivable, inventory and other personal
property. The New Term Loan Facility matures in January 2015.
The New 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 (the Revolver). Pursuant to
this amendment, the Revolver lenders agreement to amend the
Revolver to, among other things, (i) increase the total
availability under the Revolver up to $375,000 and
(ii) conformed certain of the financial covenants and other
terms in the Revolver to those contained in the New Term Loan
Credit Agreement. The amended existing senior secured revolving
credit facility matures on January 3, 2013. The Company is
in compliance with all covenants and restrictions defined in
these credit agreements.
As of December 31, 2007, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
943
|
|
2009
|
|
|
1,158
|
|
2010
|
|
|
7,873
|
|
2011
|
|
|
877
|
|
2012
|
|
|
29,040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
39,891
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, in 2007, the Company entered into a capital lease
which will expire in 2012. Assets recorded under this capital
lease obligation are included in property, plant and equipment
consists of $3,565 as of December 31, 2007. As of
December 31, 2007, the Company had recorded no amortization
for capital lease assets due to the fact that the capital asset
is not yet in service.
As of December 31, 2007, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under capital leases as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
854
|
|
2009
|
|
|
996
|
|
2010
|
|
|
693
|
|
2011
|
|
|
608
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
3,303
|
|
Less amount representing interest
|
|
|
469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligation
|
|
|
2,834
|
|
Less obligations due within one year
|
|
|
641
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term capital lease obligation
|
|
$
|
2,193
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The Company has the following derivative instruments outstanding
as of December 31, 2007 and 2006.
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. These derivatives are designated as
cash flow hedges of the future purchase of crude oil. The
Companys 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. The tenor of 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. At
December 31, 2007, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
91,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
90.92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
48.66
|
|
|
$
|
58.66
|
|
|
$
|
68.66
|
|
|
$
|
78.66
|
|
February 2007
|
|
|
224,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
49.28
|
|
|
|
59.28
|
|
|
|
69.28
|
|
|
|
79.28
|
|
March 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
50.85
|
|
|
|
60.85
|
|
|
|
70.85
|
|
|
|
80.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
720,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.61
|
|
|
$
|
59.61
|
|
|
$
|
69.61
|
|
|
$
|
79.61
|
|
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,
91
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
2007, the Company had the following derivatives related to crude
oil purchases in its fuel products segment, all of which are
designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
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
|
|
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel products
segment, all of which were designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,710,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
65.14
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,728,000
|
|
|
|
18,989
|
|
|
|
64.68
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
8,143,000
|
|
|
|
22,249
|
|
|
|
67.37
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
7,482,500
|
|
|
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
66.04
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
5,840,000
|
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
67.40
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
363,500
|
|
|
|
996
|
|
|
|
65.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
28,751,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
66.49
|
|
Fuel
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, 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 these barrels
not being designated as hedges, the Company recognized $941 of
losses in unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments in
the consolidated statements of operations.
92
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/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 20010
|
|
|
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
|
|
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which were designated as hedges except
for 169,855 barrels in 2007. As a result of these barrels
not being designated as hedges, the Company recognized $1,314 of
gains in unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,080,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
81.10
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,092,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
80.74
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
4,941,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
82.18
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
4,562,500
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
80.50
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
3,650,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
80.52
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
748
|
|
|
|
76.52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
17,802,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.07
|
|
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
93
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which were designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
72.09
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
636,000
|
|
|
|
6,989
|
|
|
|
71.38
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
3,202,000
|
|
|
|
8,749
|
|
|
|
76.17
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
2,920,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
73.45
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,190,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
75.27
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
90,500
|
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
70.87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
10,948,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.30
|
|
Natural
Gas Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes forward swap contracts to manage natural
gas price risk and volatility of cash flows. 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 requirements with time to
expiration not to exceed three years. At December 31, 2007,
the Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas
purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to natural gas purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMbtu
|
|
|
$/MMbtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.87
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.52
|
|
Interest
Rate Swap Contracts
In 2006, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to its variable rate senior
secured first lien term loan. Due to the repayment of $19,000 of
the outstanding balance of the Companys term loan facility
in August 2007 and the refinancing of the Companys
remaining term loan balance on January 3, 2008, this swap
contract is not designated as a cash flow hedge of the future
payment of interest. The
94
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
entire change in the fair value of this interest rate swap is
recorded to unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments in
the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
|
|
7.
|
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
|
Our 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. 133. Based
upon borrowing rates available to the Company for long-term debt
with similar terms and the same remaining maturities, the fair
value of long-term debt materially approximated the carrying
value at December 31, 2007 and 2006. In addition, based
upon fees charged for similar agreements, the face values of
outstanding standby letters of credit approximate their fair
value at December 31, 2007 and 2006.
On January 31, 2006, the Partnership completed the initial
public offering of its common units and sold 5,699,900 of those
units to the underwriters in the initial public offering at a
price to the public of $21.50 per common unit. The Partnership
also sold a total of 750,100 common units to certain relatives
of the chairman of its general partner at a price of $19.995 per
common unit. In addition, on February 8, 2006, the
Partnership sold an additional 854,985 common units to the
underwriters at a price to the public of $21.50 per common unit
pursuant to the underwriters over-allotment option. Each
of these issuances was made pursuant to the Partnerships
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2006. The proceeds received by the Partnership
(net of underwriting discounts and structuring fees and before
expenses) from the sale of an aggregate of 7,304,985 units
were approximately $144,400. The net proceeds were used to:
(i) repay indebtedness and accrued interest under the first
lien term loan facility in the amount of approximately $125,700,
(ii) repay indebtedness under the secured revolving credit
facility in the amount of approximately $13,100 and
(iii) pay transaction fees and expenses in the amount of
approximately $5,600. Underwriting discounts totaled
approximately $11,600 (including certain structuring fees paid
to certain of the underwriters of approximately $2,400).
On July 5, 2006, the Partnership completed an offering of
its common units in which it sold 3,300,000 common units to the
underwriters of the offering at a price to the public of $32.94
per common unit. This issuance was made pursuant to the
Partnerships Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-134993)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 28, 2006. The proceeds received by the Partnership
(net of underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses but
before its general partners capital contribution) from
this offering was $103,479. The use of proceeds from the
offering was to: (i) repay all of its borrowings under its
revolving credit facility, which were approximately $9,243 as of
June 30, 2006, (ii) fund the future construction and
other
start-up
costs of the planned expansion project at the Shreveport
refinery and (iii) to the extent available, for general
partnership purposes. Underwriting discounts totaled $4,620. The
general partner contributed $2,218 to retain its 2% general
partner interest.
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 was $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
95
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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,
2007, 13,404,985 are held by the public, with the remaining
5,761,015 held by the Partnerships affiliates. All of the
13,066,000 subordinated units are held by the Partnerships
affiliates.
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 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 received 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 interest and factors that it desires, and has not duty
or obligation to give any consideration of any interest of, our
limited partners. Limited partners have no right to elect the
Companys board of directors or 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 2,551,144 of common units until both the Shreveport
refinery expansion project and the Penreco acquisition are
proven to increase cash flow from operations on a per unit
basis. If this is achieved, the general partner 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 Partnerships general partner is entitled to incentive
distributions if the amount it distributes to unitholders with
respect to any quarter exceeds specified target levels shown
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage
|
|
|
|
Total Quarterly
|
|
Interest in
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
Distributions
|
|
|
|
Target Amount
|
|
Unitholders
|
|
|
General Partner
|
|
|
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
|
|
$0.45
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
First Target Distribution
|
|
up to $0.495
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Second Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.495 up to $0.563
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Third Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.563 up to $0.675
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Thereafter
|
|
above $0.675
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
The Predecessors policy was that distributions were
limited to the amount necessary to pay each partners
federal income tax and any state income tax on their share of
partnership income. However, additional distributions to the
partners could be made at the sole discretion of the general
partner. During the year ended December 31, 2005,
distributions of $7,285 were made to the Predecessor partners.
In January 2006, the Predecessor made its final
96
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
distribution of $6,900 to the Predecessors partners.
Subsequent to January 31, 2006, Calumets distribution
policy is as defined in its Partnership Agreement. For the years
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, Calumet made
distributions of $77,045 and $38,286, respectively, to its
partners.
|
|
9.
|
Unit-Based
Compensation
|
The Companys general partner adopted a Long-Term Incentive
Plan (the Plan) on January 24, 2006 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, non-employee directors of the
Companys general partner were granted phantom units under
the terms of the Plan as part of their director compensation
package related to fiscal year 2007. 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 units on the grant date to
calculate the fair value and related compensation cost of the
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 the
Company expects these units to fully vest.
A summary of the Companys nonvested units as of
December 31, 2007, and the changes during the years ended
December 31, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006,
compensation expense of $121 and $61, respectively, was
recognized in the consolidated statements of operations related
to vested unit grants. As of December 31, 2007, there was a
total of $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 year ended
December 31, 2007 was $128.
