AMENDMENT #7 TO FORM S-1
As filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2007
Registration
No. 333-137588
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
AMENDMENT NO. 7
to
FORM S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933
CVR ENERGY, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
2911
|
|
61-1512186
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
|
|
(Primary Standard
Industrial
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
|
Incorporation or
Organization)
|
|
Classification Code
Number)
|
|
Identification Number)
|
2277 Plaza Drive,
Suite 500
Sugar Land, Texas
77479
(281) 207-3200
(Address, Including Zip Code,
and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of
Registrants Principal Executive Offices)
John J. Lipinski
2277 Plaza Drive,
Suite 500
Sugar Land, Texas
77479
(281) 207-3200
(Name, Address, Including Zip
Code, and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of Agent
for Service)
With a copy to:
|
|
|
Stuart H. Gelfond
Michael A. Levitt
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, New York 10004
(212) 859-8000
|
|
Peter J. Loughran
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(212) 909-6000
|
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the
public: As soon as practicable after the
effective date of this Registration Statement.
If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be
offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to
Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the
following box. o
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an
offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act,
please check the following box and list the Securities Act
registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Maximum
|
|
|
|
Title of Each Class of
|
|
|
Aggregate Offering
|
|
|
|
Securities to be Registered
|
|
|
Price (1)(2)
|
|
|
Amount of Registration Fee (3)
|
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
|
|
|
$375,000,000
|
|
|
$40,125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Includes offering price of shares
which the underwriters have the option to purchase.
|
|
(2)
|
|
Estimated solely for the purpose of
calculating the registration fee pursuant to Rule 457(o) of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
|
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
Of the total registration fee of
$40,125, $32,100 has previously been paid.
|
The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on
such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective
date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this Registration Statement shall
thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the Registration
Statement shall become effective on such date as the Securities
and Exchange Commission, acting pursuant to said
Section 8(a), may determine.
The
information in this prospectus is not complete and may be
changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is
effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these
securities and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these
securities in any state where the offer or sale is not
permitted.
|
Subject to Completion. Dated
June 5, 2007.
15,500,000 Shares
CVR Energy, Inc.
Common Stock
This is an initial public offering of shares of common stock of
CVR Energy, Inc. CVR Energy is offering all of the shares to be
sold in the offering.
Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for the
common stock. It is currently estimated that the initial public
offering price per share will be between
$ and
$ . Our common stock has been
approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol CVI.
See Risk Factors beginning on page 23 to
read about factors you should consider before buying shares of
the common stock.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state
securities commission has approved or disapproved of these
securities or passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this
prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal
offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per
Share
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Initial public offering price
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Underwriting discount
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Proceeds, before expenses, to us
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
To the extent that the underwriters sell more than
15,500,000 shares of common stock, the underwriters have
the option to purchase up to an additional 2,325,000 shares
from the selling stockholders at the initial public offering
price less the underwriting discount.
The underwriters expect to deliver the shares against payment in
New York, New York
on ,
2007.
|
|
Goldman,
Sachs & Co. |
Deutsche
Bank Securities |
Credit Suisse
International
Prospectus
dated ,
2007.
PROSPECTUS SUMMARY
This summary highlights selected information contained
elsewhere in this prospectus. You should carefully read the
entire prospectus, including the Risk Factors and
the consolidated financial statements and related notes included
elsewhere in this prospectus, before making an investment
decision. In this prospectus, all references to the
Company, Coffeyville, we,
us, and our refer to CVR Energy, Inc.
and its consolidated subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise
requires or where otherwise indicated. References in this
prospectus to the nitrogen fertilizer business refer
to our nitrogen fertilizer business which, prior to the
consummation of this offering, we are transferring to a newly
formed limited partnership whose managing general partner will
be owned by our controlling stockholders and senior management.
See The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited Partnership. You
should also see the Glossary of Selected Terms
beginning on page 280 for definitions of some of the terms
we use to describe our business and industry. We use non-GAAP
measures in this prospectus, including Net income adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap. For a
reconciliation of this measure to net income, see
footnote 3 under Summary Consolidated
Financial Information.
Our Business
We are an independent refiner and marketer of high value
transportation fuels and, through a limited partnership, a
producer of ammonia and urea ammonia nitrate, or UAN,
fertilizers. We are one of only seven petroleum refiners and
marketers in the Coffeyville supply area (Kansas, Oklahoma,
Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa) and, at current natural gas prices,
the nitrogen fertilizer business is the lowest cost producer and
marketer of ammonia and UAN in North America.
Our petroleum business includes a 108,000 barrel per day,
or bpd, complex full coking sour crude refinery in Coffeyville,
Kansas (with capacity expected to reach approximately 115,000
bpd by the end of 2007). In addition, our supporting businesses
include (1) a crude oil gathering system serving central
Kansas and northern Oklahoma, (2) storage and terminal
facilities for asphalt and refined fuels in Phillipsburg,
Kansas, and (3) a rack marketing division supplying product
through tanker trucks directly to customers located in close
geographic proximity to Coffeyville and Phillipsburg, and to
customers at throughput terminals on Magellan Midstream Partners
L.P.s refined products distribution systems. In addition
to rack sales (sales which are made at terminals into third
party tanker trucks), we make bulk sales (sales through third
party pipelines) into the mid-continent markets via Magellan and
into Colorado and other destinations utilizing the product
pipeline networks owned by Magellan, Enterprise Products
Partners LP and NuStar Energy L.P. Our refinery is situated
approximately 100 miles from Cushing, Oklahoma, one of the
largest crude oil trading and storage hubs in the United States,
served by numerous pipelines from locations including the
U.S. Gulf Coast and Canada, providing us with access to
virtually any crude variety in the world capable of being
transported by pipeline.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is the only operation in North
America that utilizes a coke gasification process to produce
ammonia (based on data provided by Blue Johnson &
Associates). A majority of the ammonia produced by the
fertilizer plant is further upgraded to UAN fertilizer (a
solution of urea, ammonium nitrate and water used as a
fertilizer). By using petroleum coke, or pet coke (a
coal-like
substance that is produced during the refining process), instead
of natural gas as raw material, at current natural gas prices
the nitrogen fertilizer business is the lowest cost producer of
ammonia and UAN in North America. Furthermore, on average, over
80% of the pet coke utilized by the fertilizer plant is produced
and supplied to the fertilizer plant as a by-product of our
refinery. As such, the nitrogen fertilizer business benefits
from high natural gas prices, as fertilizer prices increase with
natural gas prices, without a directly related change in cost
(because pet coke rather than more expensive natural gas is used
as a primary raw material).
We generated combined net sales of $1.7 billion,
$2.4 billion, $3.0 billion and $2.8 billion and
operating income of $111.2 million, $270.8 million,
$281.6 million and $162.2 million for the fiscal years
ended December 31, 2004, 2005 and 2006 and the twelve
months ended March 31, 2007,
1
respectively. Our petroleum business generated
$1.6 billion, $2.3 billion, $2.9 billion and $2.6
billion of our combined net sales, respectively, over these
periods, with the nitrogen fertilizer business generating
substantially all of the remainder. In addition, during these
periods, our petroleum business contributed $84.8 million,
$199.7 million, $245.6 million and
$140.5 million, respectively, of our combined operating
income, with substantially all of the remainder contributed by
the nitrogen fertilizer business.
Significant
Milestones Since the Change of Control in June 2005
Following the acquisition by certain affiliates of The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc. (whom we collectively refer to in this
prospectus as the Goldman Sachs Funds) and certain affiliates of
Kelso & Company, L.P. (whom we collectively refer to
in this prospectus as the Kelso Funds) in June 2005, a new
senior management team was formed which has executed several key
strategic initiatives that we believe have significantly
enhanced our business.
Increased Refinery Throughput and
Yields. Managements focus on crude
slate optimization (the process of determining the most economic
crude oils to be refined), reliability, technical support and
operational excellence coupled with prudent expenditures on
equipment has significantly improved the operating metrics of
the refinery. The refinerys crude throughput rate (the
volume per day processed through the refinery) has increased
from an average of less than 90,000 bpd to an average of
greater than 102,000 bpd in the second quarter of 2006 with
peak daily rates in excess of 108,000 bpd of crude. Crude
throughputs averaged over 94,500 bpd for 2006, an
improvement of more than 3,400 bpd over 2005. Recent
operational improvements at the refinery have also allowed us to
produce higher volumes of favorably priced distillates
(primarily No. 1 diesel fuel and kerosene), premium
gasoline and boutique gasoline grades.
Diversified Crude Feedstock Variety. We
have expanded the variety of crude grades processed in any given
month from a limited few to over a dozen. This has improved our
crude purchase cost discount to West Texas Intermediate crude
oil, or WTI, from $3.08 per barrel in 2005 to $4.58 per
barrel in 2006.
Expanded Direct Rack Sales. We have
significantly expanded and intend to continue to expand rack
marketing of refined products (petroleum products such as
gasoline and diesel fuel) directly to customers rather than
origin bulk sales. We presently sell approximately 23% of our
produced transportation fuels at enhanced margins in this
manner, which has helped improve our net income for 2006
compared to 2005.
Significant Plant Improvement and Capacity Expansion
Projects. Management has identified and
developed several significant capital projects since June 2005
primarily aimed at (1) expanding refinery and nitrogen
fertilizer plant capacity (throughput that the plants are
capable of sustaining on a daily basis), (2) enhancing
operating reliability and flexibility, (3) complying with
more stringent environmental, health and safety standards, and
(4) improving our ability to process heavier sour crude
feedstock varieties (petroleum products that are processed and
blended into refined products). We completed most of these
capital projects by April 2007 and expect to complete the
remainder prior to the end of 2007. The estimated total cost of
these programs is $520 million, the majority of which has
already been spent and the remainder of which will be spent by
the end of 2007.
Key Market
Trends
We have identified several key factors which we believe should
favorably contribute to the
long-term
outlook for the refining and nitrogen fertilizer industries.
For the refining industry, these factors include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
High capital costs, historical excess capacity and environmental
regulatory requirements that have limited the construction of
new refineries in the United States over the past 30 years.
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing improvement in the supply and demand fundamentals of
the global refining industry as projected by the Energy
Information Administration of the U.S. Department of
Energy, or the EIA.
|
|
|
|
Increasing demand for sweet crude oils and higher incremental
production of lower cost sour crude that are expected to provide
a cost advantage to sour crude processing refiners.
|
|
|
|
U.S. fuel specifications, including reduced sulfur content,
reduced vapor pressure and the addition of oxygenates such as
ethanol, that should benefit refiners who are able to
efficiently produce fuels that meet these specifications.
|
|
|
|
Limited competitive threat from foreign refiners due to
sophisticated U.S. fuel specifications and increasing foreign
demand for refined products.
|
|
|
|
Refining capacity shortage in the mid-continent region, as
certain regional markets in the U.S. are subject to insufficient
local refining capacity to meet regional demands. This should
result in local refiners earning higher margins on product sales
than those who must rely on pipelines and other modes of
transportation for supply.
|
For the nitrogen fertilizer industry, these factors include the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
The impact of a growing world population combined with an
expanded use of corn for the production of ethanol both of which
are expected to drive worldwide grain demand and farm
production, thereby increasing demand for nitrogen-based
fertilizers.
|
|
|
|
High natural gas prices in North America that contribute to
higher production costs for natural gas-based U.S. ammonia
producers should result in elevated nitrogen fertilizer prices,
as natural gas price trends generally correlate with nitrogen
fertilizer price trends (based on data provided by Blue Johnson
& Associates).
|
However, both of our industries are cyclical and volatile and
have experienced downturns in the past. See Risk
Factors.
Our Competitive
Strengths
Regional Advantage and Strategic Asset
Location. Our refinery is one of only seven
refineries located in the Coffeyville supply area within the
mid-continent region, where demand for refined products exceeded
refining production by approximately 22% in 2006. We estimate
that this favorable supply/demand imbalance combined with our
lower pipeline transportation cost as compared to the
U.S. Gulf Coast refiners has allowed us to generate
refining margins, as measured by the 2-1-1 crack spread, that
have exceeded U.S. Gulf Coast refining margins by approximately
$1.63 per barrel on average for the last four years. The
2-1-1 crack spread is a general industry standard that
approximates the per barrel refining margin resulting from
processing two barrels of crude oil to produce one barrel of
gasoline and one barrel of diesel fuel.
In addition, the nitrogen fertilizer business is geographically
advantaged to supply products to markets in Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Texas without incurring
intermediate transfer, storage, barge or pipeline freight
charges. Because the nitrogen fertilizer business does not incur
these costs, this geographic advantage provides it with a
distribution cost benefit over U.S. Gulf Coast ammonia and UAN
importers, assuming in each case freight rates and pipeline
tariffs for U.S. Gulf Coast importers as recently in effect.
Access to and Ability to Process Multiple Crude
Oils. Since June 2005 we have significantly
expanded the variety of crude grades processed in any given
month. While our proximity to the Cushing crude oil trading hub
minimizes the likelihood of an interruption to our supply, we
intend to further diversify our sources of crude oil. Among
other initiatives in this regard, we have secured shipper rights
on the newly built Spearhead pipeline, which connects Chicago to
the Cushing hub and provides us with access to incremental oil
supplies from Canada. We also own and operate a
3
crude gathering system located in northern Oklahoma and central
Kansas, which allows us to acquire quality crudes at a discount
to WTI.
High Quality, Modern Asset Base with Solid Track
Record. Our refinerys complexity allows
us to optimize the yields (the percentage of refined product
that is produced from crude and other feedstocks) of higher
value transportation fuels (gasoline and distillate), which
currently account for approximately 94% of our liquid production
output. Complexity is a measure of a refinerys ability to
process lower quality crude in an economic manner; greater
complexity makes a refinery more profitable. From 1995 through
April 30, 2007, we have invested approximately
$586 million to modernize our oil refinery and to meet more
stringent U.S. environmental, health and safety requirements. As
a result, we have achieved significant increases in our refinery
crude throughput rate from an average of less than
90,000 bpd prior to June 2005 to an average of over
102,000 bpd in the second quarter of 2006 and over
94,500 bpd for 2006 with peak daily rates in excess of
108,000 bpd. In addition, we have substantially completed our
scheduled 2007 refinery turnaround and expect that plant
capacity will reach approximately 115,000 bpd by the end of
2007. The fertilizer plant, completed in 2000, is the newest
fertilizer facility in North America and, since 2003, has
demonstrated a consistent record of operating near full
capacity. This plant underwent a scheduled turnaround in 2006,
and the plants spare gasifier was recently expanded to
increase its production capacity.
Near Term Internal Expansion
Opportunities. With the completion of
approximately $520 million of significant capital
improvements, we expect to significantly enhance the
profitability of our refinery during periods of high crack
spreads while enabling the refinery to operate more profitably
at lower crack spreads than is currently possible.
Unique Coke Gasification Fertilizer
Plant. The nitrogen fertilizer plant is the
only one of its kind in North America utilizing a coke
gasification process to produce ammonia. The coke gasification
process allows the plant to produce ammonia at a lower cost than
natural gas-based fertilizer plants because it uses
significantly less natural gas than its competitors. We estimate
that the facilitys production cost advantage over U.S.
Gulf Coast ammonia producers is sustainable at natural gas
prices as low as $2.50 per million Btu. The nitrogen
fertilizer business has a secure raw material supply with an
average of more than 80% of the pet coke required by the
fertilizer plant historically supplied by our refinery. After
this offering, we will continue to supply pet coke to the
nitrogen fertilizer business pursuant to a
20-year
intercompany agreement. The nitrogen fertilizer business is also
considering a $40 million fertilizer plant expansion, which
we estimate could increase the nitrogen fertilizer plants
capacity to upgrade ammonia into premium priced UAN by 50% to
approximately 1,000,000 tons per year.
Experienced Management Team. In
conjunction with the acquisition of our business by Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC in June 2005, a new senior management team was
formed that combined selected members of existing management
with experienced new members. Our senior management team
averages over 27 years of refining and fertilizer industry
experience and, in coordination with our broader management
team, has increased our operating income and stockholder value
since the acquisition of Coffeyville Resources. Mr. John J.
Lipinski, our Chief Executive Officer, has 35 years of
experience in the refining and chemicals industries, and prior
to joining us in connection with the acquisition of Coffeyville
Resources in June 2005, was in charge of a 550,000 bpd
refining system and a multi-plant fertilizer system.
Mr. Stanley A. Riemann, our Chief Operating Officer, has
over 32 years of experience, and prior to joining us in
March 2004, was in charge of one of the largest fertilizer
manufacturing systems in the United States. Mr. James T.
Rens, our Chief Financial Officer, has over 15 years
experience in the energy and fertilizer industries, and prior to
joining us in March 2004, was the chief financial officer of two
fertilizer manufacturing companies.
Our Business
Strategy
The primary business objectives for our refinery business are to
increase value for our stockholders and to maintain our position
as an independent refiner and marketer of refined fuels in
4
our markets by maximizing the throughput and efficiency of our
petroleum refining assets. In addition, managements
business objectives on behalf of the nitrogen fertilizer limited
partnership are to increase value for our stockholders and
maximize the production and efficiency of the nitrogen
fertilizer facilities. We intend to accomplish these objectives
through the following strategies:
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuing organic expansion opportunities;
|
|
|
|
Increasing the profitability of our existing assets;
|
|
|
|
Seeking both strategic and accretive acquisitions; and
|
|
|
|
Pursuing opportunities to maximize the value of the nitrogen
fertilizer limited partnership.
|
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Limited Partnership
Prior to the consummation of this offering, we will transfer our
nitrogen fertilizer business to a newly formed limited
partnership, or the Partnership. The Partnership will have two
general partners: a managing general partner, which we will sell
at fair market value at such time to a newly formed entity owned
by the Goldman Sachs Funds, the Kelso Funds and our senior
management, and a second general partner, controlled by us.
We will initially own all of the interests in the Partnership
(other than the managing general partner interest and associated
IDRs described below) and will initially be entitled to all cash
that is distributed by the Partnership. The managing general
partner will not be entitled to participate in Partnership
distributions except in respect of associated incentive
distribution rights, or IDRs, which entitle the managing general
partner to receive increasing percentages of the
Partnerships quarterly distributions if the Partnership
increases its distributions above $0.4313 per unit. The
Partnership will not make any distributions with respect to the
IDRs until the aggregate adjusted operating surplus (as defined)
generated by the Partnership during the period from its
formation through June 30, 2009 has been distributed in
respect of the interests which we hold
and/or the
Partnerships common and subordinated units (none of which
are yet outstanding but which would be issued if the Partnership
issues equity in the future). In addition, there will be no
distributions paid on the managing general partners IDRs
for so long as the Partnership or its subsidiaries are
guarantors under our Credit Facility.
As a holder of 30,333,333 special units (which we may sell or be
required to sell), we will be entitled initially to receive a
quarterly distribution of $0.4313 per unit (or
$52 million per year in the aggregate) from the Partnership
to the extent the Partnership has sufficient available cash
before any distributions are made in respect of the incentive
distribution rights. The amount of cash we receive will be
limited (1) if the Partnership issues common units in a
public or private offering, in which event all or a portion of
our interests in the Partnership will become subordinated units
and the balance, if any, will become common units, and
(2) at such time as the managing general partner begins to
receive distributions with respect to its IDRs.
The Partnership will be primarily managed by the managing
general partner, but will be operated by our senior management
pursuant to a management services agreement to be entered into
among us, the managing general partner and the Partnership. We
will pay all of our senior managements compensation, and
the Partnership will reimburse us for the time our senior
management spends working for the Partnership. In addition, we
will have approval rights regarding the appointment, termination
and compensation of the chief executive officer and chief
financial officer of the managing general partner, will
designate one member of the board of directors of the managing
general partner and will have approval rights regarding
specified major business decisions by the managing general
partner.
5
We have considered various strategic alternatives with respect
to the nitrogen fertilizer business, including an initial public
or private offering of limited partnership interests of the
Partnership. We have observed that entities structured as
master limited partnerships have over recent history
demonstrated significantly greater relative market valuation
levels compared to corporations in the refining and marketing
sector when measured as a ratio of enterprise value to EBITDA.
Following completion of this offering, any public or private
offering by the Partnership would be made solely at the
discretion of the Partnerships managing general partner,
subject to our specified approval rights, and would be subject
to market conditions and negotiation of terms acceptable to the
Partnerships managing general partner. In connection with
the Partnerships initial public or private offering, if
any, the Partnership may require us to include a sale of a
portion of our interests in the Partnership. If the Partnership
becomes a public company, we may consider a secondary offering
of interests which we own. We cannot assure you that any such
transaction will be consummated or that master limited
partnership valuations will continue to be greater relative to
market valuation levels for companies in the refining and
marketing sector. For more detailed information about the
Partnership, see The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited
Partnership.
Cash Flow
Swap
In conjunction with the acquisition of our business by
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, on June 16, 2005, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC entered into a series of commodity derivative
arrangements, or the Cash Flow Swap, with J. Aron &
Company, or J. Aron, a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., and a related party of ours. Pursuant to the Cash Flow
Swap, sales representing approximately 70% and 17% of then
forecasted refinery output for the periods from July 2005
through June 2009, and July 2009 through June 2010,
respectively, have been economically hedged. The derivative took
the form of three New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, swap
agreements whereby if crack spreads fall below the fixed level,
J. Aron agreed to pay the difference to us, and if crack spreads
rise above the fixed level, we agreed to pay the difference to
J. Aron. The Cash Flow Swap was assigned from Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC to Coffeyville Resources, LLC on June 24,
2005. We entered into these swap agreements for the following
reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
Debt was used as part of the acquisition financing in June 2005
which required the introduction of a financial risk management
tool that would mitigate a portion of the inherent commodity
price based volatility in our cash flow and preserve our ability
to service debt; and
|
|
|
|
Given the size of the capital expenditure program contemplated
by us at the time of the June 2005 acquisition, we considered it
necessary to enter into a derivative arrangement to reduce the
volatility of our cash flow and to ensure an appropriate return
on the incremental invested capital.
|
We have determined that the Cash Flow Swap does not qualify as a
hedge for hedge accounting purposes under current generally
accepted accounting principles in the United States, or GAAP. As
a result, our periodic statements of operations reflect material
amounts of unrealized gains and losses based on the increases or
decreases in market value of the unsettled position under the
swap agreements. Given the significant periodic fluctuations in
the amounts of unrealized gains and losses, management utilizes
Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from Cash
Flow Swap as a key indicator of our business performance
and believes that this non-GAAP measure is a useful measure for
investors in analyzing our business. For a discussion of the
calculation and use of this measure, see footnote 4 to our
Summary Consolidated Financial Information.