97
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
10.
|
Employee
Benefit Plan
|
The Company had a defined contribution plan administered by one
of its limited partners. During the year ended December 31,
2007, the Company terminated these services and started
administering the plan directly. 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 $950, $1,109, and $839 for the years
ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, 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 $689, $870, and $452 for the years ended December 31,
2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
|
|
11.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005,
the Company had sales to related parties owned by a limited
partner of $4,726, $904 and $209, respectively. Trade accounts
and other receivables from related parties at December 31,
2007 and 2006 were $497 and $210, respectively. The Company also
had purchases from related parties owned by a limited partner
during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 of
$1,730, $1,228 and $1,114, respectively. Accounts payable to
related parties at December 31, 2007 and 2006 were $907 and
$358, respectively.
Certain partners of the Predecessor had loaned the Predecessor
funds under long-term notes, which were repaid in the year ended
December 31, 2005. The interest expense associated with the
affiliated borrowings was approximately $0, $0 and $9,659 for
the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
A limited partner provided certain administrative and accounting
services to the Company for an annual fee. Such services
included, but are 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, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $227, $549 and $633,
respectively. The Company terminated these services during the
year ended December 31, 2007.
The Company participated in a self-insurance program for medical
benefits with a limited partner and several other related
companies. In connection with this program, contributions are
made to a voluntary employees benefit association (VEBA)
trust. Contributions made by the Company to the VEBA for the
years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 totaled $876,
$3,093 and $3,167, 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, which is not administered by a related
party.
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, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $889, $1,647
and $784 respectively. With the exception of its directors
and officers liability insurance which was placed with
this commercial insurance brokerage company, the Company placed
its insurance requirements with third parties during the year
ended December 31, 2007.
The Company participated in a self-insurance program for
workers compensation with a limited partner and several
other related companies. In connection with this program,
contributions are made to the limited partner. Contributions
made by the Company to the limited partner for the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
98
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
totaled $254, $213 and $294, 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 participated in a self-insurance program for general
liability with a limited partner and several related companies.
In connection with this program, contributions are made to the
limited partner. Contributions made by the Company to the
limited partner for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006
and 2005 totaled $998, $563 and $590, 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.
|
|
12.
|
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 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, 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
|
|
99
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, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2005
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
703,214
|
|
|
$
|
585,858
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
552,563
|
|
|
|
15,020
|
|
|
|
567,583
|
|
|
|
(567,583
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,255,777
|
|
|
$
|
600,878
|
|
|
$
|
1,856,655
|
|
|
$
|
(567,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
12,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,727
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
6,028
|
|
|
|
61,255
|
|
|
|
67,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,283
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,961
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,882
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,756
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
12,963
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,963
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,963
|
|
100
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Segment assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
1,462,996
|
|
|
$
|
973,854
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
|
1,019,149
|
|
|
|
681,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined segments
|
|
|
2,482,145
|
|
|
|
1,655,531
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
(1,803,288
|
)
|
|
|
(1,123,880
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
678,857
|
|
|
$
|
531,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.
|
Geographic
Information
|
International sales accounted for less than 10% of consolidated
sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2007,
2006 and 2005. All of the Companys long-lived assets are
domestically located.
The Company offers products primarily in four general categories
consisting of fuels, lubricating oils, waxes and solvents. Other
includes asphalt and other by-products. The following table sets
forth the major product category sales (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
478,132
|
|
|
$
|
509,933
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
199,843
|
|
|
|
201,931
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61,621
|
|
|
|
61,192
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
52,449
|
|
|
|
41,268
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
74,671
|
|
|
|
98,819
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
866,716
|
|
|
|
913,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
307,144
|
|
|
|
336,681
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
203,659
|
|
|
|
207,148
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
225,868
|
|
|
|
176,372
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
34,461
|
|
|
|
7,704
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
771,132
|
|
|
|
727,905
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
1,637,848
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No customer represented 10% or greater of consolidated sales in
each of the three years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and
2005.
101
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
13.
|
Quarterly
Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
34,975
|
|
|
|
38,942
|
|
|
|
17,279
|
|
|
|
10,004
|
|
|
|
101,200
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Total(1)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
397,694
|
|
|
$
|
429,925
|
|
|
$
|
444,747
|
|
|
$
|
368,682
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
51,249
|
|
|
|
58,460
|
|
|
|
51,560
|
|
|
|
43,671
|
|
|
|
204,940
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
31,384
|
|
|
|
37,585
|
|
|
|
29,536
|
|
|
|
24,628
|
|
|
|
123,133
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
3,831
|
|
|
|
23,540
|
|
|
|
36,087
|
|
|
|
32,120
|
|
|
|
95,578
|
|
Basic and diluted net income per limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
0.93
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
(0.34
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
0.93
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
2.20
|
|
Weighted average limited partner common units outstanding
basic and diluted
|
|
|
12,950,070
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
16,186,652
|
|
|
|
16,366,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 3, 2008 the Company closed on the acquisition of
Penreco, a Texas general partnership, for approximately
$275,000, excluding post-closing purchase price adjustments.
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.
102
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The acquisition includes plants in Karns City, Pennsylvania and
Dickinson, Texas, as well as several long-term supply agreements
with ConocoPhillips Company. The transaction was funded through
a portion of the combined proceeds from a public equity offering
and a new senior secured first lien term loan facility.
The Company believes that this acquisition will provide several
key strategic benefits, including market synergies within our
solvents and process oil product lines and additional
operational and logistics flexibility. The acquisition will also
broaden the Companys customer base and give the Company
access to new markets, which it believes could allow for updated
margins on current products offered.
As a result of the closing date of the acquisition,
Penrecos balance sheets and results of operations of
Penreco will be included within the Companys consolidated
balance sheet and consolidated results of operations beginning
on January 3, 2008. The purchase price allocation and final
opening balance sheet has not yet been finalized due to the
timing of the acquisition. Currently, the Company expects to
record approximately $53,000 of goodwill as a result of this
acquisition, all of which will be recorded within the
Companys specialty products segment. The preliminary
allocation of the aggregate purchase price is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of purchase price:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
2,000
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
49,000
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
59,000
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
91,000
|
|
Intangibles
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
53,000
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(28,000
|
)
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(7,000
|
)
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
(7,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price
|
|
$
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets totaled approximately $60,000 and consist of
customer relationships, supplier agreements, patents,
non-competition agreements and distributor agreements. These
intangible assets will be amortized over a weighted-average life
of 5 years.
On January 16, 2008, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.63 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$21,738, for the quarter ended December 31, 2007. The
distribution was paid on February 14, 2008 to unitholders
of record as of the close of business on February 4, 2008.
This quarterly distribution of $0.63 per unit equates to $2.52
per unit, or $86,954, on an annualized basis.
103
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, 2007. 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, 2007, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 29, 2008
104
CALUMET
GP, LLC
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
499
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $786
|
|
|
109,501
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113,987
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
107,664
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
7,567
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits and other current assets
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
229,738
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
442,882
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
6,691
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
679,311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND MEMBERS CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
168,122
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
2,745
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
6,215
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
4,882
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
943
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
57,503
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
240,410
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
38,948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
279,358
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
213,676
|
|
Members capital
|
|
|
225,918
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members capital
|
|
$
|
399,953
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and members capital
|
|
$
|
679,311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated balance sheet.
105
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Calumet GP, LLC (the GP) is a Delaware limited liability company
formed on September 27, 2005 and is the general partner of
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the Partnership). Its
sole purpose is to operate the Partnership. The GP is owned by
The Heritage Group as well as Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
family trusts and an F. William Grube family trust. The GP owns
a two percent general partner interest in the Partnership and
manages and operates all of the assets of the Partnership.
However, due to the substantive control granted to the GP by the
partnership agreement the GP consolidates its interest in the
Partnership (collectively Calumet or the Company).
Calumet is engaged in the production and marketing of crude
oil-based specialty lubricating oils, fuels, solvents and waxes.
Calumet owns refineries located in Princeton, Louisiana, Cotton
Valley, Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana, and a terminal located
in Burnham, Illinois.
On January 3, 2008, Calumet closed on its acquisition of
Penreco, a Texas general partnership. See Note 14.
On November 20, 2007, the Partnership completed a follow-on
public 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 was $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 GP contributed $2,113
to retain its 2% general partner interest.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, the GP received
cash distributions of $4,643 from the Partnership.
|
|
3.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
the GP, the Partnership and its wholly-owned operating
subsidiaries, Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership,
Calumet Sales Company Incorporated and Calumet Shreveport, LLC
(Calumet Shreveport). Calumet Shreveports
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.
106
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Inventories
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method. Costs include crude oil and other
feedstocks, labor, processing costs and refining overhead costs.
Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market value.
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
20,887
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
21,325
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
65,452
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
107,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $107,885 higher at
December 31, 2007.
Accounts
Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. 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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
41
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
786
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid
Expenses
Prepaid expenses as of December 31, 2007 include payments
made to crude oil suppliers of $6,537 to prepay for certain of
the Companys future crude oil purchases.
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.
107
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
1,169
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to 40 years)
|
|
|
2,050
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to 20 years)
|
|
|
225,096
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to 10 years)
|
|
|
1,261
|
|
Assets under capital leases (4 years)
|
|
|
3,565
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
264,052
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
497,193
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(54,311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
442,882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 2007, the Company
incurred $9,328 of interest expense of which $4,611 was
capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.
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 that 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 the 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.
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.
108
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
In the event that the Companys taxable income did not meet
certain qualification requirements, the Company would be taxed
as a corporation. Interest and penalties related to income
taxes, if any, would be recorded in income tax expense. The
Company had no unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31,
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 unitholders 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 partnership agreement.
Individual unitholders have different investment bases depending
upon the timing and price of acquisition of their partnership
units. Furthermore, each unitholders tax accounting, which
is partially dependent upon the unitholders 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
unitholders tax attributes in the partnership is not
readily available.
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 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 balance sheet. The Company utilizes third party
valuations and published market data to determine the fair value
of these derivatives. 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 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 derivatives 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 derivatives hedging
payments of interest are recorded in interest expense in the
consolidated statements of operations. For the year ended
December 31, 2007, the Company has recorded a derivative
loss of $33,576 to sales and a derivative gain of $21,653 to
cost of sales. An interest rate swap gain of $3 for the year
ended December 31, 2007 was recorded to interest expense.
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 gain or loss on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an
on-going basis, whether the derivatives 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, 2007, was a loss of $5,979, which was recorded
to unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations. The Company recorded time
value of its crude collars of $709, which is excluded from the
assessment of hedge effectiveness, to unrealized (loss) gain on
derivative instruments in the consolidated statements of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2007.
109
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
The effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated
other comprehensive loss is $39,641 as of December 31, 2007
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)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
(10,874
|
)
|
2009
|
|
|
(17,216
|
)
|
2010
|
|
|
(9,118
|
)
|
2011
|
|
|
(2,433
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(39,641
|
)
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance with its counterparties on these derivative
transactions. 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 derivative instruments mark to market gains. The
Company requires collateral from its counterparties when the
fair value of the derivatives crosses 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
contract.
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets consist of deferred debt issuance costs,
turnaround costs, intangibles and deferred transaction costs.
Deferred debt issuance costs and other noncurrent assets were
$1,358 December 31, 2007 and are being amortized on a
straight-line basis over the life of the related debt
instruments. These amounts are net of accumulated amortization
of $990 at December 31, 2007.
Turnaround costs represent capitalized costs associated with the
Companys periodic major maintenance and repairs and were
$682 as of December 31, 2007. The Company capitalizes these
costs and amortizes the costs on a straight-line basis over the
life of the turnaround. These amounts are net of accumulated
amortization of $2,930 at December 31, 2007.
Intangible assets of $2,460 as of December 31, 2007 consist
of assets purchased to facilitate the sales of horticultural
spray oil products and royalties purchased for the use of
certain licensed refining processes. These intangible assets are
being amortized on a straight-line basis over the assets
estimated useful lives. Accumulated amortization on these
intangible assets was $2,495 at December 31, 2007. Annual
amortization for 2008 will be $185, with annual amortization of
$116 thereafter.
Deferred transaction costs primarily represent costs incurred by
the Company as a result of its acquisition of Penreco and were
$2,191 as of December 31, 2007.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109. 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
110
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
to be taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. We adopted
the Interpretation on January 1, 2007 which did not have a
material effect on the financial position, results of operations
or cash flows
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance
Activities (the Position), which amends certain
provisions in the AICPA Industry Audit Guides, Audits of
Airlines, and APB Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial
Reporting. The Position prohibited the use of the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities
(turnaround costs) and required the use of the direct expensing
method, built-in overhaul method, or deferral method. The
Company adopted the Position on January 1, 2007 and began
using the deferral method to account for turnaround costs. The
net impact of the adoption on January 1, 2007 was a net
increase in partners capital of $6,582. Under this method,
actual costs of an overhaul are capitalized as incurred and
amortized to cost of sales until the next overhaul date. Prior
to the adoption of this standard, the Company accrued for such
overhaul costs in advance and recorded the charge to cost of
sales. As a result of the adoption of the Position, the Company
has restated prior periods to account for turnaround costs as
capitalized costs, recorded in other noncurrent assets on the
consolidated balance sheets, in lieu of accrued turnaround costs.
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 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company will
adopt the Statement on January 1, 2008 and apply the
various disclosures as required by the Statement. The Company
anticipates that the Statement will not have a material affect
on its 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 does not
anticipate that the Position will have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In December 2007, FASB issued FASB Statement No. 141(R),
Business Combinations (the Statement). The Statement
applies 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.
|
|
4.
|
Shreveport
Refinery Expansion
|
During 2007 and 2006, the Company invested $188,922 and $65,492,
respectively, in its Shreveport refinery expansion project. The
Shreveport expansion project is expected to increase throughput
capacity from 42,000 bpd to 57,000 bpd. As part of the
Shreveport refinery expansion project, the Company plans to
increase the Shreveport refinerys ability to process sour
crude by 8,000 bpd, bringing total capacity to process sour
crude oil to 13,000 bpd. Of the anticipated 57,000 bpd
throughput capacity upon completion of the expansion project,
the Company expects the refinery to have the capacity to process
approximately 42,000 bpd of sweet crude oil and
13,000 bpd of sour crude oil, with the remainder coming
from interplant feedstocks. Progress continues on the expansion
project and it
111
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
is expected it to be completed and fully operational by the
second quarter of 2008. Total cost of the Shreveport refinery
expansion project is estimated to be approximately $300,000.
Additionally, the Company invested $65,633 and $5,382,
respectively, in 2007 and 2006 in the Shreveport refinery for
other capital expenditures including projects to improve
efficiency, de-bottleneck certain operating units and for new
product development.
|
|
5.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Operating
Leases
The Company has various operating leases for the use of land,
storage tanks, compressor stations, rail cars, 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 year ended December 31, 2007 was
$10,277.
As of December 31, 2007, 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
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
9,785
|
|
2009
|
|
|
8,335
|
|
2010
|
|
|
7,698
|
|
2011
|
|
|
6,314
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
12,365
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
44,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective March 1, 2005, the Company entered into a crude
purchase contract with a supplier that contains minimum annual
purchase requirements of approximately 12,000 bpd. Total
purchases under this contract vary based upon monthly crude
prices. To the extent the Company does not meet this
requirement, it would be required to pay $0.25 per barrel on the
difference between the minimum purchase requirement and the
actual purchases. The contract becomes evergreen upon
expiration, but does not contain terms related to purchase
options or escalation clauses. Since inception of the contract,
the Company has taken delivery of all minimum requirements.
Total purchases under this contract were $515,268 for the year
ended December 31, 2007. As of December 31, 2007, the
estimated minimum purchase requirements under this contract and
other crude purchase contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
189,544
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
189,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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), Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) and
112
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
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 Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has
proposed penalties totaling $391 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) a number of
similar matters at the Princeton refinery. The Company
anticipates that any penalties that may be assessed due to the
alleged violations at our Princeton refinery as well as the
aforementioned penalties 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 sheet. The
Company recorded. Environmental expenses are recorded within
other expenses on 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 party to ongoing
discussions with the LDEQ and, consequently, while no
significant compliance and enforcement expenditures have been
requested as a result of the Companys discussions, the
Company anticipates that it will ultimately be required to make
emissions reductions requiring capital investments between
approximately $1,000 and $3,000 over a three to five year period
at the Companys three Louisiana refineries.
113
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of our refinery sites. The remedial projects are being
overseen by the appropriate state agencies. Based on current
investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled
or remedied without having a material adverse effect on our
financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable
and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs
will not become material.
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.
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, 2007, the Company had
outstanding standby letters of credit of $96,676 under its
senior secured revolving credit facility. As of
December 31, 2007, the Company had availability to issue
letters of credit of $103,324 under its senior secured revolving
credit facility. As discussed in Note 6 below, as of
December 31, 2007 the Company also had a $50,000 letter of
credit outstanding under the senior secured first lien letter of
credit facility for its fuels hedging program, which bears
interest at 3.50%.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured revolving credit agreement with
third-party lenders, interest at prime (7.25% at
December 31, 2007), interest payments monthly, borrowings
due December 2010
|
|
$
|
6,958
|
|
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
|
|
Capital lease obligations, interest at 8.25%, interest and
principal payments quarterly with borrowings due January 2012
|
|
|
2,834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
39,891
|
|
Less current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
38,948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The maximum borrowing capacity at December 31, 2007 was
$224,086, with $120,453 available for additional borrowings
based on collateral and specified availability limitations. The
term loan facility borrowings are secured by a first lien on the
property, plant and equipment of the Company and its
subsidiaries. The net proceeds of our initial public offering
were used to repay indebtedness and accrued interest under the
first lien term loan facility in the amount of approximately
$125,700 and repay indebtedness under the secured revolving
credit facility in the amount of approximately $13,100. In
addition, in August 2007 the Company repaid approximately
$19,000 on its senior secured first lien term loan facility
using its senior secured revolving credit facility pursuant to
an amendment of the revolving credit facility. After these
repayments, the term loan requires quarterly principal payments
of $76 through December 2011 and quarterly principal payments of
approximately $11,800 thereafter until maturing in December
2012. The Company is in compliance with all covenants and
restrictions defined in these credit agreements.
114
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
On January 3, 2008, the Partnership closed a new $435,000
senior secured first lien term loan facility (the New 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 Rateplus 300 basis points (as
defined in the New Term Loan Facility). The letter of credit
facility to support crack spread hedging bears interest at 4.0%.