Our
History
Prior to March 3, 2004, our refinery assets and the
nitrogen fertilizer plant were operated as a small component of
Farmland Industries, Inc., or Farmland, an agricultural
cooperative. Farmland filed for bankruptcy protection on
May 31, 2002. Coffeyville Resources, LLC, a subsidiary of
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC, won the bankruptcy court
auction for Farmlands petroleum business and a
6
nitrogen fertilizer plant and completed the purchase of these
assets on March 3, 2004. On June 24, 2005, pursuant to
a stock purchase agreement dated May 15, 2005, all of the
subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC were acquired by
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, an entity principally owned by the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds.
Prior to this offering, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC directly or
indirectly owned all of our subsidiaries. We were formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in order
to complete this offering.
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to the consummation of this offering, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC will transfer half of its interests in each of
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc., Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. and CVR Energy to Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC. Coffeyville Acquisition LLC will be owned by
the Kelso Funds and our senior management and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC will be owned by the Goldman Sachs Funds and
our senior management.
|
|
|
|
We will then merge a newly formed direct subsidiary of ours with
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. and merge a
separate newly formed direct subsidiary of ours with Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. which will make Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizers, Inc. direct wholly owned subsidiaries of ours.
These transactions will result in a structure with CVR Energy
below Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC and above the two operating
subsidiaries, so that CVR Energy will become the parent of the
two operating subsidiaries. CVR Energy has not commenced
operations and has no assets or liabilities. In addition, there
are no contingent liabilities and commitments attributable to
CVR Energy. The mergers of the two operating subsidiaries with
subsidiaries of CVR Energy provide a tax free means to put an
appropriate organizational structure in place to go public and
give the Company the flexibility to simplify its structure in a
tax efficient manner in the future if necessary.
|
|
|
|
In addition, we will transfer our nitrogen fertilizer business
into a new limited partnership and we will sell all of the
interests of the managing general partner of this partnership to
a new entity owned by our controlling stockholders and senior
management at fair market value at such time.
|
We refer to these pre-IPO reorganization transactions in the
prospectus as the Transactions.
Risks Relating to
Our Business
We face certain risk factors that could materially affect our
business, results of operations or financial condition. Our
petroleum business is primarily affected by the relationship, or
margin, between refined product prices and the prices for crude
oil; future volatility in refining industry margins may cause
volatility or a decline in our results of operations. Disruption
of our ability to obtain an adequate supply of crude oil could
reduce our liquidity and increase our costs.
In addition, our refinery faces operating hazards and
interruptions, including unscheduled maintenance or downtime.
The nitrogen fertilizer plant has high fixed costs, and if
natural gas prices fall below a certain level, our nitrogen
fertilizer business may not generate sufficient revenue to
operate profitably. In addition, our operations involve
environmental risks that may require us to make substantial
capital expenditures to remain in compliance or to remediate
current or future contamination that could give rise to material
liabilities.
The transfer of our nitrogen fertilizer business to the
Partnership also involves numerous risks that could materially
affect our business. The managing general partner of the
Partnership will be a new entity owned by our controlling
stockholders and senior management, and will control the
operations of the Partnership (subject to our specified approval
rights). The managing general partner will own incentive
distribution rights which, over time, will entitle it to receive
increasing percentages of quarterly distributions from the
Partnership if the Partnership increases its quarterly
distributions over a set amount. We will not be entitled to cash
distributed in respect of the incentive distribution rights. If
7
in the future the managing general partner decides to sell
interests in the Partnership, we and you, as a stockholder of
CVR Energy, will no longer have access to the cash flows of
the Partnership to which the purchasers of these interests will
be entitled, and at least 40% (and potentially all) of our
interests will be subordinated to the interests of the new
investors. In addition, the managing general partner of the
Partnership will have a fiduciary duty to favor the interests of
its owners, and these interests may differ from our interests
and the interests of our stockholders. The members of our senior
management will also face conflicts of interest because they
will serve as executive officers of both our company as well as
of the managing general partner of the Partnership.
For more information about these and other risks relating to our
company, see Risk Factors beginning on page 23
and Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking
Statements beginning on page 52. You should carefully
consider these risk factors together with all other information
included in this prospectus.
8
Organizational
Structure
The following chart illustrates our organizational structure
before the completion of this offering:
|
|
|
*
|
|
Mr. John J. Lipinski, our
chief executive officer, owns approximately 0.31% of Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing, Inc. and approximately 0.64% of
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. It is expected that these
interests will be exchanged for shares of our common stock (with
an equivalent value) prior to the consummation of this offering.
|
9
The following chart illustrates our organizational structure and
the organizational structure of the Partnership upon completion
of this offering:
10
The Offering
|
|
|
Common stock offered by us |
|
15,500,000 shares. |
|
|
|
Option to purchase additional shares of common stock from the
selling stockholders |
|
2,325,000 shares. |
|
|
|
Common stock outstanding immediately after the offering |
|
81,641,591 shares. |
|
|
|
Use of proceeds |
|
We estimate that the net proceeds to us in this offering, after
deducting the underwriters discount and the estimated
expenses of the offering, will be $282.35 million. We
intend to use the net proceeds from this offering for debt
repayment of $280 million and the remainder for general
corporate purposes. We will not receive any proceeds from the
purchase by the underwriters of up to 2,325,000 shares from
the selling stockholders in connection with any exercise by the
underwriters of their option. See Use of Proceeds. |
|
|
|
Proposed New York Stock Exchange symbol |
|
CVI. |
|
|
|
Risk Factors |
|
See Risk Factors beginning on page 23 of this
prospectus for a discussion of factors that you should carefully
consider before deciding to invest in shares of our common stock. |
The number of shares of common stock to be outstanding after the
offering:
|
|
|
|
|
gives effect to a 658,619.93 for 1 split of our common stock;
|
|
|
|
|
|
excludes 10,300 shares of common stock issuable upon the
exercise of stock options to be granted to two directors
pursuant to our long-term incentive plan on the date of this
prospectus;
|
|
|
|
|
|
excludes 17,500 shares of non-vested restricted stock to be
awarded to two directors pursuant to our long-term incentive
plan on the date of this prospectus;
|
|
|
|
|
|
includes 27,150 shares of common stock to be awarded to our
employees in connection with this offering; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
assumes no exercise by the underwriters of their option to
purchase up to 2,325,000 shares of common stock from the
selling stockholders.
|
CVR Energy, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in September 2006.
Our principal executive offices are located at 2277 Plaza Drive,
Suite 500 Sugar Land, Texas 77479, and our telephone number
is
(281) 207-3200.
Our website address is www.coffeyvillegroup.com. Information
contained on our website is not a part of this prospectus.
Prior to this offering, the Kelso Funds and the Goldman Sachs
Funds beneficially owned substantially all of our capital stock.
For further information on these entities and their
relationships with us, see Certain Relationships and
Related Party Transactions and The Nitrogen
Fertilizer Limited Partnership.
Depending on market conditions at the time of pricing of this
offering and other considerations, we may sell fewer or more
shares than the number set forth on the cover page of this
prospectus.
11
Summary
Consolidated Financial Information
The summary consolidated financial information presented below
under the caption Statement of Operations Data for the 62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, for the 304-day period ended
December 31, 2004, for the 174-day period ended
June 23, 2005, for the 233-day period ended
December 31, 2005 and for the year ended December 31,
2006, and the summary consolidated financial information
presented below under the caption Balance Sheet Data as of
December 31, 2005 and 2006, has been derived from our
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus, which consolidated financial statements have been
audited by KPMG LLP, independent registered public accounting
firm. The summary consolidated financial information presented
below under the caption Statement of Operations Data for the
year ended December 31, 2003 and the summary consolidated
balance sheet data as of December 31, 2003 and 2004 are
derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that
are not included in this prospectus. The summary unaudited
interim consolidated financial information presented below under
the caption Statement of Operations Data for the three-month
period ended March 31, 2006 and the three-month period
ended March 31, 2007, and the summary consolidated
financial information presented below under the caption Balance
Sheet Data as of March 31, 2007, have been derived from our
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements, which are
included elsewhere in this prospectus and have been prepared on
the same basis as the audited consolidated financial statements.
In the opinion of management, the interim data reflect all
adjustments, consisting only of normal and recurring
adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of results for
these periods. Operating results for the three-month period
ended March 31, 2007 are not necessarily indicative of the
results that may be expected for the year ended
December 31, 2007. We have also included herein certain
industry data.
The summary unaudited pro forma consolidated statement of
operations data and other financial data for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 and for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 give pro forma effect to the refinancing of
the Credit Facility which occurred on December 28, 2006,
the transfer of our nitrogen fertilizer business to the
Partnership, which we will consolidate in our financial
statements, the sale of the managing general partner interest in
the Partnership, this offering, the use of proceeds from this
offering, the Transactions, the termination fee payable in
connection with the termination of the management agreements
with Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Kelso and Company, L.P. in
conjunction with this offering and the issuance of shares of our
common stock to Mr. John J. Lipinski in exchange for his
shares in two of our subsidiaries in the manner described under
Unaudited Pro Forma Consolidated Financial
Statements, as if these transactions had occurred on
January 1, 2006. The summary unaudited as adjusted
consolidated financial information presented under the caption
Balance Sheet Data as of March 31, 2007 gives effect to the
transactions described above (other than the refinancing of the
Credit Facility) and the payment of a dividend to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC as if
they occurred on March 31, 2007. The summary unaudited pro
forma information does not purport to represent what our results
of operations would have been if these transactions had occurred
as of the date indicated or what these results will be for
future periods.
Prior to March 3, 2004, our assets were operated as a
component of Farmland Industries, Inc. Farmland filed for
bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code on May 31, 2002. On March 3,
2004, Coffeyville Resources, LLC completed the purchase of the
former Petroleum Division and one facility within the
eight-plant Nitrogen Fertilizer Manufacturing and Marketing
Division of Farmland (which we refer to collectively as Original
Predecessor) from Farmland in a sales process under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. See
note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included
elsewhere in this prospectus. We refer to this acquisition as
the Initial Acquisition. As a result of certain adjustments made
in connection with the Initial Acquisition, a new basis of
accounting was established on the date of the Initial
Acquisition and the results of operations for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 are not comparable to prior periods.
During Original Predecessor periods, Farmland allocated certain
general corporate expenses and interest expense to Original
Predecessor. The allocation of these costs is not necessarily
indicative of the costs that would have been incurred if
Original Predecessor had operated as a
12
stand-alone
entity. Further, the historical results are not necessarily
indicative of the results to be expected in future periods.
We calculate earnings per share for Successor on a pro forma
basis, based on an assumed number of shares outstanding at the
time of the initial public offering. All information in this
prospectus assumes that in conjunction with the initial public
offering, Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. and
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. will merge with two of
our direct wholly owned subsidiaries, we will effect a
658,619.93 for 1 stock split, we will issue 252,448 shares of
our common stock to our chief executive officer in exchange for
his shares in two of our subsidiaries, we will issue 27,150
shares of our common stock to our employees, we will issue
17,500 shares of non-vested restricted stock to two of our
directors and we will issue 15,500,000 shares of common
stock in this offering. No effect has been given to any shares
that might be sold in this offering pursuant to the exercise by
the underwriters of their option.
We paid dividends for the period ended December 31, 2006 in
excess of the earnings for such period. Accordingly, the
earnings per share for Successors December 31, 2006
year end and pro forma December 31, 2006 year end is
calculated on a pro forma basis to give effect to the increase
in the number of shares which, when multiplied by the offering
price, would be sufficient to replace the capital in excess of
earnings withdrawn. The weighted average number of shares
outstanding for the pro forma December 31, 2006 year end
also accounts for the additional $10.6 million dividend to
be paid to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC. Therefore, the earnings per share
calculation for these periods is based upon an assumed number of
shares outstanding at the time of the initial public offering
increased for the additional calculated shares for the excess
earnings withdrawn.
We have omitted earnings per share data for Immediate
Predecessor because we operated under a different capital
structure than what we will operate under at the time of this
offering and, therefore, the information is not meaningful.
We have omitted per share data for Original Predecessor because,
under Farmlands cooperative structure, earnings of
Original Predecessor were distributed as patronage dividends to
members and associate members based on the level of business
conducted with Original Predecessor as opposed to a common
stockholders proportionate share of underlying equity in
Original Predecessor.
Original Predecessor was not a separate legal entity, and its
operating results were included with the operating results of
Farmland and its subsidiaries in filing consolidated federal and
state income tax returns. As a cooperative, Farmland was subject
to income taxes on all income not distributed to patrons as
qualifying patronage refunds and Farmland did not allocate
income taxes to its divisions. As a result, Original Predecessor
periods do not reflect any provision for income taxes.
On June 24, 2005, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement
dated May 15, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC acquired
all of the subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC. See
note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included
elsewhere in this prospectus. As a result of certain adjustments
made in connection with this acquisition, a new basis of
accounting was established on the date of the acquisition. Since
the assets and liabilities of Successor and Immediate
Predecessor were each presented on a new basis of accounting,
the financial information for Successor, Immediate Predecessor
and Original Predecessor is not comparable.
Financial data for the 2005 fiscal year is presented as the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005. Successor had no financial
statement activity during the period from May 13, 2005 to
June 24, 2005, with the exception of certain crude oil,
heating oil, and gasoline option agreements entered into with a
related party as of May 16, 2005.
The historical data presented below has been derived from
financial statements that have been prepared using GAAP and the
pro forma data presented below has been derived from the
Unaudited Pro Forma Consolidated Financial
Statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. This
data should be read in conjunction with the financial statements
and related notes and Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
included elsewhere in this prospectus.
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro
Forma
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions,
except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
Statement of Operations
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
669.7
|
|
|
$
|
390.5
|
|
|
$
|
390.5
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
539.5
|
|
|
|
303.7
|
|
|
|
303.7
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
44.3
|
|
|
|
113.4
|
|
|
|
113.4
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization)
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
65.4
|
|
|
$
|
(54.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(54.0
|
)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
Interest (expense)
|
|
|
(12.2
|
)
|
|
|
(11.9
|
)
|
|
|
(6.0
|
)
|
Loss on derivatives
|
|
|
(17.6
|
)
|
|
|
(137.0
|
)
|
|
|
(137.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
and minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
$
|
36.2
|
|
|
$
|
(202.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(196.6
|
)
|
Income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
(14.1
|
)
|
|
|
47.3
|
|
|
|
45.0
|
|
Minority interest in (income) loss
of subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)(1)
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
$
|
(154.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(150.9
|
)
|
Pro forma earnings (loss) per
share, basic
|
|
|
0.27
|
|
|
|
(1.89
|
)
|
|
|
(1.85
|
)
|
Pro forma earnings (loss) per
share, diluted
|
|
|
0.27
|
|
|
|
(1.89
|
)
|
|
|
(1.85
|
)
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
basic
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
diluted
|
|
|
81,659,091
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
Segment Financial
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
41.6
|
|
|
$
|
(63.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(63.5
|
)
|
Nitrogen fertilizer
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
65.4
|
|
|
$
|
(54.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(54.0
|
)
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
7.8
|
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
Nitrogen fertilizer
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization(2)
|
|
$
|
12.0
|
|
|
$
|
14.2
|
|
|
$
|
14.2
|
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap(3)
|
|
$
|
36.9
|
|
|
$
|
(82.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(78.9
|
)
|
Cash flows provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows (used in) investing
activities
|
|
|
(29.3
|
)
|
|
|
(107.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures for property,
plant and equipment
|
|
|
29.3
|
|
|
|
107.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions,
except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
Key Operating
Statistics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production (barrels per day)(4)
|
|
|
98,454
|
|
|
|
53,689
|
|
Crude oil throughput barrels per
day(4)
|
|
|
85,276
|
|
|
|
47,267
|
|
Refining margin per barrel(5)
|
|
$
|
11.19
|
|
|
$
|
12.69
|
|
NYMEX 2-1-1 crack spread(6)
|
|
$
|
9.05
|
|
|
$
|
12.15
|
|
Direct operating expenses
exclusive of depreciation and amortization per barrel(7)
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
22.73
|
|
Gross profit (loss) per barrel(7)
|
|
$
|
6.18
|
|
|
$
|
(12.34
|
)
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production Volume:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia (tons in thousands)
|
|
|
102.7
|
|
|
|
86.2
|
|
UAN (tons in thousands)
|
|
|
160.4
|
|
|
|
165.7
|
|
On-stream factors(8):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasification
|
|
|
98.6
|
%
|
|
|
91.8
|
%
|
Ammonia
|
|
|
94.1
|
%
|
|
|
86.3
|
%
|
UAN
|
|
|
92.8
|
%
|
|
|
89.4
|
%
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions, except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement of Operations
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,262.2
|
|
|
$
|
261.1
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,479.9
|
|
|
$
|
980.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,454.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,037.6
|
|
|
$
|
3,037.6
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
1,061.9
|
|
|
|
221.4
|
|
|
|
|
1,244.2
|
|
|
|
768.0
|
|
|
|
|
1,168.1
|
|
|
|
|
2,443.4
|
|
|
|
2,443.4
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
133.1
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
|
117.0
|
|
|
|
80.9
|
|
|
|
|
85.3
|
|
|
|
|
199.0
|
|
|
|
199.0
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
|
62.6
|
|
|
|
73.5
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
Impairment, losses in joint
ventures, and other charges(9)
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
$
|
29.4
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
112.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
158.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
281.6
|
|
|
$
|
270.7
|
|
Other income (expense)(10)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.9
|
)
|
|
|
(8.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
(20.8
|
)
|
|
|
(20.8
|
)
|
Interest (expense)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.1
|
)
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
(25.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
(43.9
|
)
|
|
|
(32.1
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivatives
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
(316.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
94.5
|
|
|
|
94.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
83.5
|
|
|
$
|
88.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
(182.2
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
311.4
|
|
|
$
|
312.3
|
|
Income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33.8
|
)
|
|
|
(36.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
63.0
|
|
|
|
|
(119.8
|
)
|
|
|
(128.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)(1)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119.2
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
191.6
|
|
|
$
|
183.9
|
|
Pro forma earnings per share, basic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
|
$
|
2.15
|
|
Pro forma earnings per share,
diluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.26
|
|
|
|
2.15
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
basic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,563,025
|
|
|
|
85,478,437
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
diluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,580,525
|
|
|
|
85,495,937
|
|
Segment Financial
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
21.5
|
|
|
$
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
77.1
|
|
|
$
|
76.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
123.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
245.6
|
|
|
|
238.3
|
|
Nitrogen fertilizer
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
|
22.9
|
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
|
35.7
|
|
|
|
|
36.8
|
|
|
|
33.2
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
29.4
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
112.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
158.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
281.6
|
|
|
|
270.7
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
2.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.5
|
|
|
$
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
$
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
$
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
Nitrogen fertilizer
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
17.1
|
|
|
|
17.1
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization(2)
|
|
$
|
3.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.4
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
$
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
51.0
|
|
|
$
|
51.0
|
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income adjusted for unrealized
gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap(3)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
$
|
115.4
|
|
|
$
|
107.7
|
|
Cash flows provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
53.2
|
|
|
|
|
89.8
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
|
82.5
|
|
|
|
|
186.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows (used in) investing
activities
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(130.8
|
)
|
|
|
(12.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
(730.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
(240.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in)
financing activities
|
|
|
(19.5
|
)
|
|
|
(53.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
93.6
|
|
|
|
(52.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
712.5
|
|
|
|
|
30.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures for property,
plant and equipment
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
|
45.2
|
|
|
|
|
240.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(in millions, except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
|
|
|
Key Operating
Statistics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production (barrels per day)(4)(11)
|
|
|
95,701
|
|
|
|
|
106,645
|
|
|
|
|
102,046
|
|
|
|
99,171
|
|
|
|
|
107,177
|
|
|
|
108,031
|
|
Crude oil throughput (barrels per
day)(4)(11)
|
|
|
85,501
|
|
|
|
|
92,596
|
|
|
|
|
90,418
|
|
|
|
88,012
|
|
|
|
|
93,908
|
|
|
|
94,524
|
|
Refining margin per barrel(5)
|
|
$
|
3.89
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.23
|
|
|
|
$
|
5.92
|
|
|
$
|
9.28
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.55
|
|
|
$
|
13.27
|
|
NYMEX 2-1-1 crack spread(6)
|
|
$
|
5.53
|
|
|
|
$
|
6.80
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.55
|
|
|
$
|
9.60
|
|
|
|
$
|
13.47
|
|
|
$
|
10.84
|
|
Direct operating expenses exclusive
of depreciation and amortization per barrel(7)
|
|
$
|
2.57
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.60
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.66
|
|
|
$
|
3.44
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.13
|
|
|
$
|
3.92
|
|
Gross profit per barrel(7)
|
|
$
|
1.25
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.57
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.20
|
|
|
$
|
5.79
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.55
|
|
|
$
|
8.39
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer Business
Production Volume:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia (tons in thousands)(11)
|
|
|
335.7
|
|
|
|
|
56.4
|
|
|
|
|
252.8
|
|
|
|
193.2
|
|
|
|
|
220.0
|
|
|
|
369.3
|
|
UAN (tons in thousands)(11)
|
|
|
510.6
|
|
|
|
|
93.4
|
|
|
|
|
439.2
|
|
|
|
309.9
|
|
|
|
|
353.4
|
|
|
|
633.1
|
|
On-stream factors(8):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasification
|
|
|
90.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
93.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
92.2
|
%
|
|
|
97.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
98.7
|
%
|
|
|
92.5
|
%
|
Ammonia
|
|
|
89.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
80.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
79.7
|
%
|
|
|
95.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
|
|
89.3
|
%
|
UAN
|
|
|
81.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
88.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
82.2
|
%
|
|
|
93.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
94.8
|
%
|
|
|
88.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
As Adjusted
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2007(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
52.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
64.7
|
|
|
$
|
41.9
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
$
|
2.9
|
|
Working capital(12)
|
|
|
150.5
|
|
|
|
|
106.6
|
|
|
|
|
108.0
|
|
|
|
112.3
|
|
|
|
(169.8
|
)
|
|
|
(178.9
|
)
|
Total assets
|
|
|
199.0
|
|
|
|
|
229.2
|
|
|
|
|
1,221.5
|
|
|
|
1,449.5
|
|
|
|
1,469.4
|
|
|
|
1,458.2
|
|
Liabilities subject to
compromise(13)
|
|
|
105.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt, including current
portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148.9
|
|
|
|
|
499.4
|
|
|
|
775.0
|
|
|
|
804.5
|
|
|
|
524.5
|
|
Minority interest in
subsidiaries(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
Management units subject to
redemption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divisional/members equity
|
|
|
58.2
|
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
|
|
|
115.8
|
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
(77.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
The following are certain charges
and costs incurred in each of the relevant periods that are
meaningful to understanding our net income and in evaluating our
performance due to their unusual or infrequent nature:
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
Three
|
|
|
Three
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Months
|
|
|
Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Impairment of property, plant and
equipment(a)
|
|
$
|
9.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory fair market value
adjustment(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded letter of credit expense and
interest rate swap not included in interest expense(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major scheduled
turnaround expense(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
Loss on termination of swap(f)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gain) loss from Cash
Flow Swap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235.9
|
|
|
|
(126.8
|
)
|
|
|
(126.8
|
)
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
119.7
|
|
|
|
119.7
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
During the year ended
December 31, 2003, we recorded an additional charge of
$9.6 million related to the asset impairment of our
refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant based on the expected
sales price of the assets in the Initial Acquisition.