Lenders under the New Term Loan Facility have a first priority
lien on our fixed assets and a second priority lien on our cash,
accounts receivable, inventory and other personal property. The
New Term Loan Facility matures in January 2015. The New 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 (the Revolver). Pursuant to
this amendment, the Revolver lenders agreement to amend the
Revolver to, among other things, (i) increase the total
availability under the Revolver up to $375,000 and
(ii) conform certain of the financial covenants and other
terms in the Revolver to those contained in the New Term Loan
Credit Agreement. The amended existing senior secured revolving
credit facility matures on January 3, 2013. The Company is
in compliance with all covenants and restrictions defined in
these credit agreements.
As of December 31, 2007, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
943
|
|
2009
|
|
|
1,158
|
|
2010
|
|
|
7,873
|
|
2011
|
|
|
877
|
|
2012
|
|
|
29,040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
39,891
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, in 2007, the Company entered into a capital lease
which will expire in 2012. Assets recorded under this capital
lease obligation are included in property, plant and equipment
consists of $3,565 as of December 31, 2007. As of
December 31, 2007, the Company had recorded no amortization
for capital lease assets due to the fact that the capital asset
is not yet in service.
115
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
As of December 31, 2007, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under capital leases as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
Year
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
854
|
|
2009
|
|
|
996
|
|
2010
|
|
|
693
|
|
2011
|
|
|
608
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
3,303
|
|
Less amount representing interest
|
|
|
469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligation
|
|
|
2,834
|
|
Less obligations due within one year
|
|
|
641
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term capital lease obligation
|
|
$
|
2,193
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has the following derivative instruments outstanding
as of December 31, 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. These derivatives are designated as
cash flow hedges of the future purchase of crude oil. The
Companys 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. The tenor of 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. At
December 31, 2007, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
116
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
91,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
90.92
|
|
Crude
Oil Swap Contracts Fuel Products
Segment
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage crude oil price
risk and volatility of cash flows in its fuel products segment.
The Companys policy is generally to enter into crude oil
swap contracts for a period no greater than five years forward
and for no more than 75% of crude purchases used in fuels
production. At December 31, 2007, the Company had the
following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/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
|
|
Fuel
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, 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 these barrels
not being designated as hedges, the Company recognized $941 of
losses in unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments in
the consolidated statements of operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/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 20010
|
|
|
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
|
|
117
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
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
|
|
|
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 forward swap contracts to manage natural
gas price risk and volatility of cash flows. 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 requirements with time to
expiration not to exceed three years. At December 31, 2007,
the Company had the following derivatives related to natural gas
purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2006, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to its variable rate senior
secured first lien term loan. The Company hedges the interest
payments related to up to 85% of its future term loan
indebtedness. Due to the repayment of $19,000 of the outstanding
balance of the Companys term loan facility in August 2007
and the refinancing of the Companys remaining term loan
balance on January 3, 2008, this swap contract is no longer
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 (loss) gain on derivative
instruments in the consolidated statements of operations for the
year ended December 31, 2007.
|
|
8.
|
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
|
Our 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. 133. Based
upon borrowing rates
118
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
available to the Company for long-term debt with similar terms
and the same remaining maturities, 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 approximate their fair value at
December 31, 2007.
|
|
9.
|
Unit-Based
Compensation
|
The Companys general partner adopted a Long-Term Incentive
Plan (the Plan) on January 24, 2006 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, non-employee directors of the
Companys general partner were granted phantom units under
the terms of the Plan as part of their director compensation
package related to fiscal year 2007. 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 units on the grant date to
calculate the fair value and related compensation cost of the
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 the
Company expects these units to fully vest.
A summary of the Companys nonvested units as of
December 31, 2007, and the changes during the year ended
December 31, 2007, are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Nonvested Phantom Units
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested at January 1, 2007
|
|
|
5,472
|
|
|
$
|
33.63
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
6,480
|
|
|
|
37.00
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(3,444
|
)
|
|
|
35.22
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
8,508
|
|
|
$
|
35.56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2007, compensation expense
of $121 was recognized in the consolidated statements of
operations related to vested unit grants. As of
December 31, 2007, there was a total of $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 year ended December 31,
2007 was $127.
|
|
10.
|
Employee
Benefit Plan
|
The Company had a defined contribution plan administered by one
of its limited partners. During the year ended December 31,
2007, the Company terminated these services and started
administering its own plan directly. 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
119
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Companys matching contribution was $950 for the year ended
December 31, 2007. 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 $689 for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
|
|
11.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the year ended December 31, 2007 the Company had
sales to related parties owned by a limited partner of $4,726.
Trade accounts and other receivables from related parties at
December 31, 2007 were $497. The Company also had purchases
from related parties owned by a limited partner during the year
ended December 31, 2007 of $1,730. Accounts payable to
related parties at December 31, 2007 were $907.
A limited partner provided certain administrative and accounting
services to the Company for an annual fee. Such services
included, but are not necessarily limited to, advice and
assistance concerning aspects of the operation, planning, and
human resources of the Company. Payments for the year ended
December 31, 2007 were $227. The Company terminated these
services during the year ended December 31, 2007.
The Company participated in a self-insurance program for medical
benefits with a limited partner and several other related
companies. In connection with this program, contributions are
made to a voluntary employees benefit association (VEBA)
trust. Contributions made by the Company to the VEBA for the
years ended December 31, 2007 totaled $876. 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, which is not administered by a
related party.
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 year
ended December 31, 2007 were $889. With the exception of
its directors and officers liability insurance, the
Company placed its insurance requirements with third parties
during the year ended December 31, 2007.
The Company participated in a self-insurance program for
workers compensation with a limited partner and several
other related companies. In connection with this program,
contributions are made to the limited partner. Contributions
made by the Company to the limited partner for the year ended
December 31, 2007 totaled $254. 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 participated in a self-insurance program for general
liability with a limited partner and several related companies.
In connection with this program, contributions are made to the
limited partner. Contributions made by the Company to the
limited partner for the years ended December 31, 2007
totaled $998. The Company terminated participation in this plan
during the year ended December 31, 2007 and established a
self-insurance program on a standalone basis.
On January 3, 2008 the Company closed on the acquisition of
Penreco, a Texas general partnership, for approximately
$275,000, excluding post-closing purchase price adjustments.
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
includes plants in Karns City, Pennsylvania and Dickinson,
Texas, as well as several long-term
120
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
supply agreements with ConocoPhillips Company. The transaction
was funded through a portion of the combined proceeds from a
public equity offering and a new senior secured first lien term
loan facility.
The Company believes that this acquisition will provide several
key strategic benefits, including market synergies within our
solvents and process oil product lines and additional
operational and logistics flexibility. The acquisition will also
broaden the Companys customer base and give the Company
access to new markets, which it believes could allow for updated
margins on current products offered.
As a result of the closing date of the acquisition,
Penrecos balance sheets and results of operations of
Penreco will be included within the Companys consolidated
balance sheet and consolidated results of operations beginning
on January 3, 2008. The purchase price allocation and final
opening balance sheet has not yet been finalized due to the
timing of the acquisition. Currently, the Company expects to
record approximately $53,000 of goodwill as a result of this
acquisition, all of which will be recorded within the
Companys specialty products segment. The preliminary
allocation of the aggregate purchase price is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of purchase price:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
2,000
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
49,000
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
59,000
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
91,000
|
|
Intangibles
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
53,000
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(28,000
|
)
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(7,000
|
)
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
(7,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price
|
|
$
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets totaled approximately $60,000 and consist of
customer relationships, supplier agreements, patents,
non-competition agreements and distributor agreements. These
intangible assets will be amortized over a weighted-average life
of 5 years.
On January 16, 2008, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.63 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$21,738, for the quarter ended December 31, 2007. The
distribution was paid on February 14, 2008 to unitholders
of record as of the close of business on February 4, 2008.
This quarterly distribution of $0.63 per unit equates to $2.52
per unit, or $86,954, on an annualized basis.
121
|
|
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.
Management assessed the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, 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, 2007.
Ernst & Young LLP, an Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm, has audited the Companys consolidated
financial statements and has issued an attestation report on
managements assessment of the Companys internal
control over financial reporting which appears on the following
page.
/s/ F.
WILLIAM GRUBE
F.
William Grube
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of
Calumet GP, LLC
February 29, 2008
/s/ R.
PATRICK MURRAY, II
R.
Patrick Murray, II
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Calumet GP, LLC
February 29, 2008
122
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 Products Partners, L.P.s
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, 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 Products 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.
In our opinion, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, 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, 2007 and 2006, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, partners
capital, and cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 2007 of Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. and our report dated February 29,
2008 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 29, 2008
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
123
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 29, 2008. Directors are elected for one-year terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position with Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
Senior Vice President
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
Vice President Crude Oil Supply
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Vice President Planning and Economics
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
Vice President Sales and Marketing
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
Director
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
Director
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
Director
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Director
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
Director
|
124
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 Co., L.P., our
predecessor, 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.
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
in 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 our predecessor from 2002 through 2006. Prior to joining our
predecessor, Ms. Straumins held financial planning
positions with Great Lakes Chemical Company and Exxon Chemical
Company. Ms. Straumins received a B.E. in Chemical
Engineering from Vanderbilt University and her M.B.A. from the
University of Kansas. Ms. Straumins is the daughter of F.
William Grube, the chief executive officer and 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. Mr. Murray is a certified
public accountant and 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 our predecessor in 1994 and served
in various capacities prior to becoming vice president.