|
|
(b)
|
|
Represents the write-off of
$7.2 million of deferred financing costs in connection with
the refinancing of our senior secured credit facility on
May 10, 2004, the write-off of $8.1 million of
deferred financing costs in connection with the refinancing of
our senior secured credit facility on June 23, 2005 and the
write-off of $23.4 million in connection with the refinancing of
our senior secured credit facility on December 28, 2006.
|
|
(c)
|
|
Consists of the additional cost of
product sold expense due to the step up to estimated fair value
of certain inventories on hand at March 3, 2004 and
June 24, 2005, as a result of the allocation of the
purchase price of the Initial Acquisition and the Subsequent
Acquisition to inventory.
|
|
(d)
|
|
Consists of fees which are expensed
to Selling, general and administrative expenses in connection
with the funded letter of credit facility of $150.0 million
issued in support of the Cash Flow Swap. We consider these fees
to be equivalent to interest expense and the fees are treated as
such in the calculation of EBITDA in the Credit Facility.
|
|
(e)
|
|
Represents expenses associated with
a major scheduled turnaround at the nitrogen fertilizer plant
and our refinery.
|
|
(f)
|
|
Represents the expense associated
with the expiration of the crude oil, heating oil and gasoline
option agreements entered into by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in
May 2005.
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
Depreciation and amortization is
comprised of the following components as excluded from cost of
products sold, direct operating expense and selling, general and
administrative expense:
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
included in cost of product sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
included in direct operating expense
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
47.7
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
included in selling, general and administrative expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
Net income adjusted for unrealized
gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap results from adjusting for the
derivative transaction that was executed in conjunction with the
Subsequent Acquisition. On June 16, 2005, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC entered into the Cash Flow Swap with J. Aron, a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and a related party
of ours. The Cash Flow Swap was subsequently assigned from
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC to Coffeyville Resources, LLC on
June 24, 2005. Under these agreements, sales representing
approximately 70% and 17% of then forecasted refinery output for
the periods from July 2005 through June 2009, and July 2009
through June 2010, respectively, have been economically hedged.
The derivative took the form of three NYMEX swap agreements
whereby if crack spreads fall below the fixed level, J. Aron
agreed to pay the difference to us, and if crack spreads rise
above the fixed level, we agreed to pay the difference to J.
Aron. See Description of Our Indebtedness and the Cash
Flow Swap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have determined that the Cash
Flow Swap does not qualify as a hedge for hedge accounting
purposes under current GAAP. As a result, our periodic
statements of operations reflect in each period material amounts
of unrealized gains and losses based on the increases or
decreases in market value of the unsettled position under the
swap agreements which is accounted for as a liability on our
balance sheet. As the crack spreads increase we are required to
record an increase in this liability account with a
corresponding expense entry to be made to our statement of
operations. Conversely, as crack spreads decline we are required
to record a decrease in the swap related liability and post a
corresponding income entry to our statement of operations.
Because of this inverse relationship between the economic
outlook for our underlying business (as represented by crack
spread levels) and the income impact of the unrecognized gains
and losses, and given the significant periodic fluctuations in
the amounts of unrealized gains and losses, management utilizes
Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow
Swap as a key indicator of our business performance. In managing
our business and assessing its growth and profitability from a
strategic and financial planning perspective, management and our
board of directors considers our U.S. GAAP net income results as
well as Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from
Cash Flow Swap. We believe that Net income adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap enhances the
understanding of our results of operations by highlighting
income attributable to our ongoing operating performance
exclusive of charges and income resulting from mark to market
adjustments that are not necessarily indicative of the
performance of our underlying business and our industry. The
adjustment has been made for the unrealized loss from Cash Flow
Swap net of its related tax benefit.
|
|
|
|
Net income adjusted for unrealized
gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap is not a recognized term under
GAAP and should not be substituted for net income as a measure
of our performance but instead should be utilized as a
supplemental measure of financial performance or liquidity in
evaluating our business. Because Net income adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap excludes mark to
market adjustments, the measure does not reflect the fair market
value of our Cash Flow Swap in our net income. As a result, the
measure does not include potential cash payments that may be
required to be made on the Cash Flow Swap in the future. Also,
our presentation of this non-GAAP measure may not be comparable
to similarly titled measures of other companies.
|
|
|
|
The following is a reconciliation
of Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from Cash
Flow Swap to Net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) adjusted for
unrealized loss from Cash Flow Swap
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.6
|
|
|
$
|
115.4
|
|
|
$
|
107.7
|
|
|
$
|
36.9
|
|
|
$
|
(82.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(78.9
|
)
|
Plus:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) from Cash
Flow Swap, net of tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.8
|
)
|
|
|
76.2
|
|
|
|
76.2
|
|
|
|
(14.8
|
)
|
|
|
(72.0
|
)
|
|
|
(72.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
191.6
|
|
|
$
|
183.9
|
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
$
|
(154.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(150.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
(4)
|
|
Barrels per day is calculated by
dividing the volume in the period by the number of calendar days
in the period. Barrels per day as shown here is impacted by
plant down-time and other plant disruptions and does not
represent the capacity of the facilitys continuous
operations.
|
|
|
|
(5)
|
|
Refining margin is a measurement
calculated as the difference between net sales and cost of
products sold (exclusive of deprecation and amortization) which
we use as a general indication of the amount above our cost of
products sold at which we are able to sell refined products.
Each of the components used to calculate refining margin (net
sales and cost of products sold exclusive of deprecation and
amortization) can be taken directly from our statement of
operations. Refining margin per barrel is a measurement
calculated by dividing the refining margin by our
refinerys crude oil throughput volumes for the respective
periods presented. We use refining margin as the most direct and
comparable metric to a crack spread which is an observable
market indication of industry profitability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining margin is a non-GAAP
measure and should not be substituted for gross profit or
operating income. Our calculations of refining margin and
refining margin per barrel may differ from similar calculations
of other companies in our industry, thereby limiting their
usefulness as comparative measures. The table included in
footnote 7 reconciles refining margin to gross profit for the
periods presented.
|
|
|
|
(6)
|
|
This information is industry data
and is not derived from our audited financial statements or
unaudited interim financial statements.
|
|
|
|
(7)
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization) per throughput
barrel is calculated by dividing direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization) by total crude oil
throughput volumes for the respective periods presented. Direct
operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
includes costs associated with the actual operations of the
refinery, such as energy and utility costs, catalyst and
chemical costs, repairs and maintenance and labor and
environmental compliance costs but does not include deprecation
or amortization. We use direct operating expenses (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) as a measure of operating
efficiency within the plant and as a control metric for
expenditures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization) per refinery
throughput barrel is a non-GAAP measure. Our calculations of
direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) per refinery throughput barrel may differ from
similar calculations of other companies in our industry, thereby
limiting its usefulness as a comparative measure. The following
table reflects direct operating expenses (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) and the related calculation of
direct operating expenses per refinery throughput barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions, except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
Petroleum Business:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,161.3
|
|
|
$
|
241.6
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,390.8
|
|
|
$
|
903.8
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,363.4
|
|
|
$
|
2,880.4
|
|
|
$
|
619.6
|
|
|
$
|
352.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
1,040.0
|
|
|
|
217.4
|
|
|
|
|
1,228.1
|
|
|
|
761.7
|
|
|
|
|
1,156.2
|
|
|
|
2,422.7
|
|
|
|
533.7
|
|
|
|
298.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
80.1
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
|
|
52.6
|
|
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
135.3
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
|
|
96.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
39.1
|
|
|
$
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
88.0
|
|
|
$
|
88.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
135.4
|
|
|
$
|
289.4
|
|
|
$
|
47.4
|
|
|
$
|
(52.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Plus direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
80.1
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
|
|
52.6
|
|
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
135.3
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
|
|
96.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining margin
|
|
$
|
121.3
|
|
|
$
|
24.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
162.7
|
|
|
$
|
142.1
|
|
|
|
$
|
207.2
|
|
|
$
|
457.7
|
|
|
$
|
85.9
|
|
|
$
|
54.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining margin per refinery
throughput barrel
|
|
$
|
3.89
|
|
|
$
|
4.23
|
|
|
|
$
|
5.92
|
|
|
$
|
9.28
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.55
|
|
|
$
|
13.27
|
|
|
$
|
11.19
|
|
|
$
|
12.69
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit (loss) per refinery
throughput barrel
|
|
$
|
1.25
|
|
|
$
|
1.57
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.20
|
|
|
$
|
5.79
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.55
|
|
|
$
|
8.39
|
|
|
$
|
6.18
|
|
|
$
|
(12.34
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization) per refinery
throughput barrel
|
|
$
|
2.57
|
|
|
$
|
2.60
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.66
|
|
|
$
|
3.44
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.13
|
|
|
$
|
3.92
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
22.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8)
|
|
On-stream factor is the total
number of hours operated divided by the total number of hours in
the reporting period.
|
|
|
|
(9)
|
|
During the year ended
December 31, 2003, we recorded an additional charge of
$9.6 million related to the asset impairment of the
refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant based on the expected
sales price of the assets in the Initial Acquisition. In
addition, we recorded a charge of $1.3 million for the
rejection of existing contracts while operating under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
|
|
|
|
(10)
|
|
During the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004, the 174 days ended June 23,
2005 and the year ended December 31, 2006, we recognized a loss
of $7.2 million, $8.1 million and $23.4 million,
respectively, on early extinguishment of debt.
|
|
|
|
(11)
|
|
Operational information reflected
for the 233-day Successor period ended December 31, 2005
includes only 191 days of operational activity. Successor
was formed on May 13, 2005 but had no financial statement
activity during the 42-day period from May 13, 2005 to
June 24, 2005, with the exception of certain crude oil,
heating oil and gasoline option agreements entered into with J.
Aron as of May 16, 2005 which expired unexercised on
June 16, 2005.
|
|
|
|
(12)
|
|
Excludes liabilities subject to
compromise due to Original Predecessors bankruptcy of
$105.2 million as of December 31, 2003 in calculating
Original Predecessors working capital.
|
20
|
|
|
(13)
|
|
While operating under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Original
Predecessors financial statements were prepared in
accordance with
SOP 90-7
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under
Bankruptcy Code.
SOP 90-7
requires that pre-petition liabilities be segregated in the
Balance Sheet.
|
|
|
|
(14)
|
|
Minority interest reflects
(a) on December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007,
respectively, common stock in two of our subsidiaries owned by
John J. Lipinski (which will be exchanged for shares of our
common stock with an equivalent value prior to the consummation
of this offering) and (b) on March 31, 2007, as
adjusted, the managing general partner interest in the
Partnership held by our controlling stockholders and senior
management.
|
|
|
|
(15)
|
|
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the
assumed initial public offering price of $20.00 per share would
(decrease) increase total debt and would increase (decrease)
stockholders equity by approximately $14.5 million,
assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth
on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after
deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. In
addition, depending on market conditions at the time of pricing
of this offering, we may sell fewer or more shares than the
number set forth on the cover page of this prospectus. The pro
forma information presented above is illustrative only and
following the completion of this offering will be adjusted based
on the actual initial public offering price and other terms of
the offering determined at pricing.
|
21
About This
Prospectus
Certain
Definitions
In this prospectus,
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor refers to the former Petroleum Division and
one facility within the eight-plant Nitrogen Fertilizer
Manufacturing and Marketing Division of Farmland which
Coffeyville Resources, LLC acquired on March 3, 2004 in a
sales process under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code;
|
|
|
|
Initial Acquisition refers to the acquisition of Original
Predecessor on March 3, 2004 by Coffeyville Resources, LLC;
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor refers to Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC
and its subsidiaries, including Coffeyville Resources, LLC;
|
|
|
|
Subsequent Acquisition refers to the acquisition of Immediate
Predecessor on June 24, 2005 by Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC; and
|
|
|
|
Successor refers to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and its
consolidated subsidiaries.
|
In addition, references in this prospectus to the nitrogen
fertilizer business refer to our nitrogen fertilizer
business which, prior to the consummation of this offering, we
are transferring to a newly formed limited partnership. The
managing general partner of the limited partnership will be a
new entity owned by our controlling stockholders and senior
management. We will initially own all of the interests in the
limited partnership (other than the managing general partner
interest and associated IDRs). See The Nitrogen Fertilizer
Limited Partnership.
Industry and
Market Data
The data included in this prospectus regarding the oil refining
industry and the nitrogen fertilizer industry, including trends
in the market and our position and the position of our
competitors within these industries, are based on our estimates,
which have been derived from managements knowledge and
experience in the areas in which the relevant businesses
operate, and information obtained from customers, distributors,
suppliers, trade and business organizations, internal research,
publicly available information, industry publications and
surveys and other contacts in the areas in which the relevant
businesses operate. We have also cited information compiled by
industry publications, governmental agencies and publicly
available sources. Although we believe that these sources are
generally reliable, we have not independently verified data from
these sources or obtained third party verification of this data.
Estimates of market size and relative positions in a market are
difficult to develop and inherently uncertain. Accordingly,
investors should not place undue weight on the industry and
market share data presented in this prospectus.
Trademarks, Trade
Names and Service Marks
This prospectus includes trademarks, including COFFEYVILLE
RESOURCESTM
and CVR
EnergyTM,
and we have applied for federal registration of these
trademarks. This prospectus also contains trademarks, service
marks, copyrights and trade names of other companies.
22
You should carefully consider each of the following risks and
all of the information set forth in this prospectus before
deciding to invest in our common stock. If any of the following
risks and uncertainties develops into actual events, our
business, financial condition or results of operations could be
materially adversely affected. In that case, the price of our
common stock could decline and you could lose part or all of
your investment.
Risks Related to Our Petroleum Business
Volatile
margins in the refining industry may cause volatility or a
decline in our future results of operations and decrease our
cash flow.
Our petroleum business financial results are primarily
affected by the relationship, or margin, between refined product
prices and the prices for crude oil and other feedstocks. Future
volatility in refining industry margins may cause volatility or
a decline in our results of operations, since the margin between
refined product prices and feedstock prices may decrease below
the amount needed for us to generate net cash flow sufficient
for our needs. Although an increase or decrease in the price for
crude oil generally results in a similar increase or decrease in
prices for refined products, there is normally a time lag in the
realization of the similar increase or decrease in prices for
refined products. The effect of changes in crude oil prices on
our results of operations therefore depends in part on how
quickly and how fully refined product prices adjust to reflect
these changes. A substantial or prolonged increase in crude oil
prices without a corresponding increase in refined product
prices, or a substantial or prolonged decrease in refined
product prices without a corresponding decrease in crude oil
prices, could have a significant negative impact on our
earnings, results of operations and cash flows.
If we are
required to obtain our crude oil supply without the benefit of
our credit intermediation agreement, our exposure to the risks
associated with volatile crude prices may increase and our
liquidity may be reduced.
We currently obtain the majority of our crude oil supply through
a crude oil credit intermediation agreement with J. Aron, which
minimizes the amount of in transit inventory and mitigates crude
pricing risks by ensuring pricing takes place extremely close to
the time when the crude is refined and the yielded products are
sold. In the event this agreement is terminated or is not
renewed prior to expiration we may be unable to obtain similar
services from another party at the same or better terms as our
existing agreement. The current credit intermediation agreement
expires on December 31, 2007. Further, if we were required
to obtain our crude oil supply without the benefit of an
intermediation agreement, our exposure to crude pricing risks
may increase, even despite any hedging activity in which we may
engage, and our liquidity would be negatively impacted due to
the increased inventory and the negative impact of market
volatility.
Disruption of
our ability to obtain an adequate supply of crude oil could
reduce our liquidity and increase our costs.
Our refinery requires approximately 80,000 bpd of crude oil
in addition to the light sweet crude oil we gather locally in
Kansas and northern Oklahoma. We obtain a significant amount of
our non-gathered crude oil, approximately 20% to 30% on average,
from Latin America and South America. If these supplies become
unavailable to us, we may need to seek supplies from the Middle
East, West Africa, Canada and the North Sea. We are subject to
the political, geographic, and economic risks attendant to doing
business with suppliers located in those regions. Disruption of
production in any of such regions for any reason could have a
material impact on other regions and our business. In the event
that one or more of our traditional suppliers becomes
unavailable to us, we may be unable to obtain an adequate supply
of crude oil, or we may only be able to obtain our crude oil
supply at
23
unfavorable prices. As a result, we may experience a reduction
in our liquidity and our results of operations could be
materially adversely affected.
The key event of 2005 in our industry was the hurricane season
which produced a record number of named storms, including
hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The location and intensity of these
storms caused extreme amounts of damage to both crude and
natural gas production as well as extensive disruption to many
U.S. Gulf Coast refinery operations although we believe that
substantially most of this refining capacity has been restored.
These events caused both price spikes in the commodity markets
as well as substantial increases in crack spreads. Severe
weather, including hurricanes along the U.S. Gulf Coast, could
interrupt our supply of crude oil. Supplies of crude oil to our
refinery are periodically shipped from U.S. Gulf Coast
production or terminal facilities, including through the Seaway
Pipeline from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Cushing, Oklahoma.
U.S. Gulf Coast facilities could be subject to damage or
production interruption from hurricanes or other severe weather
in the future which could interrupt or materially adversely
affect our crude oil supply. If our supply of crude oil is
interrupted, our business, financial condition and results of
operations could be materially adversely impacted.
Our
profitability is linked to the light/heavy and sweet/sour crude
oil price spreads. In 2005 and 2006 the light/heavy crude oil
price spread increased significantly. A decrease in either of
the spreads would negatively impact our
profitability.
Our profitability is linked to the price spreads between light
and heavy crude oil and sweet and sour crude oil within our
plant capabilities. We prefer to refine heavier sour crude oils
because they have historically provided wider refining margins
than light sweet crude. Accordingly, any tightening of the
light/heavy or sweet/sour spreads could reduce our
profitability. During 2005 and 2006, relatively high demand for
lighter sweet crude due to increasing demand for more highly
refined fuels resulted in an attractive light/heavy crude oil
price spread and an improved sweet/sour spread compared to 2004.
Countries with less complex refining capacity than the United
States and Europe continue to require large volumes of light
sweet crude in order to meet their demand for transportation
fuels. Crude oil prices may not remain at current levels and the
light/heavy or sweet/sour spread may decline, which could result
in a decline in profitability or operating losses.
Our refinery
faces operating hazards and interruptions, including unscheduled
maintenance or downtime. The limits on insurance coverage could
expose us to potentially significant liability costs to the
extent these hazards or interruptions are not fully covered.
Insurance companies that currently insure companies in the
energy industry may cease to do so or may substantially increase
premiums.
Our operations, located primarily in a single location, are
subject to significant operating hazards and interruptions. If
our refinery experiences a major accident or fire, is damaged by
severe weather or other natural disaster, or is otherwise forced
to curtail its operations or shut down, we could incur
significant losses which could have a material adverse impact on
our financial results. In addition, a major accident, fire or
other event could damage our refinery or the environment or
result in injuries or loss of life. If our refinery experiences
a major accident or fire or other event or an interruption in
supply or operations, our business could be materially adversely
affected if the damage or liability exceeds the amounts of
business interruption, property, terrorism and other insurance
that we maintain against these risks. As required under our
existing credit facilities, we maintain property insurance
capped at $1.25 billion which is subject to annual renewal.