Mr. Smith received his B.S. in Geology from Louisiana Tech
University.
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 our predecessor 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 has served as vice president and secretary
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
125
the present. Mr. Fehsenfeld received his B.G.S. from the
University of Michigan and his M.B.A. from Grand Valley State
University. He is also a first cousin of the chairman of the
board of 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. 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.,
InterMune 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
126
recommending to the board of directors for its approval the
annual salary and other compensation components for the chief
executive officer. The committee reviews and makes
recommendations to the board of directors for its approval any
of the 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.
In 2007, the compensation committee retained Mercer Inc.
(Mercer) as an independent 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 and added additional comparison companies;
|
|
|
|
analysis of market pay levels and trends for our named executive
officers, other officers and key employees from peer companies
and general industry surveys including base salary, annual
incentives and long-term incentives;
|
|
|
|
assessment of Calumets executive pay levels relative to
market levels; and
|
|
|
|
assessment of internal parity of compensation among
Calumets executive officers, other officers and key
employees.
|
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., Genesis Energy, L.P., Inergy,
L.P., Magellan Midstream Partners, 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. Both competitive market data
compiled from public disclosures of the peer group companies and
independent third-party compensation surveys were used in the
review. Mercer provided a presentation of its findings to the
compensation committee in February 2008. 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 have determined meet
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.
127
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, 2007 with the exception of the
following: (1) one late filing on Form 4 relating
to three transactions for William S. Fehsenfeld; (2) one
filing on Form 4/A relating to one transaction for
William S. Fehsenfeld; and (3) one filing on
Form 4/A relating to one transaction for Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr..
|
|
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 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 have 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.
128
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, consistent with our credit agreements.
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.
In 2007, the compensation committee retained Mercer, an
independent consultant, to complete a review of our general
partners executive compensation programs. For further
description of the Mercer engagement, please refer to
Item 10 Directors, Executive Officers of Our General
Partner and Corporate Governance Board of Directors
Committees Compensation Committee.
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, which includes all the major elements of its
executive compensation program, including base salary,
short-term incentives and long-term compensation, is indeed
competitive with the market median. 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. The compensation committee, which includes our
general partners president and chief executive officer,
additionally enlists the assistance of our general
partners executive vice president to provide direct input
to the compensation committee regarding performance appraisals
of the other named executive officers to assist the committee in
its compensation decisions.
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
|
129
|
|
|
|
|
attract, develop and retain executives with a compensation
structure which 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;
|
|
|
|
long-term incentive compensation, including unit-based awards;
|
|
|
|
retirement, health and welfare benefits; and
|
|
|
|
perquisites.
|
These elements are designed to constitute an integrated
executive compensation structure meant to incentivize a high
level of individual executive officer performance in line with
Partnership 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
full within such range.
|
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 also considers base salary in conjunction with both
short-term cash awards and long-term, unit-based awards to
develop a total direct compensation structure for the named
executive officers which is intended to be competitive with the
market median.
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
through comparison of executive compensation levels of
publicly-traded partnerships similar in size to us. During 2007,
the compensation committee approved interim increase in the base
salary for one of our named executive officers, Mr. Murray,
from $180,000 to $200,000, effective August 1, 2007.
Additionally, the compensation committee approved increased
salaries for all of the named executive officers for 2008 as
part of its annual salary review process in consideration of the
above factors. Effective January 1, 2008, the base salaries
for Mr. Moyes, Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and
Ms. Straumins are $285,000, $220,000, $190,000 and
$195,000, respectively.
Per the terms of the compensation committees charter, the
recommendation of the base salary level for F. William Grube,
chief executive officer and president, must be approved by the
full board of directors. Effective January 1, 2008, the
board of directors approved an increase in Mr. Grubes
base salary to $357,000. In addition, the
130
base salary for Mr. Grube was initially established, and is
governed on a continuing basis, by the terms of his employment
agreement, including a provision that the amount of his annual
salary increase at a minimum must be equal to the average of the
percentage increases of all salaried employees of Calumets
general partner. This increase in Mr. Grubes 2008
base salary of approximately 4% is equivalent to the average of
the percentage increases of all salaried employees for the 2008
fiscal year. 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.
Short-Term
Cash Awards
Short-term cash awards are designed to aid Calumet in retaining
and motivating executives and 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 Partnership financial performance.
These cash incentive payments are made pursuant to the Cash
Incentive Compensation Plan (the Cash Incentive
Plan). The compensation committee approved potential
awards under the Cash Incentive Plan for the 2007 fiscal year
and has approved potential awards for the 2008 fiscal year. Cash
bonuses, calculated as a percentage of base salary, are paid to
executives and certain other management employees based on
Calumets achievement of specified distributable cash flow
relative to three increasing performance targets: minimum,
target and stretch. Specifically, 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 bonuses 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 incentive
bonus 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. 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 competitive with the
market median while placing significant emphasis on the
achievement of the Partnerships distributable cash flow
goals.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors approved distributable cash flow targets for the
2007 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by management, with a
cash incentive award structure per the above ranges of
percentages of base salaries. The 2007 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 2006 fiscal year. For 2007, this
target distributable cash flow goal exceeded the stretch
distributable cash flow goal used for the 2006 fiscal year,
while the stretch distributable cash flow goal was almost twice
that of the target distributable cash flow goal for the 2006
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. Under the
Cash Incentive Plan, the maximum award potential for any named
executive officer for fiscal year 2007 was $822,000, which
represents the maximum award which could have been earned by
Mr. Grube. Pursuant to Mr. Grubes employment
agreement, he is guaranteed to receive an award which is at
least 150% of the amount of the next highest potential award to
any other salaried employee of our general partner, which would
be the maximum potential award for Mr. Moyes of $548,000.
For the 2007 fiscal year, the Partnership did not achieve its
minimum distributable cash flow goal, resulting in no earned
awards under the Cash Incentive Plan. The primary driver of the
Partnership not meeting its minimum distributable cash flow goal
was the dramatic increase in the price of crude oil, primarily
in the second half of 2007, which negatively impacted the
Partnerships gross profit.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors has approved new distributable cash flow targets
for the 2008 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by
management, with the cash incentive award structure remaining
unchanged from the 2007 fiscal year, including the distributable
cash flow goals and incentive levels for the named executive
officers. Consistent with past practices, the goals for the 2008
131
fiscal year represent an appropriate level of difficulty to
create a direct link between pay and company performance. Under
the Cash Incentive Plan, the maximum award that could be paid to
any named executive officer related to fiscal year 2008 will be
$855,000, which represents the maximum award which could be
earned by Mr. Grube. Such amount is calculated as 150% of
the amount of the next highest potential award to any other
salaried employee of our general partner, which would be the
maximum potential award for Mr. Moyes of $570,000.
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.
Long-Term,
Unit Based Awards
Long-term, unit based awards aid Calumet in retaining and
motivating executives and to assist the Partnership in meeting
its financial performance objectives. Long-term unit-based
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
Partnership financial performance. In addition, the long-term
unit-based incentive component of executive compensation, when
coupled with an extended ratable vesting period as compared to
cash awards, further align the interests of executives with the
Partnerships unitholders in the longer-term and reinforce
unit ownership levels among executives.
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 (the
Plan) adopted on January 24, 2006 and
administered by the compensation committee.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee and under
the provisions of the Plan, the board of directors approved a
program for the 2007 fiscal year for the potential grant of
performance-contingent phantom units to named executive officers
and certain other management employees in order to add a
long-term, equity-based incentive to the executive compensation
program. Pursuant to the program, there were two potential
levels of phantom unit grants for each participant to be granted
upon determination if the Partnership had achieved its specified
distributable cash flow goals, namely the target and stretch
distributable cash flow goals utilized for the cash incentive
bonuses described above in Short-Term Cash Awards.
Upon grant, such phantom units would be subject to a time
vesting requirement, whereby 25% of the award would vest on the
date of grant, with an additional 25% vesting on each successive
December 31 following the date of grant. As the Partnership
did not achieve the target distributable cash flow goal during
fiscal year 2007, no phantom units were granted under the
program.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors has approved new distributable cash flow targets
for the 2008 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by
management, with the phantom unit award structure for the named
executive officers remaining unchanged from the 2007 fiscal
year, as well as the estimated likelihoods of distributable cash
flow performance levels as described above in Short-Term
Cash Awards.
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. The named executive
officers generally are eligible for the same benefit programs on
the same basis as the rest of the employees. The health and
welfare programs are intended to protect employees against
catastrophic loss and encourage a healthy lifestyle. Our health
and welfare programs include medical, pharmacy, dental, life
insurance and accidental death and dismemberment. In addition,
certain employees are eligible for long-term disability
coverage. Coverage under long-term disability offers benefits
specific to the named executive officers. We provide the named
executive officers with a compensation allowance which is
grossed up for the payment of taxes to allow them to purchase
long-term disability coverage on an after-tax basis at no net
cost to them. As structured, these long-term disability benefits
will pay 60% of monthly earnings, as defined by the policy, up
to a maximum of $6,000 per
132
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.