In the event of a business interruption we would not be entitled
to recover our losses until the interruption exceeds
45 days in the aggregate. We are fully exposed to losses in
excess of this cap or that occur in the 45 days of our
deductible period. These losses may be material.
The energy industry is highly capital intensive, and the entire
or partial loss of individual facilities can result in
significant costs to both industry participants, such as us, and
their insurance carriers. In recent years, several large energy
industry claims have resulted in significant increases in the
level of
24
premium costs and deductible periods for participants in the
energy industry. For example, during 2005, hurricanes Katrina
and Rita caused significant damage to several petroleum
refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast, in addition to
numerous oil and gas production facilities and pipelines in that
region. As a result of large energy industry claims, insurance
companies that have historically participated in underwriting
energy-related facilities may discontinue that practice, or
demand significantly higher premiums or deductibles to cover
these facilities. If significant changes in the number or
financial solvency of insurance underwriters for the energy
industry occur, we may be unable to obtain and maintain adequate
insurance at reasonable cost or we may need to significantly
increase our retained exposures.
Our refinery consists of a number of processing units, many of
which have been in operation for a number of years. One or more
of the units may require unscheduled down time for unanticipated
maintenance or repairs on a more frequent basis than our
scheduled turnaround of every three to four years for each unit,
or our planned turnarounds may last longer than anticipated.
Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance could reduce our net
income during the period of time that any of our units is not
operating.
The new and
redesigned equipment in our facilities may not perform according
to expectations, which may cause unexpected maintenance and
downtime and could have a negative effect on our future results
of operations and financial condition.
We have recently upgraded all of the units in our refinery by
installing new equipment and redesigning older equipment to
improve refinery capacity. The installation and redesign of key
equipment involves significant risks and uncertainties,
including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
our upgraded equipment may not perform at expected throughput
levels;
|
|
|
|
the yield and product quality of new equipment may differ from
design; and
|
|
|
|
redesign or modification of the equipment may be required to
correct equipment that does not perform as expected, which could
require facility shutdowns until the equipment has been
redesigned or modified.
|
Any of these risks could lead to lower revenues or higher costs
or otherwise have a negative impact on our future results of
operations and financial condition.
If our access
to the pipelines on which we rely for the supply of our
feedstock and the distribution of our products is interrupted,
our inventory and costs may increase and we may be unable to
efficiently distribute our products.
If one of the pipelines on which we rely for supply of our crude
oil becomes inoperative, we would be required to obtain crude
oil for our refinery through an alternative pipeline or from
additional tanker trucks, which could increase our costs and
result in lower production levels and profitability. Similarly,
if a major refined fuels pipeline becomes inoperative, we would
be required to keep refined fuels in inventory or supply refined
fuels to our customers through an alternative pipeline or by
additional tanker trucks from the refinery, which could increase
our costs and result in a decline in profitability.
Our petroleum
business financial results are seasonal and generally
lower in the first and fourth quarters of the year, which may
cause volatility in the price of our common stock.
Demand for gasoline products is generally higher during the
summer months than during the winter months due to seasonal
increases in highway traffic and road construction work. As a
result, our results of operations for the first and fourth
calendar quarters are generally lower than for those for the
second and third quarters, which may cause volatility in the
price of our common stock. Further, reduced agricultural work
during the winter months somewhat depresses demand for diesel
fuel in the winter months. In addition to the overall
seasonality of our business, unseasonably cool
25
weather in the summer months
and/or
unseasonably warm weather in the winter months in the markets in
which we sell our petroleum products could have the effect of
reducing demand for gasoline and diesel fuel which could result
in lower prices and reduce operating margins.
We face
significant competition, both within and outside of our
industry. Competitors who produce their own supply of
feedstocks, have extensive retail outlets, make alternative
fuels or have greater financial resources than we do may have a
competitive advantage over us.
The refining industry is highly competitive with respect to both
feedstock supply and refined product markets. We may be unable
to compete effectively with our competitors within and outside
of our industry, which could result in reduced profitability. We
compete with numerous other companies for available supplies of
crude oil and other feedstocks and for outlets for our refined
products. We are not engaged in the petroleum exploration and
production business and therefore we do not produce any of our
crude oil feedstocks. We do not have a retail business and
therefore are dependent upon others for outlets for our refined
products. We do not have any long-term arrangements for much of
our output. Many of our competitors in the United States as a
whole, and one of our regional competitors, obtain significant
portions of their feedstocks from company-owned production and
have extensive retail outlets. Competitors that have their own
production or extensive retail outlets with brand-name
recognition are at times able to offset losses from refining
operations with profits from producing or retailing operations,
and may be better positioned to withstand periods of depressed
refining margins or feedstock shortages. A number of our
competitors also have materially greater financial and other
resources than us, providing them the ability to add incremental
capacity in environments of high crack spreads. These
competitors have a greater ability to bear the economic risks
inherent in all phases of the refining industry. An expansion or
upgrade of our competitors facilities, price volatility,
international political and economic developments and other
factors are likely to continue to play an important role in
refining industry economics and may add additional competitive
pressure on us. In addition, we compete with other industries
that provide alternative means to satisfy the energy and fuel
requirements of our industrial, commercial and individual
consumers. The more successful these alternatives become as a
result of governmental regulations, technological advances,
consumer demand, improved pricing or otherwise, the greater the
impact on pricing and demand for our products and our
profitability. There are presently significant governmental and
consumer pressures to increase the use of alternative fuels in
the United States.
Environmental
laws and regulations will require us to make substantial capital
expenditures in the future.
Current or future federal, state and local environmental laws
and regulations could cause us to expend substantial amounts to
install controls or make operational changes to comply with
environmental requirements. In addition, future environmental
laws and regulations, or new interpretations of existing laws or
regulations, could limit our ability to market and sell our
products to end users. Any such future environmental laws or
governmental regulations could have a material impact on the
results of our operations.
In March 2004, we entered into a Consent Decree with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, and the
Kansas Department of Health and Environment, or the KDHE, to
address certain allegations of Clean Air Act violations by
Farmland at the Coffeyville oil refinery in order to reduce
environmental risks and liabilities going forward. Pursuant to
the Consent Decree, in the short-term, we have increased the use
of catalyst additives to the fluid catalytic cracking unit at
the facility to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, or
SO2.
We will begin adding catalyst to reduce oxides of nitrogen, or
NOx, in 2007. A catalyst is a substance that alters, accelerates
or instigates chemical changes, but is neither produced,
consumed nor altered in the process. In the long term, we will
install controls to minimize both
SO2
and NOx emissions, which under the terms of the Consent Decree
require that final controls be in place by January 1, 2011.
In addition, pursuant to the Consent Decree, we assumed certain
cleanup obligations at our Coffeyville refinery and Phillipsburg
terminal, and we agreed to retrofit some heaters at the refinery
with Ultra Low NOx burners. All heater retrofits
26
have been performed and we are currently verifying that the
heaters meet the Ultra Low NOx standards required by the Consent
Decree. The Ultra Low NOx heater technology is in widespread use
throughout the industry. There are other permitting, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
Consent Decree, and we are required to provide periodic reports
on our compliance with the terms and conditions of the Consent
Decree. The overall costs of complying with the Consent Decree
over the next four years are expected to be approximately
$41 million. To date, we have met all deadlines and
requirements of the Consent Decree and we have not had to pay
any stipulated penalties, which are required to be paid for
failure to comply with various terms and conditions of the
Consent Decree. Availability of equipment and technology
performance, as well as EPA interpretations of provisions of the
Consent Decree that differ from ours, could have a material
adverse effect on our ability to meet the requirements imposed
by the Consent Decree.
We will incur capital expenditures over the next several years
in order to comply with regulations under the Clean Air Act
establishing stringent low sulfur content specifications for our
petroleum products, including the Tier II gasoline
standards, as well as regulations with respect to on- and
off-road diesel fuel, which are designed to reduce air emissions
from the use of these products. In February 2004, the EPA
granted us a hardship waiver, which will require us
to meet final low sulfur Tier II gasoline standards by
January 1, 2011. Compliance with the Tier II gasoline
standards and on-road diesel standards required us to spend
approximately $133 million during 2006 and we estimate that
compliance will require us to spend approximately
$116 million in 2007 and approximately $46 million
between 2008 and 2010. Changes in these laws or interpretations
thereof could result in significantly greater expenditures.
Changes in our
credit profile may affect our relationship with our suppliers,
which could have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity.
Changes in our credit profile may affect the way crude oil
suppliers view our ability to make payments and may induce them
to shorten the payment terms of their invoices. Given the large
dollar amounts and volume of our feedstock purchases, a change
in payment terms may have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity and our ability to make payments to our suppliers.
We may have
additional capital needs for which our internally generated cash
flows and other sources of liquidity may not be
adequate.
If we cannot generate cash flow or otherwise secure sufficient
liquidity to support our short-term and long-term capital
requirements, we may be unable to comply with certain
environmental standards or pursue our business strategies, in
which case our operations may not perform as well as we
currently expect. We have substantial short-term and long-term
capital needs, including capital expenditures we are required to
make to comply with Tier II gasoline standards, on-road
diesel regulations, off-road diesel regulations and the Consent
Decree. Our short-term working capital needs are primarily crude
oil purchase requirements, which fluctuate with the pricing and
sourcing of crude oil. We also have significant long-term needs
for cash. We currently estimate that mandatory capital and
turnaround expenditures, excluding the non-recurring capital
expenditures required to comply with Tier II gasoline
standards, on-road diesel regulations, off-road diesel
regulations and the Consent Decree described above, will average
approximately $55 million per year over the next five years.
Risks Related to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business
The nitrogen
fertilizer plant has high fixed costs. If natural gas prices
fall below a certain level, the nitrogen fertilizer business may
not generate sufficient revenue to operate profitably or cover
its costs.
The nitrogen fertilizer plant has high fixed costs as discussed
in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Factors
Affecting Results Nitrogen Fertilizer
Business. As a result, downtime or low productivity due to
reduced demand, weather
27
interruptions, equipment failures, low prices for fertilizer
products or other causes can result in significant operating
losses. Unlike its competitors, whose primary costs are related
to the purchase of natural gas and whose fixed costs are
minimal, the nitrogen fertilizer business has high fixed costs
not dependent on the price of natural gas. A decline in natural
gas prices generally has the effect of reducing the base sale
price for fertilizer products while other fixed costs remain
substantially the same. Any decline in the price of fertilizer
products could have a material negative impact on our
profitability and results of operations.
The nitrogen
fertilizer business is cyclical, which exposes us to potentially
significant fluctuations in our financial condition and results
of operations, which could result in volatility in the price of
our common stock.
A significant portion of nitrogen fertilizer product sales
consists of sales of agricultural commodity products, exposing
us to fluctuations in supply and demand in the agricultural
industry. These fluctuations historically have had and could in
the future have significant effects on prices across all
nitrogen fertilizer products and, in turn, the nitrogen
fertilizer business results of operations and financial
condition, which could result in significant volatility in the
price of our common stock. The prices of nitrogen fertilizer
products depend on a number of factors, including general
economic conditions, cyclical trends in end-user markets, supply
and demand imbalances, and weather conditions, which have a
greater relevance because of the seasonal nature of fertilizer
application. Changes in supply result from capacity additions or
reductions and from changes in inventory levels. Demand for
fertilizer products is dependent, in part, on demand for crop
nutrients by the global agricultural industry. Periods of high
demand, high capacity utilization, and increasing operating
margins have tended to result in new plant investment and
increased production until supply exceeds demand, followed by
periods of declining prices and declining capacity utilization
until the cycle is repeated.
Fertilizer
products are global commodities, and the nitrogen fertilizer
business faces intense competition from other nitrogen
fertilizer producers.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is subject to intense price
competition from both U.S. and foreign sources, including
competitors operating in the Persian Gulf, Asia-Pacific, the
Caribbean and the former Soviet Union. Fertilizers are global
commodities, with little or no product differentiation, and
customers make their purchasing decisions principally on the
basis of delivered price and availability of the product. The
nitrogen fertilizer business competes with a number of
U.S. producers and producers in other countries, including
state-owned and government-subsidized entities. The United
States and the European Commission each have trade regulatory
measures in effect which are designed to address this type of
unfair trade. Changes in these measures could have an adverse
impact on the sales and profitability of the particular products
involved. Some competitors have greater total resources and are
less dependent on earnings from fertilizer sales, which makes
them less vulnerable to industry downturns and better positioned
to pursue new expansion and development opportunities. In
addition, recent consolidation in the fertilizer industry has
increased the resources of several competitors. In light of this
industry consolidation, our competitive position could suffer to
the extent the nitrogen fertilizer business is not able to
expand its own resources either through investments in new or
existing operations or through acquisitions, joint ventures or
partnerships. An inability to compete successfully could result
in the loss of customers, which could adversely affect our sales
and profitability.
Adverse
weather conditions during peak fertilizer application periods
may have a negative effect upon our results of operations and
financial condition, as the nitrogen fertilizer business
agricultural customers are geographically
concentrated.
Sales of fertilizer products by the nitrogen fertilizer business
to agricultural customers are concentrated in the Great Plains
and Midwest states and are seasonal in nature. For example, the
nitrogen fertilizer business generates greater net sales and
operating income in the spring.
28
Accordingly, an adverse weather pattern affecting agriculture in
these regions or during this season could have a negative effect
on fertilizer demand, which could, in turn, result in a decline
in our net sales, lower margins and otherwise negatively affect
our financial condition and results of operations. Our quarterly
results may vary significantly from one year to the next due
primarily to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and
purchase patterns, as well as the relationship between natural
gas and nitrogen fertilizer product prices.
Our margins
and results of operations may be adversely affected by the
supply and price levels of pet coke and other essential raw
materials.
Pet coke is a key raw material used by the nitrogen fertilizer
business in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer products.
Increases in the price of pet coke could result in a decrease in
our profit margins or results of operations. Our profitability
is directly affected by the price and availability of pet coke
obtained from our oil refinery and purchased from third parties.
The nitrogen fertilizer business obtains the majority of the pet
coke it needs from our adjacent oil refinery, and procures the
remainder on the open market. The nitrogen fertilizer business
is therefore sensitive to fluctuations in the price of pet coke
on the open market. Pet coke prices could significantly increase
in the future. In addition, the BOC air separation plant that
provides oxygen, nitrogen, and compressed dry air to the
nitrogen fertilizer plants gasifier has experienced
numerous short-term interruptions (one to five minute), thereby
causing interruptions in the gasifier operations. The operations
of the nitrogen fertilizer business require a reliable supply of
raw materials. A disruption of its reliable supply could prevent
it from producing its products at current levels and its
reputation, customer relationships and results of operations
could be materially harmed.
The nitrogen fertilizer business may not be able to maintain an
adequate supply of pet coke and other essential raw materials.
In addition, the nitrogen fertilizer business could experience
production delays or cost increases if alternative sources of
supply prove to be more expensive or difficult to obtain. If raw
material costs were to increase, or if the fertilizer plant were
to experience an extended interruption in the supply of raw
materials, including pet coke, to its production facilities, the
nitrogen fertilizer business could lose sale opportunities,
damage its relationships with or lose customers, suffer lower
margins, and experience other negative effects to its business,
results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if
natural gas prices in the United States were to decline to a
level that prompts those U.S. producers who have
permanently or temporarily closed production facilities to
resume fertilizer production, this would likely contribute to a
global supply/demand imbalance that could negatively affect our
margins, results of operations and financial condition.
Ammonia can be
very volatile. If we are held liable for accidents involving
ammonia that cause severe damage to property
and/or
injury to the environment and human health, our financial
condition and the price of our common stock could decline. In
addition, the costs of transporting ammonia could increase
significantly in the future.
The nitrogen fertilizer business manufactures, processes,
stores, handles, distributes and transports ammonia, which is
very volatile. Accidents, releases or mishandling involving
ammonia could cause severe damage or injury to property, the
environment and human health, as well as a possible disruption
of supplies and markets. Such an event could result in civil
lawsuits and regulatory enforcement proceedings, both of which
could lead to significant liabilities. Any damage to persons,
equipment or property or other disruption of the ability of the
nitrogen fertilizer business to produce or distribute its
products could result in a significant decrease in operating
revenues and significant additional cost to replace or repair
and insure its assets, which could negatively affect our
operating results and financial condition. In addition, the
nitrogen fertilizer business may incur significant losses or
costs relating to the operation of railcars used for the purpose
of carrying various products, including ammonia. Due to the
dangerous and potentially toxic nature of the cargo, in
particular ammonia on board railcars, a railcar accident may
result in uncontrolled or catastrophic circumstances, including
fires, explosions, and pollution. These circumstances may result
in severe
29
damage
and/or
injury to property, the environment and human health. In the
event of pollution, we may be strictly liable. If we are
strictly liable, we could be held responsible even if we are not
at fault and we complied with the laws and regulations in effect
at the time. Litigation arising from accidents involving ammonia
may result in our being named as a defendant in lawsuits
asserting claims for large amounts of damages, which could have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition and the
price of our common stock.
Given the risks inherent in transporting ammonia, the costs of
transporting ammonia could increase significantly in the future.
Ammonia is most typically transported by railcar. A number of
initiatives are underway in the railroad and chemicals
industries which may result in changes to railcar design in
order to minimize railway accidents involving hazardous
materials. If any such design changes are implemented, or if
accidents involving hazardous freight increases the insurance
and other costs of railcars, freight costs of the nitrogen
fertilizer business could significantly increase.
Environmental
laws and regulations could require the nitrogen fertilizer
business to make substantial capital expenditures in the
future.
The nitrogen fertilizer business manufactures, processes,
stores, handles, distributes and transports fertilizer products,
including ammonia, that are subject to federal, state and local
environmental laws and regulations. Presently existing or future
environmental laws and regulations could cause the nitrogen
fertilizer business to expend substantial amounts to install
controls or make operational changes to comply with changes in
environmental requirements. In addition, future environmental
laws and regulations, or new interpretations of existing laws or
regulations, could limit the ability of the nitrogen fertilizer
business to market and sell its products to end users. Any such
future environmental laws or governmental regulations may have a
significant impact on our results of operations.
The nitrogen
fertilizer operations are dependent on a few third-party
suppliers. Failure by key third-party suppliers of oxygen,
nitrogen and electricity to perform in accordance with their
contractual obligations may have a negative effect upon our
results of operations and financial condition.
The nitrogen fertilizer operations depend in large part on the
performance of third-party suppliers, including The BOC Group,
for the supply of oxygen and nitrogen, and the City of
Coffeyville for the supply of electricity. The contract with The
BOC Group extends through 2020 and the electricity contract
extends through 2019. Should either of those two suppliers fail
to perform in accordance with the existing contractual
arrangements, the gasification operation would be forced to a
halt. Alternative sources of supply of oxygen, nitrogen or
electricity could be difficult to obtain. Any shutdown of
operations at the nitrogen fertilizer business could have a
material negative effect upon our results of operations and
financial condition.
Risks Related to Our Entire Business
Our operations
involve environmental risks that may require us to make
substantial capital expenditures to remain in compliance or to
remediate current or future contamination that could give rise
to material liabilities.
Our results of operations may be affected by increased costs
resulting from compliance with the extensive federal, state and
local environmental laws and regulations to which our facilities
are subject and from contamination of our facilities as a result
of accidental spills, discharges or other historical releases of
petroleum or hazardous substances.
Our operations are subject to a variety of federal, state and
local environmental laws and regulations relating to the
protection of the environment, including those governing the
emission or discharge of pollutants into the environment,
product specifications and the generation, treatment,
30
storage, transportation, disposal and remediation of solid and
hazardous waste and materials. Environmental laws and
regulations that affect the operations, processes and margins
for our refined products are extensive and have become
progressively more stringent. Violations of these laws and
regulations or permit conditions can result in substantial
penalties, injunctive orders compelling installation of
additional controls, civil and criminal sanctions, permit
revocations
and/or
facility shutdowns.
In addition, new environmental laws and regulations, new
interpretations of existing laws and regulations, increased
governmental enforcement of laws and regulations or other
developments could require us to make additional unforeseen
expenditures. Many of these laws and regulations are becoming
increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance with these
requirements can be expected to increase over time. The
requirements to be met, as well as the technology and length of
time available to meet those requirements, continue to develop
and change. These expenditures or costs for environmental
compliance could have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition and results of operations.
All of our facilities operate under a number of federal and
state permits, licenses and approvals with limits, terms and
conditions containing a significant number of prescriptive and
performance standards in order to operate. Our facilities are
also required to meet compliance with prescriptive and
performance standards specific to refining and chemical
facilities as well as to general manufacturing facilities. All
of these permits, licenses and standards require a significant
amount of monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements
in order to demonstrate compliance with the underlying permit,
license or standard. Inspections by federal and state
governmental agencies may uncover incomplete or unknown
documentation of compliance status that may result in the
imposition of fines, penalties and injunctive relief that could
have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our
facilities. Additionally, due to the nature of our manufacturing
processes there may be times when we are unable to meet the
standards and terms and conditions of these permits, licenses
and standards that may not receive enforcement discretion from
the governmental agencies, which may lead to the imposition of
fines and penalties or operating restrictions that may have a
material adverse effect on our ability to operate our facilities
and accordingly our financial performance.
Our business is inherently subject to accidental spills,
discharges or other releases of petroleum or hazardous
substances into the environment. Past or future spills related
to any of our operations, including our refinery, pipelines,
product terminals, fertilizer plant or transportation of
products or hazardous substances from those facilities, may give
rise to liability (including strict liability, or liability
without fault, and potential cleanup responsibility) to
governmental entities or private parties under federal, state or
local environmental laws, as well as under common law. For
example, we could be held strictly liable under the
Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation and
Liability Act, or CERCLA, for past or future spills without
regard to fault or whether our actions were in compliance with
the law at the time of the spills. Pursuant to CERCLA and
similar state statutes, we could be held liable for
contamination associated with facilities we currently own or
operate, facilities we formerly owned or operated and facilities
to which we transported or arranged for the transportation of
wastes or by-products containing hazardous substances for
treatment, storage, or disposal. The potential penalties and
clean-up
costs for past or future releases or spills, liability to third
parties for damage to their property or exposure to hazardous
substances, or the need to address newly discovered information
or conditions that may require response actions could be
significant and could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Two of our facilities, including our Coffeyville oil refinery
and the Phillipsburg terminal (which operated as a refinery
until 1991), have environmental contamination. We have
assumed Farmlands responsibilities under certain Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, corrective action orders
related to contamination at or that originated from the
Coffeyville refinery (which includes portions of the fertilizer
plant) and the Phillipsburg terminal. If significant unforeseen
liabilities that have been undetected to date by our extensive
soil and groundwater investigation and sampling
31
programs arise in the areas where we have assumed liability for
the corrective action, that liability could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations and financial
condition and may not be covered by insurance.
In addition, we may face liability for alleged personal injury
or property damage due to exposure to chemicals or other
hazardous substances located at or released from our facilities.
We may also face liability for personal injury, property damage,
natural resource damage or for cleanup costs for the alleged
migration of contamination or other hazardous substances from
our facilities to adjacent and other nearby properties.
We may face future liability for the off-site disposal of
hazardous wastes. Pursuant to CERCLA, companies that dispose of,
or arrange for the disposal of, hazardous substances at off-site
locations can be held jointly and severally liable for the costs
of investigation and remediation of contamination at those
off-site locations, regardless of fault. We could become
involved in litigation or other proceedings involving off-site
waste disposal and the damages or costs in any such proceedings
could be material.
We have a
limited operating history as a stand-alone
company.
Our limited historical financial performance as a stand-alone
company makes it difficult for you to evaluate our business and
results of operations to date and to assess our future prospects
and viability. Our brief operating history has resulted in
strong period-over-period revenue and profitability growth rates
that may not continue in the future. We have been operating
during a recent period of significant growth in the
profitability of the refined products industry which may not
continue or could reverse. As a result, our results of
operations may be lower than we currently expect and the price
of our common stock may be volatile.
Because we are
transferring our nitrogen fertilizer business to a newly formed
limited partnership, we may be required in the future to share
increasing portions of the fertilizer business cash flows with
third parties and we may in the future be required to
deconsolidate the fertilizer business from our consolidated
financial statements, our historical financial statements do not
reflect the new limited partnership structure and therefore our
past financial performance may not be an accurate indicator of
future performance.
Prior to the consummation of this offering, we will transfer our
nitrogen fertilizer business to a newly formed limited
partnership, whose managing general partner will be a new entity
owned by our controlling stockholders and senior management.
Although we will initially consolidate the Partnership in our
financial statements, over time an increasing portion of the
cash flow of the nitrogen fertilizer business will be
distributed to our managing general partner if the Partnership
increases its quarterly distributions above specified target
distribution levels. In addition, if the Partnership consummates
a public or private offering of limited partner interests to
third parties, the new limited partners will also be entitled to
receive cash distributions from the Partnership. This may
require us to deconsolidate. Our historical financial statements
do not reflect this new limited partnership structure and
therefore our past financial performance may not be an accurate
indicator of future performance. See Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited
Partnership.
Our commodity
derivative activities could result in losses and may result in
period-to-period
earnings volatility.
The nature of our operations results in exposure to fluctuations
in commodity prices. If we do not effectively manage our
derivative activities, we could incur significant losses. We
monitor our exposure and, when appropriate, utilize derivative
financial instruments and physical delivery contracts to
mitigate the potential impact from changes in commodity prices.
If commodity prices change from levels specified in our various
derivative agreements, a fixed price contract or an option price
structure could limit us from receiving the full benefit of
commodity price changes. In addition, by entering into
32
these derivative activities, we may suffer financial loss if we
do not produce oil to fulfill our obligations. In the event we
are required to pay a margin call on a derivative contract, we
may be unable to benefit fully from an increase in the value of
the commodities we sell. In addition, we may be required to make
a margin payment before we are able to realize a gain on a sale
resulting in a reduction in cash flow, particularly if prices
decline by the time we are able to sell.
In June 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC entered into the Cash
Flow Swap, which is not subject to margin calls, in the form of
three swap agreements for the period from July 1, 2005 to
June 30, 2010 with J. Aron in connection with the
Subsequent Acquisition. These agreements were subsequently
assigned from Coffeyville Acquisition LLC to Coffeyville
Resources, LLC on June 24, 2005. Pursuant to the Cash Flow
Swap, sales representing approximately 70% and 17% of then
forecasted refinery output for the periods from July 2005
through June 2009, and July 2009 through June 2010,
respectively, have been economically hedged. In addition, under
the terms of the existing credit facilities, management has
limited discretion to change the amount of hedged volumes under
the Cash Flow Swap therefore affecting our exposure to market
volatility. Because this derivative is based on NYMEX prices
while our revenue is based on prices in the Coffeyville supply
area, the contracts cannot completely eliminate all risk of
price volatility. If the price of products on NYMEX is different
from the value contracted in the swap, then we will receive from
or owe to the counterparty the difference on each unit of
product that is contracted in the swap. In addition, as a result
of the accounting treatment of these contracts, unrealized gains
and losses are charged to our earnings based on the increase or
decrease in the market value of the unsettled position and the
inclusion of such derivative gains or losses in earnings may
produce significant
period-to-period
earnings volatility that is not necessarily reflective of our
underlying operating performance. The positions under the Cash
Flow Swap resulted in unrealized gains (losses) of
$126.8 million and ($119.7 million) for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31,
2007, respectively. As of March 31, 2007, a $1.00 change in
quoted prices for the crack spreads utilized in the Cash Flow
Swap would result in a $61.3 million change to the fair
value of derivative commodity position and the same change to
net income. See Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources Cash Flow Swap.
Both the
petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses depend on
significant customers, and the loss of one or several
significant customers may have a material adverse impact on our
results of operations and financial condition.
The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses both have a
high concentration of customers. Our four largest customers in
the petroleum business represented 58.7%, 44.4% and 35.0% of our
petroleum sales for the years ended December 31, 2005 and
2006 and the three months ended March 31, 2007,
respectively. Further, in the aggregate the top five ammonia
customers of the nitrogen fertilizer business represented 55.2%,
51.9% and 70.3% of its ammonia sales for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2006 and the three months ended
March 31, 2007, respectively, and the top five UAN
customers of the nitrogen fertilizer business represented 43.1%,
30.0% and 43.5% of its UAN sales, respectively, for the same
periods. Several significant petroleum, ammonia and UAN
customers each account for more than 10% of sales of petroleum,
ammonia and UAN, respectively. Given the nature of our business,
and consistent with industry practice, we do not have long-term
minimum purchase contracts with any of our customers. The loss
of one or several of these significant customers, or a
significant reduction in purchase volume by any of them, could
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and
financial condition.
The petroleum
and nitrogen fertilizer businesses may not be able to
successfully implement their business strategies, which include
completion of significant capital programs.
One of the business strategies of the petroleum and nitrogen
fertilizer businesses is to implement a number of capital
expenditure projects designed to increase productivity,
efficiency and profitability. Many factors may prevent or hinder
implementation of some or all of these projects,
33
including compliance with or liability under environmental
regulations, a downturn in refining margins, technical or
mechanical problems, lack of availability of capital and other
factors. Costs and delays have increased significantly during
the past two years and the large number of capital projects
underway in the industry has led to shortages in skilled
craftsmen, engineering services and equipment manufacturing.
Failure to successfully implement these profit-enhancing
strategies may materially adversely affect our business
prospects and competitive position. In addition, we expect to
execute turnarounds at our refinery every three to
four years, which involve numerous risks and uncertainties.
These risks include delays and incurrence of additional and
unforeseen costs. The next scheduled refinery turnaround will be
in 2010. In addition, development and implementation of business
strategies for the Partnership will be primarily the
responsibility of the managing general partner of the
Partnership.
The
acquisition strategy of our petroleum business and the nitrogen
fertilizer business involves significant risks.
Both our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business
will consider pursuing strategic and accretive acquisitions in
order to continue to grow and increase profitability. However,
acquisitions involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including
intense competition for suitable acquisition targets; the
potential unavailability of financial resources necessary to
consummate acquisitions in the future; difficulties in
identifying suitable acquisition targets or in completing any
transactions identified on sufficiently favorable terms; and the
need to obtain regulatory or other governmental approvals that
may be necessary to complete acquisitions. In addition, any
future acquisitions may entail significant transaction costs and
risks associated with entry into new markets. In addition, even
when acquisitions are completed, integration of acquired
entities can involve significant difficulties, such as
|
|
|
|
|
unforeseen difficulties in the acquired operations and
disruption of the ongoing operations of our petroleum business
and the nitrogen fertilizer business;
|
|
|
|
failure to achieve cost savings or other financial or operating
objectives with respect to an acquisition;
|
|
|
|
strain on the operational and managerial controls and procedures
of our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business,
and the need to modify systems or to add management resources;
|
|
|
|
difficulties in the integration and retention of customers or
personnel and the integration and effective deployment of
operations or technologies;
|
|
|
|
amortization of acquired assets, which would reduce future
reported earnings;
|
|
|
|
possible adverse short-term effects on our cash flows or
operating results;
|
|
|
|
diversion of managements attention from the ongoing
operations of our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer
business; and
|
|
|
|
assumption of unknown material liabilities or regulatory
non-compliance issues.
|
Failure to manage these acquisition growth risks could have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition and/or
operating results of our petroleum business and/or the nitrogen
fertilizer business.
We are a
holding company and depend upon our subsidiaries for our cash
flow.
We are a holding company. Our subsidiaries conduct all of our
operations and own substantially all of our assets.
Consequently, our cash flow and our ability to meet our
obligations or to pay dividends or make other distributions in
the future will depend upon the cash flow of our subsidiaries
and the payment of funds by our subsidiaries to us in the form
of dividends, tax sharing payments or otherwise. In addition,
Coffeyville Resources, LLC, our indirect subsidiary and the
primary obligor
34
under our existing credit facilities, is a holding company and
its ability to meet its debt service obligations depends on the
cash flow of its subsidiaries. The ability of our subsidiaries
to make any payments to us will depend on their earnings, the
terms of their indebtedness, including the terms of our Credit
Facility, tax considerations and legal restrictions. In
particular, our Credit Facility currently imposes significant
limitations on the ability of our subsidiaries to make
distributions to us and consequently our ability to pay
dividends to our stockholders. Distributions that we receive
from the Partnership will be primarily reinvested in our
business rather than distributed to our stockholders. See also
Risks Related to the Limited Partnership
Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our Interest in the
Nitrogen Fertilizer Business Our rights to receive
distributions from the Partnership may be limited over
time and Risks Related to the Limited
Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our Interest in
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business The Partnership may
not have sufficient available cash to enable it to make
quarterly distributions to us following establishment of cash
reserves and payment of fees and expenses.
Our
significant indebtedness may affect our ability to operate our
business, and may have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition and results of operation.
As of March 31, 2007, we had $775.0 million in term
loans and $150.0 million in funded letters of credit
outstanding under our Credit Facility and availability of
$114.1 million under our revolving credit facility. We and
our subsidiaries may be able to incur significant additional
indebtedness in the future. If new indebtedness is added to our
current indebtedness, the risks described below could increase.
Our high level of indebtedness could have important
consequences, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
limiting our ability to obtain additional financing to fund our
working capital, acquisitions, expenditures, debt service
requirements or for other purposes;
|
|
|
|
limiting our ability to use operating cash flow in other areas
of our business because we must dedicate a substantial portion
of these funds to service debt;
|
|
|
|
limiting our ability to compete with other companies who are not
as highly leveraged;
|
|
|
|
placing restrictive financial and operating covenants in the
agreements governing our and our subsidiaries long-term
indebtedness and bank loans, including, in the case of certain
indebtedness of subsidiaries, certain covenants that restrict
the ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other
distributions to us;
|
|
|
|
exposing us to potential events of default (if not cured or
waived) under financial and operating covenants contained in our
or our subsidiaries debt instruments that could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
operating results;
|
|
|
|
increasing our vulnerability to a downturn in general economic
conditions or in pricing of our products; and
|
|
|
|
limiting our ability to react to changing market conditions in
our industry and in our customers industries.
|
In addition, borrowings under our Credit Facility bear interest
at variable rates. If market interest rates increase, such
variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements,
which could adversely affect our cash flow. Our interest expense
for the year ended December 31, 2006 was $32.1 million
on a pro forma basis. Each
1/8%
increase or decrease in the applicable interest rates under our
Credit Facility would correspondingly change our interest
expense by approximately $625,000 per year.
In addition to our debt service obligations, our operations
require substantial investments on a continuing basis. Our
ability to make scheduled debt payments, to refinance our
obligations with respect to our indebtedness and to fund capital
and non-capital expenditures necessary to maintain the condition
of our operating assets, properties and systems software, as
well as to provide capacity for the growth of our business,
depends on our financial and operating performance, which, in
turn, is
35
subject to prevailing economic conditions and financial,
business, competitive, legal and other factors. In addition, we
are and will be subject to covenants contained in agreements
governing our present and future indebtedness. These covenants
include and will likely include restrictions on certain
payments, the granting of liens, the incurrence of additional
indebtedness, dividend restrictions affecting subsidiaries,
asset sales, transactions with affiliates and mergers and
consolidations. Any failure to comply with these covenants could
result in a default under our Credit Facility. Upon a default,
unless waived, the lenders under our Credit Facility would have
all remedies available to a secured lender, and could elect to
terminate their commitments, cease making further loans,
institute foreclosure proceedings against our or our
subsidiaries assets, and force us and our subsidiaries
into bankruptcy or liquidation. In addition, any defaults under
the Credit Facility or any other debt could trigger cross
defaults under other or future credit agreements. Our operating
results may not be sufficient to service our indebtedness or to
fund our other expenditures and we may not be able to obtain
financing to meet these requirements.
If the
Partnership seeks to consummate a public or private offering, we
may be required to use our commercially reasonable efforts to
amend our Credit Facility to remove the Partnership as a
guarantor. Any such amendment could result in increased fees to
us or other onerous terms in our Credit Facility. In addition,
we may not be able to obtain such an amendment on terms
acceptable to us or at all.
If the managing general partner elects to pursue a public or
private offering of limited partner interests in the
Partnership, we expect that any such transaction would require
amendments to our Credit Facility, as well as the Cash Flow
Swap, in order to remove the Partnership and its subsidiaries as
obligors under such instruments. Any such amendments could
result in significant changes to the Credit Facilitys
pricing, mandatory repayment provisions, covenants and other
terms and could result in increased interest costs and require
payment by us of additional fees. We have agreed to use our
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain such amendments if the
managing general partner elects to cause the Partnership to
pursue a public or private offering and gives us at least
90 days written notice. However, we may not be able to
obtain any such amendment on terms acceptable to us or at all.
If we are not able to amend our Credit Facility on terms
satisfactory to us, we may need to refinance it with another
facility. We will not be considered to have used our
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain such
amendments if we do not effect the requested modifications due
to (i) payment of fees to the lenders or the swap
counterparty, (ii) the costs of this type of amendment,
(iii) an increase in applicable margins or spreads or
(iv) changes to the terms required by the lenders including
covenants, events of default and repayment and prepayment
provisions; provided that (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) in the
aggregate are not likely to have a material adverse effect on us.
If we lose any
of our key personnel, we may be unable to effectively manage our
business or continue our growth.
Our future performance depends to a significant degree upon the
continued contributions of our senior management team and key
technical personnel. The loss or unavailability to us of any
member of our senior management team or a key technical employee
could negatively affect our ability to operate our business and
pursue our strategy. We face competition for these professionals
from our competitors, our customers and other companies
operating in our industry. To the extent that the services of
members of our senior management team and key technical
personnel would be unavailable to us for any reason, we would be
required to hire other personnel to manage and operate our
company and to develop our products and strategy. We may not be
able to locate or employ such qualified personnel on acceptable
terms or at all.
A substantial
portion of our workforce is unionized and we are subject to the
risk of labor disputes and adverse employee relations, which may
disrupt our business and increase our costs.
As of March 31, 2007, approximately 39% of our employees,
all of whom work in our petroleum business, were represented by
labor unions under collective bargaining agreements expiring in
2009.
36
We may not be able to renegotiate our collective bargaining
agreements when they expire on satisfactory terms or at all. A
failure to do so may increase our costs. In addition, our
existing labor agreements may not prevent a strike or work
stoppage at any of our facilities in the future, and any work
stoppage could negatively affect our results of operations and
financial condition.
The
requirements of being a public company, including compliance
with the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and the
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, may strain our
resources, increase our costs and distract management, and we
may be unable to comply with these requirements in a timely or
cost-effective manner.
As a public company, we will be subject to the reporting
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the
Exchange Act, and the corporate governance standards of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These
requirements may place a strain on our management, systems and
resources. The Exchange Act will require that we file annual,
quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and
financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act will require that we
maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and
internal controls over financial reporting. Due to our limited
operating history as a stand-alone company, our disclosure
controls and procedures and internal controls may not meet all
of the standards applicable to public companies. In order to
maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting, significant resources and management oversight will
be required. This may divert managements attention from
other business concerns, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and the price of our common stock.
We will be
exposed to risks relating to evaluations of controls required by
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
We are in the process of evaluating our internal controls
systems to allow management to report on, and our independent
auditors to audit, our internal controls over financial
reporting. We will be performing the system and process
evaluation and testing (and any necessary remediation) required
to comply with the management certification and auditor
attestation requirements of Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and will be required to comply with
Section 404 in our annual report for the year ended
December 31, 2008 (subject to any change in applicable SEC
rules). Furthermore, upon completion of this process, we may
identify control deficiencies of varying degrees of severity
under applicable U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
or SEC, and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB,
rules and regulations that remain unremediated. As a public
company, we will be required to report, among other things,
control deficiencies that constitute a material
weakness or changes in internal controls that, or that are
reasonably likely to, materially affect internal controls over
financial reporting. A material weakness is a
significant deficiency or combination of significant
deficiencies that results in more than a remote likelihood that
a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial
statements will not be prevented or detected.
If we fail to implement the requirements of Section 404 in
a timely manner, we might be subject to sanctions or
investigation by regulatory authorities such as the SEC or the
PCAOB. If we do not implement improvements to our disclosure
controls and procedures or to our internal controls in a timely
manner, our independent registered public accounting firm may
not be able to certify as to the effectiveness of our internal
controls over financial reporting pursuant to an audit of our
internal controls over financial reporting. This may subject us
to adverse regulatory consequences or a loss of confidence in
the reliability of our financial statements. We could also
suffer a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial
statements if our independent registered public accounting firm
reports a material weakness in our internal controls, if we do
not develop and maintain effective controls and procedures or if
we are otherwise unable to deliver timely and reliable financial
information. Any loss of confidence in the reliability of our
financial statements or other negative reaction to our failure
to develop timely or adequate disclosure controls and procedures
or internal controls could result in a decline in the price of
our common stock. In addition, if we fail to remedy any material
weakness, our
37
financial statements may be inaccurate, we may face restricted
access to the capital markets and our stock price may be
adversely affected.
We are a
controlled company within the meaning of the New
York Stock Exchange rules and, as a result, will qualify for,
and may rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance
requirements.
A company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by
an individual, a group or another company is a controlled
company within the meaning of the New York Stock Exchange
rules and may elect not to comply with certain corporate
governance requirements of the New York Stock Exchange,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
the requirement that a majority of our board of directors
consist of independent directors;
|
|
|
|
the requirement that we have a nominating/corporate governance
committee that is composed entirely of independent directors
with a written charter addressing the committees purpose
and responsibilities; and
|
|
|
|
the requirement that we have a compensation committee that is
composed entirely of independent directors with a written
charter addressing the committees purpose and
responsibilities.
|
Following this offering, we will rely on some or all of these
exemptions as a controlled company. Accordingly, you may not
have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies
that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements
of the New York Stock Exchange.
New
regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous
chemicals, risks of terrorism, the security of chemical
manufacturing facilities and increased insurance costs could
result in higher operating costs.
The costs of complying with regulations relating to the
transportation of hazardous chemicals and security associated
with the refining and nitrogen fertilizer facilities may have a
negative impact on our operating results and may cause the price
of our common stock to decline. Targets such as refining and
chemical manufacturing facilities may be at greater risk of
future terrorist attacks than other targets in the United
States. As a result, the petroleum and chemical industries have
responded to the issues that arose due to the terrorist attacks
on September 11, 2001 by starting new initiatives relating
to the security of petroleum and chemical industry facilities
and the transportation of hazardous chemicals in the United
States. Simultaneously, local, state and federal governments
have begun a regulatory process that could lead to new
regulations impacting the security of refinery and chemical
plant locations and the transportation of petroleum and
hazardous chemicals. Our business or our customers
businesses could be materially adversely affected because of the
cost of complying with new regulations.
If we are not
able to successfully defend against third-party claims of
intellectual property infringement, our business may be
adversely affected.
There are currently no claims pending against us relating to the
infringement of any third-party intellectual property rights;
however, in the future we may face claims of infringement that
could interfere with our ability to use technology that is
material to our business operations. Any litigation of this
type, whether successful or unsuccessful, could result in
substantial costs to us and diversions of our resources, either
of which could negatively affect our business, profitability or
growth prospects. In the event a claim of infringement against
us is successful, we may be required to pay royalties or license
fees for past or continued use of the infringing technology, or
we may be prohibited from using the infringing technology
altogether. If we are prohibited from using any technology as a
result of such a claim, we may not be able to obtain licenses to
alternative technology adequate to substitute for the technology
we can no longer use, or licenses for such alternative
technology may only be available on terms that are not
commercially reasonable or acceptable to us. In addition, any
substitution of new technology for currently licensed technology
may require us to make substantial changes to our
38
manufacturing processes or equipment or to our products, and may
have a material adverse effect on our business, profitability or
growth prospects.