Retirement
Benefits
Named executive officers participate in the same retirement
savings plan as other eligible employees subject to ERISA
limits. This plan is a qualified defined contribution plan
(401(k) plan) and is designed to provide an appropriate level of
replacement income upon retirement and is provided as a reward
for prior contributions and future efforts toward our success
and growth. Historically, the Partnership matched 100% of each
1% of eligible compensation contribution by the participant up
to 3% of eligible compensation contributions and 50% of each
additional 1% of eligible compensation contribution up to 5%,
for a maximum contribution by the Partnership of 4% of eligible
compensation contributions per participant. Effective
July 1, 2007, the Partnership amended the retirement
savings plan such that the Partnership now 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.
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 compensation committee
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 2007 fiscal year. The value
of Partnership contributions to the retirement savings plan for
named executive officers is included in the Summary Compensation
Table.
Perquisites
All named executive officers are provided with 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: In order to
encourage a healthy lifestyle, we pay for a complete and
professional personal physical exam for each named executive
officer appropriate for his or her age, generally on an annual
basis.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The compensation committee periodically reviews the perquisite
program to determine if adjustments are appropriate.
Other
Compensation Related Matters
Tax
Implications of Executive Compensation
Because Calumet is not an entity taxable as a corporation, many
of the tax issues associated with executive compensation that
face publicly traded corporations do not directly affect the
Partnership. However, on October 22, 2004, the American
Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4520) (the AJCA) was
signed into law by the President. The AJCA added new
Section 409A to the Internal Revenue Code
(Section 409A) which significantly alters the
rules relating to the taxation of deferred compensation.
Section 409A broadly applies to deferred compensation and
potentially results in additional tax to participants. The
Department of Treasury and IRS issued rules under
133
Section 409A in 2007. Based on these final rules, there are
limitations to the manner in which we award long-term incentives
to employees, consultants and directors of certain of our
affiliates to meet the compliance requirements of
Section 409A. Consistent with Section 409A
requirements, we have structured awards under the Plan in a
manner that complies with Section 409A. Before the end of
2008, we will also be in full documentary compliance, as
stipulated in IRS Notice
2007-78.
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 pursuant to 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 maintain an employment agreement with the chief executive
officer and president of our general partner,
F .William Grube, to ensure he will perform his role
for an extended period of time given his position and value to
the Partnership. Upon consummation of the initial public
offering on January 31, 2006, Mr. Grube entered into
an employment agreement with our general partner. Pursuant to
the employment agreement, Mr. Grube serves as chief
executive officer and president of our general partner as well
as a member of the board of directors of our general partner.
The employment agreement provides that Mr. Grube will have
powers and duties and responsibilities that are customary to
this position and that are assigned to him by the board of
directors of our general partner in connection with his general
management and supervision of the operations of our general
partner. 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.
Our employment agreement with Mr. Grube provides for
severance compensation to be paid to him if his employment is
terminated under certain conditions, such as termination by
Mr. Grube for good reasonor by us without
cause, each as defined in the agreement and further
described in Potential Payments Upon
Termination Employment Agreement with F. William
Grube. As defined, good reason includes, among
other things, failure of any successor to us to assume his
employment agreement not later than the date as of which it
acquires substantially all of the equity, assets or business of
us, which would represent a change in control of us.
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
|
134
|
|
|
|
|
after termination and because we and Mr. Grube have a
mutually agreed to severance package that is in place prior to
any termination event. This provides us with more flexibility to
make a change in this executive position if such a change is in
our and our unitholders best interests.
|
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our executive officers for the years ended December 31,
2007 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Salary(1)
|
|
|
Plan Compensation(2)
|
|
|
Compensation(3)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
$
|
342,800
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,858
|
|
|
$
|
350,658
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
332,800
|
|
|
|
654,263
|
|
|
|
31,138
|
|
|
|
1,018,201
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
188,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,023
|
|
|
|
195,356
|
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
152,500
|
|
|
|
224,379
|
|
|
|
30,464
|
|
|
|
407,343
|
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
274,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,455
|
|
|
|
318,455
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
251,592
|
|
|
|
436,175
|
|
|
|
32,184
|
|
|
|
719,951
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
182,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,079
|
|
|
|
200,079
|
|
Vice President Sales and Marketing
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
163,917
|
|
|
|
230,979
|
|
|
|
35,106
|
|
|
|
430,002
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
166,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,913
|
|
|
|
172,913
|
|
Senior Vice President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Please refer to Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Base Salary for a discussion of
adjustments to base salary for our executives. |
|
(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. For the
2007 fiscal year, the Partnership did not achieve its minimum
distributable cash flow goal, resulting in no earned awards
under the Cash Incentive Compensation Plan. |
|
(3) |
|
This column includes the cost to the Partnership of
contributions made to Calumets defined contribution
retirement savings plan (401(k) plan) for both company matching
contributions and annual discretionary profit sharing
contributions for the named executives as well as term life
insurance premiums for each named executive officer |
For fiscal year 2007, each named executive officer received
company matching contributions equivalent to the full 4% of
eligible compensation per the provisions of the 401(k) plan
prior to the aforementioned amendment to the 401(k) plan
effective July 1, 2007, with the exception of
Mr. Grube, whose company matching contributions were 3% of
eligible compensation per the provisions of the 401(k) plan as
amended.
Based on the overall financial results of the Partnership for
the 2007 fiscal year, the compensation committee approved a
discretionary profit sharing contribution to the 401(k) plan for
all eligible employees equivalent to 2.5% of their eligible
compensation for the 2007 fiscal year. Accordingly, other than
F. William Grube, who received a total company contribution of
5.5% of his total eligible compensation, each named executive
officer received a total company contribution of 6.5% of his
total eligible compensation.
This column excludes perquisites or other personal benefits
received by Mr. Grube, Mr. Murray and
Ms. Straumins in 2007, as such amounts for each named
executive officer were less than $10,000 in the aggregate.
In 2007, Mr. Moyes received a perquisite whereby he and his
spouse were provided a leisure trip to a major professional
sporting event, all costs of which were fully borne by the
Partnership. The incremental cost of such perquisite to the
Partnership was $25,531, calculated as actual expenses
associated with the leisure trip grossed up for taxes. Other
perquisites received by Mr. Moyes during 2007 included the
use of a Partnership-owned vehicle, an executive physical
examination and a compensation amount grossed up for taxes to
allow him to purchase long-term disability insurance coverage at
no net cost to him.
135
In 2007, Mr. Anderson received perquisites which included
the use of a Partnership-owned vehicle, an executive physical
examination, spousal travel, country club membership and a
compensation amount grossed up for taxes to allow him to
purchase long-term disability insurance coverage at no net cost
to him.
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, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
|
|
Name
|
|
Threshold
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
205,500
|
|
|
$
|
411,000
|
|
|
$
|
822,000
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
$
|
100,000
|
|
|
$
|
200,000
|
|
|
$
|
300,000
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
$
|
137,000
|
|
|
$
|
274,000
|
|
|
$
|
548,000
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
$
|
91,000
|
|
|
$
|
182,000
|
|
|
$
|
273,000
|
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
$
|
83,000
|
|
|
$
|
166,000
|
|
|
$
|
249,000
|
|
The above table shows the ranges of potential cash incentive
awards granted to executives under Calumets Cash Incentive
Compensation Plan related to fiscal year 2007. 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. Awards earned 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 distributable cash flow targets. For the
2007 fiscal year, the Partnership did not achieve its minimum
distributable cash flow goal, resulting in no earned awards
under the Cash Incentive Compensation 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, which 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 bonuses
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 bonus 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 bonuses 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 bonuses are paid under the Cash Incentive Plan. 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(a)
|
|
Minimum
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Stretch
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
2
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
150
|
%
|
3
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
4
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
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 |
136
|
|
|
|
|
(Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Straumins),
along with certain other officers, participate in the Cash
Incentive Plan at Incentive Level 2. |
Per the terms of his employment agreement as described in the
section entitled Description of Employment Agreement with
F. William Grube, Mr. Grube is entitled to
receive a payout of at least 150% of the amount of any cash
payout or distribution that may be made to any other executive
officer under the terms of any incentive compensation plans.
For the 2007 fiscal year, the Partnership did not achieve its
minimum distributable cash flow goal, resulting in no earned
awards under the Cash Incentive Plan. See Compensation
Discussion and Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Short-Term Cash Awards for
additional discussion of the Cash Incentive Plan.
Description
of Phantom Unit Program
No phantom units are granted under the program unless the
Partnership achieves at least the target distributable cash flow
goal, and no proration of awards occurs for performance which
falls between the target and stretch distributable cash flow
goal levels. Each named executive officers or other
management employees potential award is determined by his
or her position with the general partner. Potential awards range
from 1,000 to 6,000 phantom units for achievement of the target
distributable cash flow goal to 1,500 to 9,000 phantom units for
achievement of the stretch distributable cash flow goal. These
phantom units, if awarded, will generally vest
ratably 25% upon grant and 25% on each successive
December 31 thereafter (at which vesting date the grantee will
be entitled to receive, at the election of the general partner,
either one common unit for each such vested phantom unit or the
fair market value of such a common unit). These phantom units
will also carry tandem distribution equivalent rights whereby
distributions will be paid during the vesting period on all
granted units, including those which have not yet vested. Such
grants will also include automatic full vesting upon the
occurrence of certain events including, but not limited to,
change of control of the Partnership, death, disability and
normal retirement. The following table summarizes the levels of
phantom unit awards available to participants in this equity
award program related to fiscal year 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Phantom Units Awarded
|
|
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. |
For the 2007 fiscal year, the Partnership did not achieve its
target distributable cash flow goal, resulting in no earned
awards under this program. See Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Long-Term, Unit-Based Awards for
additional discussion of this program.