If licensed
technology is no longer available, the refinery and nitrogen
fertilizer businesses may be adversely affected.
The refinery and nitrogen fertilizer businesses have licensed,
and may license in the future, a combination of patent, trade
secret and other intellectual property rights of third parties
for use in their business. If any of these license agreements
were to be terminated, licenses to alternative technology may
not be available, or may only be available on terms that are not
commercially reasonable or acceptable. In addition, any
substitution of new technology for currently-licensed technology
may require substantial changes to manufacturing processes or
equipment and may have a material adverse effect on our
business, profitability or growth prospects.
Risks Related to
this Offering
There is no
existing market for our common stock, and we do not know if one
will develop to provide you with adequate liquidity. If our
stock price fluctuates after this offering, you could lose a
significant part of your investment.
Prior to this offering, there has not been a public market for
our common stock. If an active trading market does not develop,
you may have difficulty selling any of our common stock that you
buy. The initial public offering price for the shares will be
determined by negotiations between us, the selling stockholders
and the underwriters and may not be indicative of prices that
will prevail in the open market following this offering.
Consequently, you may not be able to sell shares of our common
stock at prices equal to or greater than the price paid by you
in this offering. The market price of our common stock may be
influenced by many factors including:
|
|
|
|
|
the failure of securities analysts to cover our common stock
after this offering or changes in financial estimates by
analysts;
|
|
|
|
announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts
or acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
variations in quarterly results of operations;
|
|
|
|
loss of a large customer or supplier;
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
terrorist acts;
|
|
|
|
future sales of our common stock; and
|
|
|
|
investor perceptions of us and the industries in which our
products are used.
|
As a result of these factors, investors in our common stock may
not be able to resell their shares at or above the initial
offering price. In addition, the stock market in general has
experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have
often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating
performance of companies like us. These broad market and
industry factors may materially reduce the market price of our
common stock, regardless of our operating performance.
Following the
completion of this offering, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds will continue to control us and may have conflicts
of interest with other stockholders. Conflicts of interest may
arise because our principal stockholders or their affiliates
have continuing agreements and business relationships with
us.
Upon completion of this offering, the Goldman Sachs Funds will
control 39.9% of our outstanding common stock, or 38.5% if the
underwriters exercise their option in full, and the Kelso Funds
will control 39.3% of our outstanding common stock, or 37.9% if
the underwriters exercise their option in full. As a result, the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds will continue to be able
to control the
39
election of our directors, determine our corporate and
management policies and determine, without the consent of our
other stockholders, the outcome of any corporate transaction or
other matter submitted to our stockholders for approval,
including potential mergers or acquisitions, asset sales and
other significant corporate transactions. The Goldman Sachs
Funds and the Kelso Funds will also have sufficient voting power
to amend our organizational documents.
Conflicts of interest may arise between our principal
stockholders and us. Affiliates of some of our principal
stockholders engage in transactions with our company. We obtain
the majority of our crude oil supply through a crude oil credit
intermediation agreement with J. Aron, a subsidiary of The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and an affiliate of the Goldman Sachs
Funds, and Coffeyville Resources, LLC currently has outstanding
commodity derivative contracts (swap agreements) with J. Aron
for the period from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010. See
Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions. Further, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds are in the business of making investments in
companies and may, from time to time, acquire and hold interests
in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us and
they may either directly, or through affiliates, also maintain
business relationships with companies that may directly compete
with us. In general, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds
or their affiliates could pursue business interests or exercise
their voting power as stockholders in ways that are detrimental
to us, but beneficial to themselves or to other companies in
which they invest or with whom they have a material
relationship. Conflicts of interest could also arise with
respect to business opportunities that could be advantageous to
the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds and they may pursue
acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our
business, and as a result, those acquisition opportunities may
not be available to us. Under the terms of our certificate of
incorporation, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds will
have no obligation to offer us corporate opportunities. See
Description of Capital Stock Corporate
Opportunities.
Other conflicts of interest may arise between our principal
stockholders and us because the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds will control the managing general partner of the
Partnership which will hold the nitrogen fertilizer business.
The managing general partner will manage the operations of the
Partnership (subject to our rights to participate in the
appointment, termination and compensation of the chief executive
officer and chief financial officer of the managing general
partner and our other specified approval rights) and will also
hold incentive distribution rights which, over time, entitle the
managing general partner to receive increasing percentages of
the Partnerships quarterly distributions if the
Partnership increases the amount of distributions. Although the
managing general partner will have a fiduciary duty to manage
the Partnership in a manner beneficial to the Partnership and us
(as a holder of special units in the Partnership), the fiduciary
duty is limited by the terms of the partnership agreement and
the directors and officers of the managing general partner also
will have a fiduciary duty to manage the managing general
partner in a manner beneficial to the owners of the managing
general partner. The interests of the owners of the managing
general partner may differ significantly from, or conflict with,
our interests and the interests of our stockholders. As a result
of these conflicts, the managing general partner of the
Partnership may favor its own interests and/or the interests of
its owners over our interests and the interests of our
stockholders (and the interests of the Partnership). In
particular, because the managing general partner owns the
incentive distribution rights, it may be incentivized to
maximize future cash flows by taking current actions which may
be in its best interests over the long term. See
Risks Related to the Limited Partnership
Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our Interest in the
Nitrogen Fertilizer Business Our rights to receive
distributions from the Partnership may be limited over
time and Risks Related to the Limited
Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our Interest in
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business The managing
general partner of the Partnership will have a fiduciary duty to
favor the interests of its owners, and these interests may
differ from, or conflict with, our interests and the interests
of our stockholders. In addition, if the value of the
managing general partner interest were to increase over time,
this increase in value and any realization of such value upon a
sale of the managing general partner interest would benefit the
owners of the managing general partner, which are the Goldman
Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds, as
40
well as our senior management, rather than our company and our
stockholders. Such increase in value could be significant if the
Partnership performs well. See The Nitrogen Fertilizer
Limited Partnership.
Further, decisions made by the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso
Funds with respect to their shares of common stock could trigger
cash payments to be made by us to certain members of our senior
management under our phantom unit appreciation plans. Phantom
points granted under the Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit
Appreciation Plan (Plan I) and phantom points that we
intend to grant under the Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom
Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan II) represent a contractual
right to receive a cash payment when payment is made in respect
of certain profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and,
after the consummation of the Transactions, Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC. If either the Goldman Sachs Funds or
the Kelso Funds sell any or all of the shares of common stock of
CVR Energy which they beneficially own through Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC or Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, as
applicable, we would be obligated to make cash payments under
the phantom unit appreciation plans. This could negatively
affect our cash reserves, which could negatively affect our
results of operations and financial condition. We estimate that
any such cash payments should not exceed $55 million,
assuming all of the shares of our common stock held by
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC
were sold at $20.00 per share, which is the assumed initial
public offering price in this offering.
Since June 24, 2005, we have made one cash distribution to
the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds. This distribution,
in the aggregate amount of $244.7 million, was made in
December 2006. In addition, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds have received and continue to receive advisory and
other fees pursuant to separate consulting and advisory
agreements between Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and each of
Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Kelso & Company,
L.P. In addition, prior to the consummation of this offering, we
intend to make a distribution to the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds in an aggregate amount of approximately
$10.3 million, which we expect that they will contribute to
Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC in connection with the purchase
of the managing general partner of the Partnership from us.
As a result of these relationships, including their ownership of
the managing general partner of the Partnership, the interests
of the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds may not coincide
with the interests of our company or other holders of our common
stock. So long as the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds
continue to control a significant amount of the outstanding
shares of our common stock, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds will continue to be able to strongly influence or
effectively control our decisions, including potential mergers
or acquisitions, asset sales and other significant corporate
transactions. In addition, so long as the Goldman Sachs Funds
and the Kelso Funds continue to control the managing general
partner of the Partnership, they will be able to effectively
control actions taken by the Partnership (subject to our
specified approval rights), which may not be in our interests or
the interest of our stockholders. See Certain
Relationships and Related Party Transactions.
You will incur
immediate and substantial dilution.
The initial public offering price of our common stock is
substantially higher than the adjusted net tangible book value
per share of our outstanding common stock. As a result, if you
purchase shares in this offering, you will incur immediate and
substantial dilution in the amount of $18.68 per share. See
Dilution.
Shares
eligible for future sale may cause the price of our common stock
to decline.
Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public
market, or the perception that these sales may occur, could
cause the market price of our common stock to decline. This
could also impair our ability to raise additional capital
through the sale of our equity securities. Under our amended and
restated certificate of incorporation, we are authorized to
issue up to 350,000,000 shares of common stock, of which
81,641,591 shares of common stock will be outstanding
following this offering. Of these shares, the
15,500,000 shares of common stock sold in
41
this offering will be freely transferable without restriction or
further registration under the Securities Act by persons other
than affiliates, as that term is defined in
Rule 144 under the Securities Act. Our selling
stockholders, directors and executive officers will enter into
lock-up
agreements, pursuant to which they are expected to agree,
subject to certain exceptions, not to sell or transfer, directly
or indirectly, any shares of our common stock for a period of
180 days from the date of this prospectus, subject to
extension in certain circumstances. See
Shares Eligible for Future Sale.
Risks Related to
the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our
Interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business
Because we
will not control or serve as the managing general partner of the
Partnership, the managing general partner may operate the
Partnership in a manner with which we disagree or which is not
in our interest.
CVR GP, LLC, or Fertilizer GP, a new entity owned by
our controlling stockholders and senior management, will be the
managing general partner of the Partnership which will hold the
nitrogen fertilizer business. The managing general partner will
be authorized to manage the operations of the nitrogen
fertilizer business (subject to our specified approval rights),
and we will not control the managing general partner. Although
our senior management will also serve as the senior management
of Fertilizer GP, in accordance with a management services
agreement between us, Fertilizer GP and the Partnership,
our senior management will operate the Partnership under the
direction of the managing general partners board of
directors and Fertilizer GP has the right to select
different management at any time (subject to our approval right
in relation to the chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of the managing general partner). Accordingly, the
managing general partner may operate the Partnership in a manner
with which we disagree or which is not in the interests of our
company and our stockholders.
Our interest in the Partnership will consist of special units.
The substantial majority of these units will be general partner
interests that will give us defined rights to participate in the
management and governance of the Partnership. These rights will
include the right to approve the appointment, termination of
employment and compensation of the chief executive officer and
chief financial officer of Fertilizer GP, not to be
exercised unreasonably, and to approve specified major business
transactions such as significant mergers and asset sales. We
will also have the right to appoint a director to
Fertilizer GPs board of directors and the right to
appoint an additional director to Fertilizer GPs
board of directors if the Partnership does not make
distributions of at least the set minimum quarterly
distribution, or MQD, for four consecutive quarters. However,
our special GP units will be converted into limited partner
interests, and we will lose the rights listed above, if we fail
to hold at least 15% of the units in the Partnership. See
The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited Partnership.
Our rights to
receive distributions from the Partnership may be limited over
time.
As a holder of 30,333,333 special units (which may convert into
common and/or subordinated units, and which we may sell from
time to time), we will be entitled to receive a quarterly
distribution of $0.4313 per unit (or $13.1 million per
quarter in the aggregate, assuming we do not sell any of our
units) from the Partnership to the extent the Partnership has
sufficient available cash after establishment of cash reserves
and payment of fees and expenses before any distributions are
made in respect of the incentive distribution rights. The
Partnership will be required to distribute all of its cash on
hand at the end of each quarter, less reserves established by
the managing general partner in its discretion. In addition, the
managing general partner, Fertilizer GP, will have no right
to receive distributions in respect of its incentive
distribution rights (i) until the Partnership has
distributed all aggregate adjusted operating surplus generated
by the Partnership during the period from its formation through
June 30, 2009 and (ii) for so long as the Partnership
or its subsidiaries are guarantors under our Credit Facility.
42
However, distributions of amounts greater than the aggregate
adjusted operating surplus generated through June 30, 2009
will be allocated between us and Fertilizer GP (and the holders
of any other interests in the Partnership), and in the future
the allocation will grant Fertilizer GP a greater percentage of
the Partnerships cash distributions as more cash becomes
available for distribution. In particular, if quarterly
distributions exceed the target of $0.4313 per unit, Fertilizer
GP will be entitled to increasing percentages of the
distributions, up to 48% of the distributions above the highest
target level, in respect of its incentive distribution rights.
Therefore, we will receive a smaller percentage of quarterly
cash distributions from the Partnership if the Partnership
increases its quarterly distributions above the set amount per
unit. This could incentivise Fertilizer GP, as managing general
partner, to cause the Partnership to make capital expenditures
for maintenance, which reduces operating surplus, rather than
for improvement or expansion, which does not, and accordingly
effect the amount of cash available for distribution. Fertilizer
GP could also be incentivized to cause the Partnership to make
capital expenditures for maintenance prior to June 30, 2009
that it would otherwise make at a later date in order to reduce
operating surplus generated prior to such date. In addition,
Fertilizer GPs discretion in determining the level of cash
reserves may materially adversely affect the Partnerships
ability to make cash distributions to us.
Moreover, if the Partnership issues common units in a public or
private offering, at least 40% (and potentially all) of our
special units will become subordinated units. We will not be
entitled to any distributions on our subordinated units until
the common units issued in the public or private offering and
our common units (which the balance of our special units will
become) have received the minimum quarterly distribution of
$0.375 per unit (which may be reduced without our consent in
connection with the public or private offering, or could be
increased with our consent), plus any accrued and unpaid
arrearages in the minimum quarterly distribution from prior
quarters. The managing general partner, and not us, has
authority to decide whether or not to pursue such an offering.
As a result, our right to distributions will diminish if the
managing general partner decides to pursue such an offering. See
The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited Partnership
Cash Distributions by the Partnership Distributions
from Operating Surplus.
The managing
general partner of the Partnership will have a fiduciary duty to
favor the interests of its owners, and these interests may
differ from, or conflict with, our interests and the interests
of our stockholders.
The managing general partner of the Partnership, Fertilizer GP,
will be responsible for the management of the Partnership.
Although Fertilizer GP will have a fiduciary duty to manage the
Partnership in a manner beneficial to the Partnership and
holders of interests in the Partnership (including us, in our
capacity as holder of special units), the fiduciary duty is
specifically limited by the express terms of the partnership
agreement and the directors and officers of Fertilizer GP also
will have a fiduciary duty to manage Fertilizer GP in a manner
beneficial to the owners of Fertilizer GP. The interests of the
owners of Fertilizer GP may differ from, or conflict with, our
interests and the interests of our stockholders. In resolving
these conflicts, Fertilizer GP may favor its own interests
and/or the interests of its owners over our interests and the
interests of our stockholders (and the interests of the
Partnership). In addition, while our directors and officers will
have a fiduciary duty to make decisions in our interests and the
interests of our stockholders, we are also a general partner of
the Partnership and, therefore, in such capacity, will have a
fiduciary duty to exercise rights as general partner in a manner
beneficial to the Partnership and its unit holders, subject to
the limitations contained in the partnership agreement. As a
result of these conflicts, our directors and officers may feel
obligated to take actions that benefit the Partnership as
opposed to us and our stockholders.
The potential conflicts of interest include, among others, the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
Fertilizer GP, as managing general partner of the Partnership,
will hold all of the incentive distribution rights in the
Partnership. Incentive distribution rights will give Fertilizer
GP a right to increasing percentages of the Partnerships
quarterly distributions after the Partnership has distributed
all aggregate adjusted operating surplus generated by the
Partnership during the
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
period from its formation through June 30, 2009, assuming
the Partnership and its subsidiaries are released from their
guaranty of our Credit Facility. Fertilizer GP may have an
incentive to manage the Partnership in a manner which increases
these future cash flows rather than in a manner which increases
current cash flows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The initial directors and executive officers of Fertilizer GP
will also serve as directors and executive officers of CVR
Energy. The executive officers who work for both us and
Fertilizer GP, including our chief executive officer, chief
operating officer, chief financial officer and general counsel,
will divide their time between our business and the business of
the Partnership. These executive officers will face conflicts of
interests from time to time in making decisions which may
benefit either our company or the Partnership. However, when
making decisions on behalf of the Partnership, they will be
acting in their capacity as directors and officers of the
managing general partner and not us.
|
|
|
|
The owners of Fertilizer GP, who are also our controlling
stockholders and senior management, will be permitted to compete
with us or the Partnership or to own businesses that compete
with us or the Partnership. In addition, the owners of
Fertilizer GP will not be required to share business
opportunities with us, and our owners will not be required to
share business opportunities with the Partnership or Fertilizer
GP.
|
|
|
|
Neither the partnership agreement nor any other agreement will
require the owners of Fertilizer GP to pursue a business
strategy that favors us or the Partnership. The owners of
Fertilizer GP will have fiduciary duties to make decisions in
their own best interests, which may be contrary to our interests
and the interests of the Partnership. In addition, Fertilizer GP
will be allowed to take into account the interests of parties
other than us, such as its owners, in resolving conflicts of
interest, which will have the effect of limiting its fiduciary
duty to us.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement will limit the liability and reduce
the fiduciary duties of Fertilizer GP, while also restricting
the remedies available to the unit holders of the Partnership,
including us, for actions that, without these limitations, might
constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. Delaware partnership law
permits such contractual reductions of fiduciary duty. As a
result of our ownership interest in the Partnership, we may
consent to some actions that might otherwise constitute a breach
of fiduciary or other duties applicable under state law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fertilizer GP will determine the amount and timing of asset
purchases and sales, capital expenditures, borrowings, repayment
of indebtedness, issuances of additional partnership units and
cash reserves maintained by the Partnership (subject to our
specified approval rights as holder of special GP rights), each
of which can affect the amount of cash that is available for
distribution to us in our capacity as a holder of special units
and the amount of cash paid to Fertilizer GP in respect of its
IDRs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In some instances Fertilizer GP may cause the Partnership to
borrow funds in order to permit the payment of cash
distributions, where the purpose or effect of the borrowing is
to make incentive distributions which benefit Fertilizer GP.
Fertilizer GP will also be able to determine the amount and
timing of any capital expenditures and whether a capital
expenditure is for maintenance, which reduces operating surplus,
or improvement, which does not. Such determinations can affect
the amount of cash that is available for distribution and the
manner in which the cash is distributed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fertilizer GP may exercise its rights to call and purchase all
of the Partnerships equity securities of any class if at
any time it and its affiliates (excluding us) own more than 80%
of the outstanding securities of such class.
|
|
|
|
Fertilizer GP will control the enforcement of obligations owed
to the Partnership by it and its affiliates. In addition,
Fertilizer GP will decide whether to retain separate counsel or
others to perform services for the Partnership.
|
44
The
partnership agreement limits the fiduciary duties of the
managing general partner and restricts the remedies available to
us for actions taken by the managing general partner that might
otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
The partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the
standards to which Fertilizer GP, as the managing general
partner, would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law.
For example:
|
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement permits Fertilizer GP to make a number
of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to its
capacity as a general partner. This entitles Fertilizer GP 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 or our affiliates.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement provides that Fertilizer GP will not
have any liability to the Partnership or to us for decisions
made in its capacity as managing general partner so long as it
acted in good faith, meaning it believed that the decisions were
in the best interests of the Partnership.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement provides that Fertilizer GP and its
officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages
to the Partnership for any acts or omissions unless there has
been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of
competent jurisdiction determining that Fertilizer GP or those
persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful
misconduct.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement generally provides that affiliate
transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not
approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of
Fertilizer GP and not involving a vote of unit holders must be
on terms no less favorable to the Partnership than those
generally provided to or available from unrelated third parties
or be fair and reasonable to the Partnership and
that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is
fair and reasonable, Fertilizer GP may consider the
totality of the relationship between the parties involved,
including other transactions that may be particularly
advantageous or beneficial to the Partnership.
|
The
Partnership will have a preferential right to pursue corporate
opportunities before we can pursue them.
We will enter into an agreement with the Partnership in order to
clarify and structure the division of corporate opportunities
between us and the Partnership. Under this agreement, we have
agreed not to engage in the production, transportation or
distribution, on a wholesale basis, of fertilizers in the
contiguous United States, subject to limited exceptions
(fertilizer restricted business). In addition, the Partnership
has agreed not to engage in the ownership or operation within
the United States of any refinery with processing capacity
greater than 20,000 barrels per day whose primary business
is producing transportation fuels or the ownership or operation
outside the United States of any refinery (refinery restricted
business).
With respect to any business opportunity other than those
covered by a fertilizer restricted business or a refinery
restricted business, we have agreed that the Partnership will
have a preferential right to pursue such opportunities before we
may pursue them. If the managing general partner of the
Partnership elects not to pursue the business opportunity, then
we will be free to pursue such opportunity. This provision will
continue so long as we continue to own 50% of the outstanding
units of the Partnership. See The Nitrogen Fertilizer
Limited Partnership Other Intercompany
Agreements Omnibus Agreement.
45
If the
Partnership completes a public offering or private placement of
limited partner interests, our voting power in the Partnership
would be reduced and our rights to distributions from the
Partnership could be materially adversely
affected.
Fertilizer GP may, in its sole discretion, elect to pursue one
or more public or private offerings of limited partner interests
in the Partnership. Fertilizer GP will have the sole authority
to determine the timing, size (subject to our approval rights
for any initial offering in excess of $200 million,
exclusive of the underwriters option to purchase
additional limited partner interests, if any), and underwriters
or initial purchasers, if any, for such offerings, if any. Any
public or private offering of limited partner interests could
materially adversely affect us in several ways. For example, if
such an offering occurs, our percentage interest in the
Partnership would be diluted. Some of our voting rights in the
Partnership could thus become less valuable, since we would not
be able to take specified actions without support of other unit
holders. For example, since the vote of 80% of unit holders is
required to remove the managing general partner in specified
circumstances, if the managing general partner sells more than
20% of the units to a third party we would not have the right,
unilaterally, to remove the general partner under the specified
circumstances.
In addition, if the Partnership completes an offering of limited
partner interests, the distributions that we receive from the
Partnership would decrease because the Partnerships
distributions will have to be shared with the new limited
partners, and the new limited partners right to
distributions will be superior to ours because at least 40% (and
potentially all) of our units will become subordinated units.
Pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement, the new
limited partners and Fertilizer GP will have superior priority
to distributions in some circumstances. Subordinated units will
not be entitled to receive distributions unless and until all
common units have received the minimum quarterly distribution,
plus any accrued and unpaid arrearages in the MQD from prior
quarters. In addition, upon a liquidation of the partnership,
common unit holders will have a preference over subordinated
unit holders in certain circumstances.
If the
Partnership does not consummate an initial offering within two
years after the consummation of this offering, Fertilizer GP can
require us to purchase its managing general partner interest in
the Partnership. We may not have requisite funds to do
so.
If the Partnership does not consummate an initial private or
public offering within two years after the consummation of this
offering, Fertilizer GP can require us to purchase the managing
general partner interest. This put right expires on the earlier
of (1) the fifth anniversary of the date of this offering
and (2) the closing of the Partnerships initial
offering. The purchase price will be the fair market value of
the managing general partner interest, as determined by an
independent investment banking firm selected by us and
Fertilizer GP. Fertilizer GP will determine in its discretion
whether the Partnership will consummate an initial offering.
If Fertilizer GP elects to require us to purchase the managing
general partner interest, we may not have available cash
resources to pay the purchase price. In addition, any purchase
of the managing general partner interest would divert our
capital resources from other intended uses, including capital
expenditures and growth capital. In addition, the instruments
governing our indebtedness may limit our ability to acquire, or
prohibit us from acquiring, the managing general partner
interest.
Fertilizer GP
can require us to be a selling stockholder in the
Partnerships initial offering at an undesirable time or
price.
Under the contribution, conveyance and assumption agreement, if
Fertilizer GP elects to cause the Partnership to undertake an
initial private or public offering, we have agreed that
Fertilizer GP may structure the initial offering to include
(1) a secondary offering of interests by us or (2) a
primary offering of interests by the Partnership where the use
of proceeds is to redeem an equal number of interests from us
(with a per-unit redemption price equal to the price at which a
unit is purchased from
46
the Partnership, net of sales commissions or underwriting
discounts) (a special GP offering), provided that in
either case the number of units associated with the special GP
offering is reasonably expected by Fertilizer GP to generate up
to $100 million in net proceeds to us. If Fertilizer GP
elects to cause the Partnership to undertake an initial private
or public offering, it may require us to sell (including by
redemption) a portion, which could be a substantial portion, of
our special units in the Partnership at a time or price we would
not otherwise have chosen. Additionally, the gain on any such
sale or redemption of our interests would be taxable to us and
such taxable gain could be significant.
Our rights to
remove Fertilizer GP as managing general partner of the
Partnership are extremely limited.
For the first five years after formation of the Partnership,
Fertilizer GP may only be removed as managing general partner if
at least 80% of the outstanding units of the Partnership vote
for removal and there is a final, non-appealable judicial
determination that Fertilizer GP, as an entity, has materially
breached a material provision of the partnership agreement or is
liable for actual fraud or willful misconduct in its capacity as
a general partner of the Partnership. Consequently, we will be
unable to remove Fertilizer GP unless a court has made a final,
non-appealable judicial determination in those limited
circumstances as described above. Additionally, if there are
other holders of partnership interests in the Partnership, these
holders may have to vote for removal of Fertilizer GP as well if
we desire to remove Fertilizer GP but do not hold at least 80%
of the outstanding units of the Partnership at that time.
After five years from the formation of the Partnership,
Fertilizer GP may be removed with or without cause by a vote of
the holders of at least 80% of the outstanding units of the
Partnership, including any units owned by Fertilizer GP and its
affiliates, voting together as a single class. Therefore, we may
need to gain the support of other unit holders in the
Partnership if we desire to remove Fertilizer GP as managing
general partner, if we do not hold at least 80% of the
outstanding units of the Partnership.
In addition to removal, we will have a right to purchase
Fertilizer GPs general partner interest in the
Partnership, and therefore remove the Fertilizer GP as managing
general partner, if the Partnership has not made an initial
private offering or an initial public offering of limited
partner interests by the fifth anniversary of the
Partnerships formation.
If the managing general partner is removed without cause, it
will have the right to convert its managing general partner
interest, including the IDRs, into units or to receive cash
based on the fair market value of the interest at the time. If
the managing general partner is removed for cause, a successor
managing general partner will have the option to purchase the
managing general partner interest, including the IDRs, of the
departing managing general partner for a cash payment equal to
the fair market value of the managing general partner interest.
Under all other circumstances, the departing managing general
partner will have the option to require the successor managing
general partner to purchase the managing general partner
interest of the departing managing general partner for its fair
market value. See The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited
Partnership Other Provisions of the Partnership
Agreement Removal of the Managing General
Partner.
The
Partnership may not have sufficient available cash to enable it
to make quarterly distributions to us following establishment of
cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses.
The Partnership may not have sufficient available cash each
quarter to make distributions to us and other unit holders, if
any. In particular:
|
|
|
|
|
The Partnerships managing general partner has broad
discretion to establish reserves for the prudent conduct of the
Partnerships business. The establishment of those reserves
could result in a reduction of the Partnerships
distributions.
|
|
|
|
The amount of distributions made by the Partnership and the
decision to make any distribution is determined by the
Partnerships managing general partner, which we do not
control.
|
47
|
|
|
|
|
Under
Section 17-607
of the Delaware Limited Partnership Act, the Partnership may not
make a distribution to its unit holders if the distribution
would cause its liabilities to exceed the fair value of its
assets.
|
|
|
|
Although the partnership agreement requires the Partnership to
distribute its available cash, the partnership agreement may be
amended.
|
|
|
|
If the Partnership enters into its own credit facility in the
future, the credit facility may limit the distributions which
the Partnership can make. In addition, the credit facility will
likely contain financial tests and covenants that the
Partnership must satisfy; any failure to comply with these tests
and covenants could result in the lenders prohibiting
distributions by the Partnership.
|
|
|
|
The actual amount of cash available for distribution will depend
on factors such as the level of capital expenditures made by the
Partnership, the cost of acquisitions, if any, fluctuations in
the Partnerships working capital needs, the amount of fees
and expenses incurred by the Partnership, and the
Partnerships ability to make working capital and other
borrowings to make distributions to unit holders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Partnership consummates one or more public or private
offerings, because at least 40% (and potentially all) of our
interest may be subordinated to common units (if any), we would
be harmed if the MQD could not be paid on all units.
|
We have included in this prospectus unaudited pro forma
information for 2006 which indicates the amount of cash which
the Partnership would have had available for distribution during
2006. This pro forma information is based on numerous estimates
and assumptions which we believe to be reasonable, but the
Partnerships financial performance had it been in
existence during 2006 could have been different from the pro
forma results, perhaps materially. In particular, the pro forma
data assumes a specific amount of debt and interest expense for
the Partnership during 2006, but the Partnership may not be able
to enter into a credit facility on terms acceptable to it or at
all. Similarly, the pro forma data assumes a specific amount of
selling, general and administrative expense for the Partnership,
but it is difficult to estimate the actual costs that the
Partnership would have incurred as a stand-alone business.
Accordingly, investors should review the unaudited pro forma
information, including the footnotes, together with the other
information included in this prospectus, including Risk
Factors and Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
The actual results of the Partnership may differ, possibly
materially, from those presented in the pro forma information.
If we were
deemed an investment company under the Investment Company Act of
1940, applicable restrictions would make it impractical for us
to continue our business as contemplated and could have a
material adverse effect on our business. We may in the future be
required to sell some or all of our Partnership interests in
order to avoid being deemed an investment company, and such
sales could result in gains taxable to the
company.
In order not to be regulated as an investment company under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or the 1940 Act,
unless we can qualify for an exemption, we must ensure that we
are engaged primarily in a business other than investing,
reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities (as
defined in the 1940 Act) and that we do not own or acquire
investment securities having a value exceeding 40%
of the value of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. government
securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. We
believe that we are not currently an investment company because
our general partner interests in the Partnership should not be
considered to be securities under the 1940 Act and, in any
event, both our refinery business and the fertilizer business
are operated through majority-owned subsidiaries. In addition,
even if our general partner interests in the Partnership were
considered securities or investment securities, they do not
currently have a value exceeding 40% of the fair market value of
our total assets on an unconsolidated basis.
However, there is a risk that we could be deemed an investment
company if the SEC or a court determines that our general
partner interests in the Partnership are securities or
investment securities
48
under the 1940 Act and if our Partnership interests constituted
more than 40% of the value of our total assets. Currently, our
interests in the Partnership constitute less than 40% of our
total assets on an unconsolidated basis, but they could
constitute a higher percentage of the fair market value of our
total assets in the future if the value of our Partnership
interests increases, the value of our other assets decreases, or
some combination thereof occurs.
We intend to conduct our operations so that we will not be
deemed an investment company. However, if we were deemed an
investment company, restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act,
including limitations on our capital structure and our ability
to transact with affiliates, could make it impractical for us to
continue our business as contemplated and could have a material
adverse effect on our business and the price of our common
stock. In order to avoid registration as an investment company
under the 1940 Act, we may have to sell some or all of our
interests in the Partnership at a time or price we would not
otherwise have chosen. The gain on such sale would be taxable to
us. We may also choose to seek to acquire additional assets that
may not be deemed investment securities, although such assets
may not be available at favorable prices. Under the
1940 Act, we may have only up to one year to take any such
actions.
Use of the
limited partnership structure involves tax risks. For example,
if the Partnership is treated as a corporation for U.S. income
tax purposes, this would substantially reduce the cash it has
available to make distributions.
The anticipated benefit of the limited partnership structure
depends largely on its treatment as a partnership for federal
income tax purposes. The Partnership has not requested, and does
not plan to request, a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service
on this or any other matter affecting the Partnership. In the
taxable year of an initial public offering of the Partnership,
if any, and in each taxable year thereafter, current law would
require the Partnership to derive at least 90% of its annual
gross income from specific activities to continue to be treated
as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. The
Partnership may not find it possible, however, to meet this
income requirement, or may inadvertently fail to meet this
income requirement. In addition, a change in current law could
cause the Partnership to be treated as a corporation for federal
income tax purposes without regard to its sources of income or
otherwise subject it to entity-level taxation.
If the Partnership were to be treated as a corporation for
federal income tax purposes, it would pay federal income tax on
its income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a
maximum of 35%, and would pay state income taxes at varying
rates. Because such a tax would be imposed upon the Partnership
as a corporation, the cash available for distribution by the
Partnership to its partners, including us, would be
substantially reduced. In addition, distributions by the
Partnership to us would also be taxable to us (subject to the
70% or 80% dividends received deduction, as applicable,
depending on the degree of ownership we have in the Partnership)
and we would not be able to use our share of any tax losses of
the Partnership to reduce taxes otherwise payable by us. Thus,
treatment of the Partnership as a corporation could result in a
material reduction in our anticipated cash flow and the
after-tax return to us.
In addition, because of widespread state budget deficits and
other reasons, 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, the Partnership will be required to
pay Texas franchise tax at a maximum effective rate of 0.7% of
the Partnerships gross income apportioned to Texas in the
prior year. Imposition of such a tax on the Partnership by Texas
and, if applicable, by any other state will reduce the cash
available for distribution by the Partnership.
In addition, the sale of the managing general partner interest
of the Partnership to a newly formed entity controlled by the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds will be made at the fair
market value of the general partner interest as of the date of
transfer, as determined by an independent third party valuation.
Any gain on this sale by us will be subject to tax. Although we
believe that the sale price as so determined represents the fair
market value of the managing general
49
partner interest, the value of the managing general partner
interest may increase over time, possibly significantly, if the
Partnership performs well, and in hindsight the sale price might
be challenged or viewed as insufficient by the Internal Revenue
Service or another taxing authority. If the Internal Revenue
Service or another taxing authority successfully asserted that
the fair market value at the time of sale of the managing
general partner interest exceeded the sale price, we would have
additional deemed taxable income, which could reduce our cash
flow and adversely affect our financial results. We may also
realize taxable gain in connection with the note issued by the
Partnership to us upon our contribution of the fertilizer assets
to the Partnership.
Additionally, when the Partnership issues units or engages in
certain other transactions, the Partnership will determine the
fair market value of its assets and allocate any unrealized gain
or loss attributable to those assets to the capital accounts of
the existing partners. As a result of this revaluation and the
Partnerships adoption of the remedial allocation method
under Section 704(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
(i) new unitholders will be allocated deductions as if the
tax basis of the Partnerships property were equal to the
fair market value thereof at the time of the offering, and
(ii) we will be allocated reverse Section 704(c)
allocations of income or loss over time consistent with
our allocation of unrealized gain or loss.
The tax allocations provided by the Partnerships
partnership agreement and other tax positions the Partnership
may take are complex and under certain circumstances uncertain
under relevant tax laws. Furthermore, the allocations depend on
valuations which may be subject to challenge by the IRS. The IRS
may adopt positions with respect to tax allocations or otherwise
that differ from the positions the Partnership takes. It may be
necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to
sustain the positions the Partnership takes and a court may
disagree with some or all of those positions.
Control of
Fertilizer GP may be transferred to an unrelated third party
without our consent. The new owners of Fertilizer GP may have no
interest in CVR Energy and may take actions that are not in our
interest.
Fertilizer GP is currently controlled by the Goldman Sachs Funds
and the Kelso Funds. Following this offering, the Goldman Sachs
Funds and the Kelso Funds will also collectively own 79.2% of
our common stock. However, there is no restriction in the
partnership agreement on the ability of the owners of Fertilizer
GP to transfer their equity interest in Fertilizer GP to an
unrelated third party without our consent. If such a transfer
occurred, the new equity owners of Fertilizer GP would then be
in a position to replace the board of directors of Fertilizer GP
(other than the one director appointed by us) and the officers
of Fertilizer GP with their own choices and to influence the
decisions taken by the board of directors and executive officers
of Fertilizer GP. These new equity owners, directors and
executive officers may take actions, subject to the specified
approval rights we have as holder of special GP rights,
which are not in our interests or the interests of our
stockholders. In particular, the new owners may have no economic
interest in us (unlike the current owners of Fertilizer GP),
which may make it more likely that they would take actions to
benefit Fertilizer GP and its managing general partner interest
over us and our interests in the Partnership.
The
Partnership may never seek to or be able to consummate an
initial public offering or one or more private placements. This
could negatively impact the value and liquidity of our
investment in the Partnership, which could impact the value of
our common stock.
The Partnership may never seek to or be able to consummate an
initial public offering or an initial private offering. Any
public or private offering of interests by the Partnership would
be made at the discretion of the managing general partner of the
Partnership and would be subject to market conditions and to
achievement of a valuation which the Partnership found
acceptable. An initial public offering would be subject to SEC
review of a registration statement, compliance with applicable
securities laws and the Partnerships ability to list
Partnership units on a national securities exchange. Similarly,
any private placement to a third party would depend on the
Partnerships ability to reach
50
agreement on price and enter into satisfactory documentation
with a third party. Any such transaction would also require
third party approvals, including consent of our lenders under
our Credit Facility and the swap counterparty under our Cash
Flow Swap. The Partnership may never consummate any of such
transactions on terms favorable to us, or at all. If no offering
by the Partnership is ever made, it could impact the value, and
certainly the liquidity, of our investment in the Partnership.
51
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This prospectus contains forward-looking statements. Statements
that are predictive in nature, that depend upon or refer to
future events or conditions or that include the words
believe, expect, anticipate,
intend, estimate and other expressions
that are predictions of or indicate future events and trends and
that do not relate to historical matters identify
forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements
include statements about our business strategy, our industry,
our future profitability, our expected capital expenditures and
the impact of such expenditures on our performance, the costs of
operating as a public company, our capital programs and
environmental expenditures. These statements involve known and
unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including the
factors described under Risk Factors, that may cause
our actual results and performance to be materially different
from any future results or performance expressed or implied by
these forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties
include, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
volatile margins in the refining industry;
|
|
|
|
exposure to the risks associated with volatile crude prices;
|
|
|
|
disruption of our ability to obtain an adequate supply of crude
oil;
|
|
|
|
decreases in the light/heavy and/or the sweet/sour crude oil
price spreads;
|
|
|
|
refinery operating hazards and interruptions, including
unscheduled maintenance or downtime, and the availability of
adequate insurance coverage;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the failure of our new and redesigned equipment in our
facilities to perform according to expectations;
|
|
|
|
|
|
interruption of the pipelines supplying feedstock and in the
distribution of our products;
|
|
|
|
the seasonal nature of our petroleum business;
|
|
|
|
competition in the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses;
|
|
|
|
capital expenditures required by environmental laws and
regulations;
|
|
|
|
changes in our credit profile;
|
|
|
|
the availability of adequate cash and other sources of liquidity
for our capital needs;
|
|
|
|
|
|
a decline in the price of natural gas;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the cyclical nature of the nitrogen fertilizer business;
|
|
|
|
adverse weather conditions;
|
|
|
|
the supply and price levels of essential raw materials;
|
|
|
|
the volatile nature of ammonia, potential liability for
accidents involving ammonia that cause severe damage to property
and/or
injury to the environment and human health and potential
increased costs relating to transport of ammonia;
|
|
|
|
the dependence of the nitrogen fertilizer operations on a few
third-party suppliers;
|
|
|
|
|
|
liabilities arising from current or future environmental
contamination;
|
|
|
|
|
|
our limited operating history as a stand-alone company;
|
|
|
|
our commodity derivative activities;
|
|
|
|
our dependence on significant customers;
|
|
|
|
our potential inability to successfully implement our business
strategies, including the completion of significant capital
programs;
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
the success of our acquisition strategies;
|
|
|
|
|
|
our significant indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
the dependence on our subsidiaries for cash to meet our debt
obligations;
|
|
|
|
|
|
whether we will be able to amend our Credit Facility on
acceptable terms if the Partnership seeks to consummate a public
or private offering;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the potential loss of key personnel;
|
|
|
|
labor disputes and adverse employee relations;
|
|
|
|
potential increases in costs and distraction of management
resulting from the requirements of being a public company;
|
|
|
|
risks relating to evaluations of internal controls required by
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
|
|
|
|
the operation of our company as a controlled company;
|
|
|
|
new regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous
chemicals, risks of terrorism and the security of chemical
manufacturing facilities;
|
|
|
|
successfully defending against third-party claims of
intellectual property infringement;
|
|
|
|
our ability to continue to license the technology used in our
operations;
|
|
|
|
the Partnerships ability to make distributions equal to
the minimum quarterly distribution or any distributions at all;
|
|
|
|
the possibility that Partnership distributions to us will
decrease if the Partnership issues additional equity interests
and that our rights to receive distributions will be
subordinated to the rights of third party investors;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the possibility that we will be required to deconsolidate the
Partnership from our financial statements in the future;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Partnerships preferential right to pursue certain
business opportunities before we pursue them;
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction of our voting power in the Partnership if the
Partnership completes a public offering or private placement;
|
|
|
|
|
|
whether we will be required to purchase the managing general
partner interest in the Partnership, and whether we will have
the requisite funds to do so;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the possibility that we will be required to sell a portion of
our interests in the Partnership in the Partnerships
initial offering at an undesirable time or price;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the ability of the Partnership to manage the nitrogen fertilizer
business in a manner adverse to our interests;
|
|
|
|
the conflicts of interest faced by our senior management, which
operates both our company and the Partnership, and our
controlling stockholders, who control our company and the
managing general partner of the Partnership;
|
|
|
|
limitations on the fiduciary duties owed by the managing general
partner which are included in the partnership agreement;
|
|
|
|
|
|
whether we are ever deemed to be an investment company under the
1940 Act or will need to take actions to sell interests in
the Partnership or buy assets to refrain from being deemed an
investment company;
|
53
|
|
|
|
|
changes in the treatment of the Partnership as a partnership for
U.S. income tax purposes;
|
|
|
|
|
|
transfer of control of the managing general partner of the
Partnership to a third party that may have no economic interest
in us; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
the risk that the Partnership will not consummate a public
offering or private placement.
|
You should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking
statements. Although forward-looking statements reflect our good
faith beliefs, reliance should not be placed on forward-looking
statements because they involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors, which may cause our actual
results, performance or achievements to differ materially from
anticipated future results, performance or achievements
expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We
undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any
forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new
information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.
54
USE OF PROCEEDS
We expect to receive $282.35 million of net proceeds from
the sale of shares by us in this offering, after deducting
underwriting discounts and commissions and the estimated
expenses of the offering, based on an assumed initial public
offering price of $20.00 per share. We expect to use the net
proceeds of this offering to repay $280 million of the term
loans under our Credit Facility and the remainder for general
corporate purposes. We may use the excess amount to repay
amounts outstanding under our revolving loan facility. In
addition, we may use the excess amount to pay a portion of the
$10 million termination fee payable to Goldman,
Sachs & Co and Kelso & Company L.P. in
connection with the termination of the management agreements in
conjunction with this offering. We will not receive any proceeds
from the purchase by the underwriters of up to
2,325,000 shares from the selling stockholders in
connection with any exercise of their option.