Description
of Long-Term Incentive Plan
Following is a summary of the major terms and provisions of the
Partnerships Long-Term Incentive Plan which governs
long-term, unit-based awards such as the phantom units
previously described:
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 13,776 of which have already been
awarded to the non-
137
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.
Distributions made by us on restricted units may, in the
compensation committees discretion, be subject to the same
vesting requirements as the restricted units. The compensation
committee, in its discretion, may also grant tandem DERs with
respect to phantom units on such terms as it deems appropriate.
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.
We intend for the restricted units and phantom units granted
under the Plan to serve as a means of incentive compensation for
performance and not primarily as an opportunity to participate
in the equity appreciation of the common units. Therefore,
participants will 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.
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.
138
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
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
There were no outstanding equity awards to the named executive
officers as of December 31, 2007.
Options
Exercises and Stock Vested
There were no options exercised or equity awards that vested
during the year ended December 31, 2007.
Pension
Benefits
There are no Partnership plans that provide for payments or
other benefits at, following, or in connection with the
retirement of any of our named executive officers.
Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation
There are no Partnership plans that provide for deferral of
compensation on a basis that is not tax-qualified.
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:
139
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, 2007, 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) $0;
and (d) $0, with an aggregate value of $0.
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 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.
140
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, 2007, 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) $1,028,400; (b) $0;
(c) $0; (d) $0; and (e) $0, with an aggregate
value of $1,028,400.
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,
2007, 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) $0, with an aggregate value of $0.
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. The primary fees paid
to non-employee directors for their attendance and participation
in board meetings are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
annual fees of $30,000, payable in quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
the annual award of restricted or phantom units in an amount
equivalent to approximately $40,000 with a four-year vesting
period;
|
|
|
|
annual fees of $8,000 to the audit committee chairperson,
payable in quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
annual fees of $4,000 to each audit committee member, payable in
quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
annual fees of $5,000 to all other committee chairpersons,
payable in quarterly installments; and
|
|
|
|
annual fees of $2,500 to all other committee members, payable in
quarterly installments.
|
In addition, each non-employee director will be reimbursed for
his out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attending meetings
of the board of directors or committees. Each director will be
fully indemnified by us for his actions associated with being a
director to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law.
141
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our non-employee directors for the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Paid in Cash(1)
|
|
|
Unit Awards(2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
$
|
35,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,214
|
|
|
$
|
55,214
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
26,250
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
36,474
|
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
39,000
|
|
|
|
20,214
|
|
|
|
59,214
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
29,250
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
39,474
|
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
20,214
|
|
|
|
50,214
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
32,724
|
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
36,500
|
|
|
|
20,214
|
|
|
|
56,714
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
27,375
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
37,599
|
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
20,214
|
|
|
|
50,214
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
25,224
|
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
38,000
|
|
|
|
20,214
|
|
|
|
58,214
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
28,500
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
38,724
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For 2007, represents fees earned and paid related to the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2006 and the first, second and third
quarters of fiscal year 2007. Fees related to the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 2007 will be deemed earned during the quarterly
board meeting occurring subsequent to December 31, 2007. |
|
|
|
For Mr. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Mr. W. Fehsenfeld and
Mr. Rutigliano, amounts exclude any fees or contributions
derived from certain administrative services received by Calumet
from The Heritage Group and self insurance programs in which
Calumet historically participated with The Heritage Group and
certain of its affiliates, as further described in Item 13
Certain Relationships, Related Party Transactions and
Director Independence Administrative and Other
Services. Such services received by Calumet from The
Heritage Group and
self-insurance
program participation by Calumet with The Heritage Group and
certain of its affiliates was terminated during fiscal year
2007. Mr. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr. serves as the managing trustee
of The Heritage Group. Both Mr. W. Fehsenfeld and
Mr. Rutigliano serve as trustees of The Heritage Group.
Both The Heritage Group and Mr. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr. family
trusts are members of our general partner. |
|
|
|
For Mr. Rutigliano, amount excludes any insurance brokerage
fees derived from Calumets placement of certain insurance
coverage underwriting through Mr. Rutiglianos
commercial insurance brokerage firm, Tobias Insurance Group,
Inc., as further described in Item 13 Certain
Relationships, Related Party Transactions and Director
Independence Insurance Brokerage. |
|
(2) |
|
On December 28, 2007, each non-employee director was
granted 1,080 phantom units with a fair value of $39,960 on the
date of grant for the year ended December 31, 2007 under
the terms of Calumets Long-Term Incentive Plan as part of
his director compensation package. With respect to this award,
25% of the phantom units vested on December 31, 2007,
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
(SFAS 123(R)) $20,214 of compensation cost for each
non-employee director was recognized by the Partnership in 2007
related to the vesting of both 25% of the 2007 granted phantom
units and 25% of the 2006 granted phantom units, or 574 common
units, on December 31, 2007. As of December 31, 2007,
each non-employee director had 1,418 unvested phantom units
outstanding with a market value of $52,509. An aggregate of
8,508 phantom units with a market value of $315,051 were
outstanding as of December 31, 2007. |
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 Administrative and Other
Services, Crude Oil Purchases and
Specialty Product Sales for
142
descriptions of our transactions in fiscal year 2007 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,
2007
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
|
|
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 29, 2008 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.
143
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, Kayne
Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Williams, Jones & Associates, LLC, Osterweis Capital
Management, Inc. and Swank Capital, LLC, is 2780 Waterfront Pkwy
E. 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)
|
|
|
3,539,940
|
|
|
|
18.47
|
%
|
|
|
8,028,593
|
|
|
|
61.45
|
%
|
|
|
35.89
|
%
|
Calumet, Incorporated(2)
|
|
|
591,886
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
%
|
|
|
1,342,401
|
|
|
|
10.27
|
%
|
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
Goldman, Sachs & Co.(3)
|
|
|
1,979,196
|
|
|
|
10.33
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
6.14
|
%
|
Williams, Jones & Associates, LLC(8)
|
|
|
1,141,058
|
|
|
|
5.95
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
3.54
|
%
|
Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P.(4)
|
|
|
1,779,969
|
|
|
|
9.28
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
5.52
|
%
|
Osterweis Capital Management, Inc.(9)
|
|
|
1,532,442
|
|
|
|
8.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
4.75
|
%
|
Swank Capital, LLC(12)
|
|
|
1,580,816
|
|
|
|
8.25
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
4.90
|
%
|
Janet K. Grube(2)(5)
|
|
|
1,179,969
|
|
|
|
6.16
|
%
|
|
|
2,676,173
|
|
|
|
20.48
|
%
|
|
|
11.96
|
%
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.(1)(2)(10)(11)
|
|
|
187,954
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
403,592
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
%
|
|
|
1.84
|
%
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
14,124
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Jennifer G. Straumins
|
|
|
2,200
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
6,450
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
5,003
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
William S. Fehsenfeld(1)(6)(11)
|
|
|
63,884
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
5,878
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano(1)(7)(11)
|
|
|
25,878
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
5,878
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
All directors and executive officers as a group
(12 persons)(13)
|
|
|
333,249
|
|
|
|
1.74
|
%
|
|
|
403,592
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
%
|
|
|
2.29
|
%
|
|
|
|
(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 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 above table. 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 above table. 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. |
144
|
|
|
(3) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on
February 6, 2008. The filing person has indicated that it
shares voting and dispositive power of certain of such units.
The address for Goldman, Sachs & Co. is 85 Broad
Street, New York, New York 10004. |
|
(4) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on
January 30, 2008. 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. |
|
(5) |
|
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 above table. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and children
of William S. Fehsenfeld for which he disclaims beneficial
ownership. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse of Nicholas
J. Rutigliano for which he disclaims beneficial ownership. |
|
(8) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on
November 6, 2007. The address for Williams,
Jones & Associates, LLC is 717 Fifth Avenue, New
York, New York 10002. |
|
(9) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on
February 14, 2008. John Osterweis is the control person of
Osterweis Capital Management, Inc., which is the direct
beneficial owner of 804,474 common units, and Osterweis Capital
Management, LLC, which is the direct beneficial owner of 724,618
common units. The address of Osterweis Capital Management, Inc.
is One Maritime Plaza, Suite 800, San Francisco,
California 94111. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and certain
children of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., for which he disclaims
beneficial ownership. |
|
(11) |
|
Does not include a total of 572,154 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
above table. |
|
(12) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
February 20, 2008, Jerry V. Swank is the control person of
Swank Capital, LLC, which is the direct beneficial owner of
1,580,816 common units. The filing person has indicated that it
shares voting and dispositive power of certain of such units.
The address for Swank Capital, LLC is 3300 Oak Lawn Avenue,
Suite 650, Dallas Texas, 75219. |
|
(13) |
|
As of February 29, 2008, no units were pledged by directors
or named executive officers of our general partner. One director
holds units in a marginable brokers account, but none of
those units were margined as of February 29, 2008. |
145
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The following table summarizes information about our equity
compensation plans as of December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
8,508
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
760,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
8,508
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
760,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 6,511,115
common units and 13,066,000 subordinated units representing an
aggregate 58.4% limited partner interest in us. In addition, our
general partner own a 2% general partner interest in us and the
incentive distribution rights. We will generally make cash
distributions of 98% to the unitholders pro rata, including the
affiliates of our general partner, and 2% to our general
partner. In addition, if distributions exceed the minimum
quarterly distribution and other higher target distribution
levels, our general partner will be entitled to increasing
percentages of the distributions, up to 50% of the distributions
above the highest target level. Please refer to Item 5
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related
Unitholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity
Securities for a summary of cash distribution levels of
the Partnership during the year ended December 31, 2007.
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
determine 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;
|
146
|
|
|
|
|
the refining and marketing of asphalt and asphalt-related
products and related product development activities;
|
|
|
|
the refining and marketing of other products that do not produce
qualifying income as defined in the Internal Revenue
Code;
|
|
|
|
the purchase and ownership of up to 9.9% of any class of
securities of any entity engaged in any restricted business;
|
|
|
|
any restricted business acquired or constructed that The
Heritage Group or any of its affiliates acquires or constructs
that has a fair market value or construction cost, as
applicable, of less than $5.0 million;
|
|
|
|
any restricted business acquired or constructed that has a fair
market value or construction cost, as applicable, of
$5.0 million or more if we have been offered the
opportunity to purchase it for fair market value or construction
cost and we decline to do so with the concurrence of the
conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general
partner; and
|
|
|
|
any business conducted by The Heritage Group with the approval
of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our
general partner.
|
Administrative
and Other Services
The Heritage Group had historically provided us with certain
management, administrative and accounting services for which it
received an annual fee. Payments for these services for 2007
were approximately $0.2 million. We terminated these
services during 2007.
We participated in a self-insurance program for medical benefits
with The Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates. In
connection with this program, we made contributions a voluntary
employees benefit association in 2007 totaling
approximately $0.9 million. We terminated participation in
this self-insurance program for medical benefits during 2007 and
established a new self-insurance program for medical benefits
which is not administered by a related party.
We participated in a self-insurance program for workers
compensation with The Heritage Group and certain of its
affiliates. In connection with this program, we made
contributions to The Heritage Group in 2007 totaling
approximately $0.3 million. We terminated participation in
this self-insurance program for workers compensation
during 2007 and established a new self-insurance program for
workers compensation which is not administered by a
related party.
We participated in a self-insurance program for general
liability and auto liability with The Heritage Group and certain
of its affiliates. In connection with this program, we made
contributions to The Heritage Group. in 2007 totaling
approximately $1.2 million. We terminated participation in
this self-insurance program for general liability and auto
liability during 2007 and established a new self-insurance
program for general liability and auto liability which is not
administered by a related party.
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
147
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 2007 were approximately
$1.5 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
transitioned the majority of the aforementioned insurance
underwriting requirements to a non-affiliated third party
commercial insurance broker.
Crude Oil
Purchases
We have historically purchased a small percentage of our crude
oil supplies from Legacy Resources Co., L.P., an exploration and
production company owned in part by The Heritage Group and our
chief executive officer and president, F. William Grube. The
total purchases made by us from Legacy Resources in 2007 were
approximately $1.7 million, which represented purchases
based upon standard index-based, market rates. It is anticipated
that we may continue to purchase crude oil from Legacy Resources
at applicable market rates. We believe that the prices we pay
Legacy Resources for crude oil are comparable to the prices we
pay for crude oil from non-affiliated third parties.
Specialty
Product Sales
During 2007, we made ordinary course sales of certain
lubricating oils 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 2007 were approximately $4.6 million. As of
December 31, 2007 the balance due us from TruSouth related
to these products sales was approximately $0.2 million. We
anticipate that we may continue to sell products to TruSouth in
the future. 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.
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).
148
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, 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
2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Audit fees
|
|
$
|
1,803,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,112,000
|
|
Audit related fees
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
Tax fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,980
|
|
All other fees
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,379,500
|
|
|
$
|
1,301,980
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures classified as Audit fees above include
those related to our annual audit, audits of our general
partner, quarterly review procedures and work performed in
connection with our follow-on equity offerings.
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.
149
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 Annual
Report on
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
(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
(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).
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Third Amendment, dated April 13, 2007 and effective
April 23, 2007, to Revolving Credit Facility dated as of
December 9, 2005, by and among Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership, et al as Borrowers, Bank of America,
N.A, as Agent and Lender, and other Lenders party thereto
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q)
filed with the Commission on May 10, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Second Amendment, dated April 18, 2007 and effective
April 20, 2007, to the Secured First Lien Credit Facility,
dated as of December 9, 2005, by and among, Calumet
Lubricants Co. Limited Partnership, as Borrower, Bank of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent and Lender, and other
Lenders party thereto (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q)
filed with the Commission on May 10, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Fourth Amendment, dated and effective August 30, 2007, to
Revolving Credit Facility dated as of December 9, 2005, by
and among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership,
et al as Borrowers, Bank of America, N.A, as Agent and
Lender, and other Lenders party thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on September 5, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Third Amendment, dated and effective August 30, 2007, to
the Secured First Lien Credit Facility, dated as of
December 9, 2005, by and among, Calumet Lubricants Co,
Limited Partnership, as Borrower, Bank of America, N.A., as
Administrative Agent and Lender, and other Lenders party thereto
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current
Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on September 5, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Fifth Amendment, dated and effective November 12, 2007, to
Revolving Credit Facility dated as of December 9, 2005, by
and among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership,
et al as Borrowers, Bank of America, N.A, as Agent and
Lender, and other Lenders party thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on November 13, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
|
|
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
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current
Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on January 9, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
|
|
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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
|
|
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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
|
|
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, 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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
|
|
LVT Unit Agreement, effective January 1, 2008, between
ConocoPhillips Company and Calumet Penreco, LLC. Confidential
treatment has been requested for portions of this exhibit.
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
|
|
LVT Feedstock Purchase Agreement, effective January 1,
2008, between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller and Calumet
Penreco, LLC, as Buyer. Confidential treatment has been
requested for portions of this exhibit.
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
|
|
HDW Diesel Feedstock Purchase Agreement, effective
January 1, 2008, between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller
and Calumet Penreco, LLC, as Buyer. Confidential treatment has
been requested for portions of this exhibit.
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 21.1 of
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
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
|
151
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 4, 2008
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 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ALLAN
A. MOYES, III
Allan
A. Moyes, III
|
|
Executive Vice President of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/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 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ FRED
M. FEHSENFELD, JR.
Fred
M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
Director and Chairman of the Board of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ JAMES
S. CARTER
James
S. Carter
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ WILLIAM
S. FEHSENFELD
William
S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ROBERT
E. FUNK
Robert
E. Funk
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ NICHOLAS J. RUTIGLIANO
Nicholas
J. Rutigliano
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 4, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ MICHAEL
L. SMITH
Michael
L. Smith
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: March 4, 2008
|
152
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
(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
(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).
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Third Amendment, dated April 13, 2007 and effective
April 23, 2007, to Revolving Credit Facility dated as of
December 9, 2005, by and among Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership, et al as Borrowers, Bank of America,
N.A, as Agent and Lender, and other Lenders party thereto
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q)
filed with the Commission on May 10, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Second Amendment, dated April 18, 2007 and effective
April 20, 2007, to the Secured First Lien Credit Facility,
dated as of December 9, 2005, by and among, Calumet
Lubricants Co. Limited Partnership, as Borrower, Bank of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent and Lender, and other
Lenders party thereto (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q)
filed with the Commission on May 10, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Fourth Amendment, dated and effective August 30, 2007, to
Revolving Credit Facility dated as of December 9, 2005, by
and among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership,
et al as Borrowers, Bank of America, N.A, as Agent and
Lender, and other Lenders party thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on September 5, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Third Amendment, dated and effective August 30, 2007, to
the Secured First Lien Credit Facility, dated as of
December 9, 2005, by and among, Calumet Lubricants Co,
Limited Partnership, as Borrower, Bank of America, N.A., as
Administrative Agent and Lender, and other Lenders party thereto
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current
Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on September 5, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Fifth Amendment, dated and effective November 12, 2007, to
Revolving Credit Facility dated as of December 9, 2005, by
and among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership,
et al as Borrowers, Bank of America, N.A, as Agent and
Lender, and other Lenders party thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on November 13, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
|
|
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
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current
Report on
Form 8-K)
filed with the Commission on January 9, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
153
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
|
|
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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
|
|
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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
|
|
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, 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, 2007 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
|
|
LVT Unit Agreement, effective January 1, 2008, between
ConocoPhillips Company and Calumet Penreco, LLC. Confidential
treatment has been requested for portions of this exhibit.
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
|
|
LVT Feedstock Purchase Agreement, effective January 1,
2008, between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller and Calumet
Penreco, LLC, as Buyer. Confidential treatment has been
requested for portions of this exhibit.
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
|
|
HDW Diesel Feedstock Purchase Agreement, effective
January 1, 2008, between ConocoPhillips Company, as Seller
and Calumet Penreco, LLC, as Buyer. Confidential treatment has
been requested for portions of this exhibit.
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 21.1 of
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
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
|
154