Our subsidiary, Coffeyville Resources, LLC, entered into the
Credit Facility on December 28, 2006. The term loans under
the Credit Facility mature on December 28, 2013 and the
revolving loans under the Credit Facility mature on
December 28, 2012. The term loans under the Credit Facility
bear interest at either (a) the greater of the prime rate
and the federal funds effective rate plus 0.5%, plus 2.00%, or,
at the borrowers election, (b) LIBOR plus 3.00%,
subject, in either case, to adjustment upon achievement of
certain ratings conditions. Borrowings under the revolving loans
facility (including revolving letters of credit) bear interest
at either (a) the greater of the prime rate and the federal
funds effective rate plus 0.5%, plus 2.00%, or, at the
borrowers election, (b) LIBOR plus 3.00%, subject, in
either case, to adjustment upon achievement of certain ratings
conditions. At March 31, 2007, the interest rate on the
term loans under the Credit Facility was 8.36%. At
March 31, 2007, $775.0 million and $29.5 million
(or $42.0 million as of May 31, 2007) was outstanding
under the term loans and the revolving loans, respectively,
under the Credit Facility. The $775 million in net proceeds
from the term loans under the Credit Facility received in
December 2006 were used to repay the term loans and revolving
loans under our then existing first lien credit facility, repay
all amounts outstanding under our then existing second lien
credit facility, pay related fees and expenses, and pay a
dividend to existing members of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in
the amount of $250 million. The Credit Facility entered
into in December 2006 amended and restated the then
existing first lien credit facility and second lien credit
facility which were originally entered into in June 2005
and which were utilized at that time in conjunction with the
Subsequent Acquisition. See Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt.
A $1.00 increase (or decrease) in the assumed initial public
offering price of $20.00 per share would increase (decrease) the
net proceeds to us from this offering by $14.5 million,
assuming the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the
cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after
deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and
estimated offering expenses payable by us.
Under the terms of our Credit Facility, this offering will be
deemed a Qualified IPO if the offering generates at
least $250 million of gross proceeds and we use the
proceeds of the offering, together with cash on hand, to repay
at least $275 million of term loans under the Credit
Facility. Assuming that the initial public offering price is at
least $20 per share and that the total number of shares does not
decrease, we expect this offering to constitute a Qualified IPO.
However, it is possible that due to market conditions or
otherwise this offering may fail to meet the criteria of a
Qualified IPO under the Credit Facility. If this offering is not
a Qualified IPO, the interest margin on LIBOR loans will
increase from 3.00% to 3.25%; if this offering is a Qualified
IPO, the interest margin on LIBOR loans may in the future
decrease from 3.00% to 2.75% (if we have credit ratings of
B2/B) or 2.50% (if we have credit ratings of B1/B+).
Interest on base rate loans will similarly be adjusted. In
addition, if the offering is a Qualified IPO, (1) we will
be allowed to borrow an additional $225 million under the
Credit Facility after June 30, 2008 to finance capital
enhancement projects if we are in pro forma compliance with the
financial covenants in the Credit Facility and the rating
agencies confirm our ratings, (2) we will be allowed to pay
an additional $35 million of dividends each year, if our
corporate family ratings are at least B2 from Moodys and B
from S&P, (3) we will not be subject to
55
any capital expenditures limitations commencing with fiscal
2009 if our total leverage ratio is less than or equal to 1.25:1
for any quarter commencing with the quarter ended
December 31, 2008, and (4) at any time after
March 31, 2008 we will be allowed to reduce the Cash Flow
Swap to not less than 35,000 barrels a day for fiscal 2008 and
terminate the Cash Flow Swap for any year commencing with fiscal
2009, so long as our total leverage ratio is less than or equal
to 1.25:1 and we have a corporate family rating of at least B2
from Moodys and B from S&P.
An affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co. is the sole
lender under the term loan facility and, accordingly, will
receive all of the net proceeds of this offering that we use to
repay term loans under the Credit Facility. Affiliates of
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citibank Capital Markets
Inc. are lenders under the revolving loan facility. To the
extent that we use net proceeds of this offering to repay
revolving loans, affiliates of these underwriters will receive
substantially all of such net proceeds. If the underwriters
exercise their option to buy additional shares from the selling
stockholders, an affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co.
will receive a portion of the net proceeds received by the
selling stockholders. See Principal and Selling
Stockholders, Description of Indebtedness and the
Cash Flow Swap and Underwriting.
56
DIVIDEND POLICY
Following the completion of this offering, we do not anticipate
paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We
currently intend to retain future earnings from our refinery
business, if any, together with any cash distributions we
receive from the Partnership, to finance operations and the
expansion of our business. Any future determination to pay cash
dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors
and will be dependent upon our financial condition, results of
operations, capital requirements and other factors that the
board deems relevant. In addition, the covenants contained in
Coffeyville Resources, LLCs Credit Facility limit the
ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends to us, which limits
our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders, including any
amounts received from the Partnership in the form of quarterly
distributions. Our ability to pay dividends also may be limited
by covenants contained in the instruments governing future
indebtedness that we or our subsidiaries may incur in the
future. See Description of Our Indebtedness and the Cash
Flow Swap.
In addition, the partnership agreement which will govern the
Partnership will include restrictions on the Partnerships
ability to make distributions to us. If the Partnership issues
limited partner interests to third party investors, these
investors will have rights to receive distributions which, in
some cases, will be senior to our rights to receive
distributions. In addition, the managing general partner of the
Partnership will have incentive distribution rights which, over
time, will give it rights to receive distributions. These
provisions will limit the amount of distributions which the
Partnership can make to us which will, in turn, limit our
ability to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition,
since the Partnership will make its distributions to Coffeyville
Resources, LLC, a subsidiary of ours, the Credit Facility will
limit the ability of Coffeyville Resources to distribute these
distributions to us. In addition, the Partnership may also enter
into its own credit facility or other contracts that limit its
ability to make distributions to us.
On December 28, 2006, the directors of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC approved a special dividend of $250 million
to its members, including $244.7 million to companies
related to the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds and
$3.4 million to certain members of our management and a
director who had previously made capital contributions to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. See Certain Relationships and
Related Party Transactions Investments in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
In connection with this offering, the directors of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC,
respectively, will approve a special dividend of
$10.6 million to their members, including approximately
$5.2 million to the Goldman Sachs Funds, approximately
$5.1 million to the Kelso Funds and approximately
$0.3 million to certain members of our management, a
director and an unrelated member. The common unit holders
receiving this special dividend will contribute
$10.6 million collectively to Coffeyville Acquisition III
LLC, which will use such amounts to purchase the managing
general partner.
57
The following table sets forth our consolidated cash and cash
equivalents and capitalization as of March 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
on an actual basis for Coffeyville Acquisition LLC; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
as adjusted to give effect to the sale by us of
15,500,000 shares in this offering at an assumed initial
offering price of $20.00 per share, the use of proceeds
from this offering, the Transactions, the transfer of the
nitrogen fertilizer business to the Partnership, the sale of the
managing general partner interest in the Partnership to a new
entity owned by our controlling stockholders and senior
management, the termination fee payable in connection with the
termination of the management agreements in conjunction with
this offering, the issuance of shares of our common stock to our
chief executive officer in exchange for shares in two of our
subsidiaries and the payment of a dividend to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
|
You should read this table in conjunction with Use of
Proceeds, Unaudited Pro Forma Consolidated Financial
Statements, Selected Historical Consolidated
Financial Data, Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,
and the consolidated financial statements and related notes
included elsewhere in this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
As Adjusted
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
7,608
|
|
|
$
|
2,941
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt (including current portion):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility(1)
|
|
|
29,500
|
|
|
|
29,500
|
|
Term loan facility
|
|
|
775,000
|
|
|
|
495,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
804,500
|
|
|
|
524,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in
subsidiaries(2)
|
|
|
3,650
|
|
|
|
10,600
|
|
Management voting common units
subject to redemption, 201,063 units(3)
|
|
|
7,102
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members equity(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members voting common
equity, 22,614,937 units
|
|
|
(80,901
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Operating override units,
992,122 units
|
|
|
2,148
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value override units,
1,984,231 units
|
|
|
1,311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members equity
|
|
|
(77,442
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value
per share, 350,000,000 shares authorized;
81,641,591 shares issued and outstanding as adjusted(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
816
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par
value; 50,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and
outstanding as adjusted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid-in capital(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191,415
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization
|
|
$
|
737,810
|
|
|
$
|
727,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As of March 31, 2007, we had availability of
$114.1 million under the revolving credit facility. As of
May 31, 2007, we had outstanding $42.0 million of
revolver borrowings and availability of $101.6 million
under the revolving credit facility. |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
The as adjusted column gives effect to (i) the exchange of
our chief executive officers shares in two of our
subsidiaries for shares of our common stock and (ii) the
sale of the managing general partner interest in the Partnership. |
|
|
|
(3) |
|
On an actual basis, the Members equity reflects the unit
ownership at Coffeyville Acquisition LLC which is structured as
a partnership for tax purposes. Upon completion of this
offering, the reporting entity will be CVR Energy, Inc., a
corporation. The ownership at Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and,
after the consummation of the Transactions, Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC will not be reported, and as such, the
components of Members equity do not appear in the As
Adjusted column. Upon completion of this offering, common
stock in CVR Energy, Inc. will be issued and reflected in Common
stock in the As Adjusted column. Members
equity and Managements voting common units subject to
redemption will be eliminated and replaced with
Stockholders equity to reflect the new corporate
structure. Any difference in the total value of equity upon
completion of this offering and the par value of the common
stock issued will be reflected in Additional paid-in capital. |
|
|
|
(4) |
|
The number of shares of common stock to be outstanding after the
offering: |
|
|
|
|
|
gives effect to a 658,619.93 for 1 split of our
common stock;
|
|
|
|
|
|
gives effect to the issuance of 252,448 shares
of our common stock to our chief executive officer in exchange
for his shares in two of our subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
|
|
gives effect to the issuance of
15,500,000 shares of our common stock in this offering; |
|
|
|
|
|
excludes 10,300 shares of common stock issuable
upon the exercise of stock options to be granted to two
directors pursuant to our long-term incentive plan on the date
of this prospectus; |
|
|
|
|
|
excludes 17,500 shares of non-vested restricted
stock to be awarded to two directors pursuant to our long-term
incentive plan on the date of this prospectus;
|
|
|
|
|
|
includes 27,150 shares of common stock to be
awarded to our employees in connection with this offering; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
assumes no exercise by the underwriters of their
option to purchase up to 2,325,000 shares of common stock
from the selling stockholders.
|
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public
offering price of $20.00 per share would (decrease)
increase total debt and would increase (decrease) each of
additional paid-in capital and total stockholders equity
by approximately $14.5 million, assuming that the number of
shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this
prospectus, remains the same and after deducting estimated
underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, depending
on market conditions at the time of pricing of this offering, we
may sell fewer or more shares than the number set forth on the
cover page of this prospectus. The adjusted information
presented above is illustrative only and following the
completion of this offering will be adjusted based on the actual
initial public offering price and other terms of the offering
determined at pricing.
59
DILUTION
Purchasers of common stock offered by this prospectus will
suffer immediate and substantial dilution in net tangible book
value per share. Our pro forma net tangible book value as of
March 31, 2007, excluding the net proceeds of this
offering, was approximately $(174.5) million, or
approximately $(2.64) per share of common stock. Pro forma
net tangible book value per share represents the amount of
tangible assets less total liabilities (excluding the net
proceeds of this offering), divided by the pro forma number of
shares of common stock outstanding (excluding the
15,500,000 shares of common stock issued in this offering).
Dilution in net tangible book value per share represents the
difference between the amount per share paid by purchasers of
our common stock in this offering and the pro forma net tangible
book value per share of our common stock immediately after this
offering. After giving effect to the sale of
15,500,000 shares of common stock in this offering at an
assumed initial public offering price of $20.00 per share,
and after deduction of the estimated underwriting discounts and
commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, our
pro forma net tangible book value as of March 31, 2007
would have been approximately $107.9 million, or
$1.32 per share. This represents an immediate increase in
net tangible book value of $3.96 per share of common stock
to our existing stockholder and an immediate pro forma dilution
of $18.68 per share to purchasers of common stock in this
offering. The following table illustrates this dilution on a per
share basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed initial public offering
price per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
20.00
|
|
Pro forma net tangible book value
per share as of March 31, 2007, excluding the net proceeds
of this offering
|
|
$
|
(2.64
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma increase per share
attributable to new investors
|
|
$
|
3.96
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible book value per share
after the offering
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilution per share to new investors
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
18.68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public
offering price of $20.00 per share would increase (decrease) our
pro forma net tangible book value by $14.5 million, the pro
forma net tangible book value per share by $0.18 and the
dilution per share to new investors by $0.18, assuming the
number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page
of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting the
underwriting discounts and estimated offering expenses payable
by us. Depending on market conditions at the time of pricing of
this offering and other considerations, we may sell fewer or
more shares than the number set forth on the cover page of this
prospectus.
The following table sets forth as of March 31, 2007 the
number of shares of common stock purchased or to be purchased
from us, total consideration paid or to be paid and the average
price per share paid by our existing stockholders and by new
investors, before deducting estimated underwriting discounts and
commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us at an
assumed initial public offering price of $20.00 per share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased
|
|
|
Total Consideration
|
|
|
Average Price
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
Existing stockholders(1)
|
|
|
66,141,591
|
|
|
|
81
|
%
|
|
$
|
258,160,000
|
|
|
|
45
|
%
|
|
$
|
3.90
|
|
New investors
|
|
|
15,500,000
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
310,000,000
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
20.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
568,160,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
6.96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total consideration and average price per share paid by the
existing stockholders do not give effect to the
$250.0 million distribution made to certain of the existing
stockholders in December 2006 using proceeds from the Credit
Facility and the $10.6 million dividend we intend to
distribute to existing stockholders in connection with the
Transactions. If the table were adjusted to give |
60
|
|
|
|
|
effect to these payments, existing stockholders total
consideration for their shares would be $2,440,000 with an
average share price of ($0.04). |
A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public
offering price of $20.00 per share would increase (decrease)
total consideration paid by new investors and total
consideration paid by all shareholders by $15.5 million,
assuming the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the
cover page of the prospectus, remains the same, and before
deducting the underwriting discounts and estimated offering
expenses payable by us.
The number of shares held by existing stockholders will be
reduced to the extent the underwriters exercise their option to
purchase additional shares. If the underwriters exercise their
option in full, existing stockholders will own a total of
63,816,591 shares, or approximately 78% of our total
outstanding shares, which will increase the average price paid
by the existing stockholders to $4.05 (or, after giving effect
to the December 2006 distribution and the cash dividends
contemplated in connection with the Transactions, decrease the
average price paid by existing stockholders per share to
($0.04)).
61
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CVR Energy, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in September 2006.
CVR Energy has assumed that concurrent with this offering, a
newly formed direct subsidiary of CVR Energy will merge with
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. and a separate
newly formed direct subsidiary of CVR Energy will merge with
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. which will make
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing and Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizers directly owned subsidiaries of CVR Energy.
CVR Energy currently has no assets, liabilities, revenues, or
financial activity of its own. It was organized in connection
with and in order to consummate this offering. This pre-IPO
reorganization transaction will have no financial impact on our
results of operations.
In addition, prior to the consummation of this offering, we
intend to transfer our nitrogen fertilizer business to a newly
created limited partnership in exchange for a managing general
partner interest and a special general partner interest. We
intend to sell the managing general partner interest to an
entity owned by our controlling stockholders and senior
management at fair market value prior to the consummation of
this offering.
In conjunction with our ownership of the special general partner
interest, we will initially own all of the interests in the
Partnership (other than the managing general partner interest
and associated IDRs) and will initially be entitled to all cash
that is distributed by the Partnership. The managing general
partner will not be entitled to participate in Partnership
distributions except in respect of associated IDRs, which
entitle the managing general partner to receive increasing
percentages of the Partnerships quarterly distributions if
the Partnership increases its distributions above an amount
specified in the partnership agreement. The Partnership will not
make any distributions with respect to the IDRs until the
aggregate adjusted operating surplus, as defined in the
partnership agreement, generated by the Partnership during the
period from its formation through June 30, 2009 has been
distributed in respect of the special general partner interests,
which we will hold, and/or the Partnerships common and
subordinated interests (none of which are yet outstanding, but
which would be issued if the Partnership issues equity in the
future). In addition, there will be no distributions paid on the
managing general partners IDRs for so long as the
Partnership or its subsidiaries are guarantors under our Credit
Facility.
The Partnership will be primarily managed by the managing
general partner, but will be operated by our senior management
pursuant to a management services agreement to be entered into
among us, the managing general partner, and the Partnership. In
addition, we will have approval rights regarding the
appointment, termination, and compensation of the chief
executive officer and chief financial officer of the managing
general partner, will designate one member of the board of
directors of the managing general partner and will have approval
rights regarding specified major business decisions by the
managing general partner.
On December 28, 2006, our subsidiary Coffeyville Resources,
LLC entered into a Credit Facility which provides financing of
up to $1.075 billion. The Credit Facility consists of
$775 million of tranche D term loans, a $150 million
revolving credit facility, and a funded letter of credit
facility of $150 million issued in support of the Cash Flow
Swap. The Credit Facility refinanced the first lien and second
lien credit facilities which had been amended and restated on
June 29, 2006.
The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated statements of
operations of CVR Energy, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 have been derived from the audited
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and from the unaudited consolidated
statement of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2007, respectively. The unaudited pro forma
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2007 has been
derived from the unaudited consolidated balance sheet at
March 31, 2007.
The statements of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 are adjusted to give pro forma effect for
the refinancing of the Credit Facility which occurred on
December 28, 2006, the transfer of the nitrogen fertilizer
business to the Partnership,
62
which we will consolidate in our financial statements, the sale
of the managing general partner interest in the Partnership,
this offering, the use of proceeds from this offering, the
Transactions, the termination fee payable in connection with the
termination of the management agreements with Goldman, Sachs
& Co. and Kelso & Company, L.P. in conjunction with
this offering and the issuance of shares of our common stock to
our chief executive officer in exchange for shares in two of our
subsidiaries as if these transactions occurred on
January 1, 2006. The sale of the managing general partner
interest will generate a taxable gain. The unaudited
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2007 has been
adjusted to give effect to the transfer of our nitrogen
fertilizer business to the Partnership, the payment of a
dividend to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC and the sale of the managing general
partner interest in the Partnership to the newly formed entity
owned by our controlling stockholders and senior management and
the related income tax liability due to the recognition of the
gain on such sale for income tax purposes, this offering, the
use of proceeds from this offering, the Transactions, the
termination fee payable in connection with the termination of
the management agreements with Goldman, Sachs & Co.
and Kelso & Company, L.P. in conjunction with this
offering and the issuance of shares of our common stock to our
chief executive officer in exchange for shares in two of our
subsidiaries as if these transactions had occurred on
March 31, 2007.
The unaudited pro forma consolidated financial statements are
provided for informational purposes only and do not purport to
represent or be indicative of the results that actually would
have been obtained had the transactions described above occurred
on January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2007, respectively
and are not intended to project our consolidated financial
condition or results of operations for any future period or at
any future date.
The pro forma adjustments are based on available information and
certain assumptions that we believe are reasonable. The pro
forma adjustments and certain assumptions are described in the
accompanying notes. Other information included under this
heading has been presented to provide additional analysis.
The unaudited pro forma consolidated financial statements set
forth below should be read in conjunction with the historical
financial statements, the related notes and
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations included elsewhere in
this prospectus.
CVR Energy,
Inc.
Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations
For the Year Ended December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
to Give
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment
|
|
|
Effect to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
to Give
|
|
|
Proceeds from
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Adjustments to
|
|
|
Effect to the
|
|
|
the Offering
and
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Give Effect
|
|
|
Sale of the
|
|
|
Payment of the
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
To the
Refinancing
|
|
|
GP
Interest
|
|
|
Termination
Fee
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Sales
|
|
$
|
3,037,567,362
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,037,567,362
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
2,443,374,743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,443,374,743
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
198,979,983
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198,979,983
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
62,600,121
|
|
|
|
941,667
|
(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000,000
|
(h)
|
|
|
73,541,788
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
51,004,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,004,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,755,959,429
|
|
|
|
941,667
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000,000
|
|
|
|
2,766,901,096
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
281,607,933
|
|
|
|
(941,667
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,000,000
|
)
|
|
|
270,666,266
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(43,879,644
|
)
|
|
|
(11,860,425
|
)(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,643,692
|
(f)
|
|
|
(32,096,376
|
)
|
Gain on derivatives
|
|
|
94,493,141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94,493,141
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
(23,360,306
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,360,306
|
)
|
Other income
|
|
|
2,550,359
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,550,359
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
to Give
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment
|
|
|
Effect to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
to Give
|
|
|
Proceeds from
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Adjustments to
|
|
|
Effect to the
|
|
|
the Offering
and
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Give Effect
|
|
|
Sale of the
|
|
|
Payment of the
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
To the
Refinancing
|
|
|
GP
Interest
|
|
|
Termination
Fee
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
311,411,483
|
|
|
|
(12,802,091
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,643,692
|
|
|
|
312,253,084
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
119,840,160
|
|
|
|
(5,104,834
|
)(c)
|
|
|
4,226,750
|
(e)
|
|
|
9,427,922
|
(g)
|
|
|
128,389,998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)(d)
|
|
|
191,571,323
|
|
|
|
(7,697,257
|
)
|
|
|
(4,226,750
|
)
|
|
|
4,215,770
|
|
|
|
183,863,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma earnings per share,
basic(i)
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.15
|
|
Pro forma earnings per share,
diluted(i)
|
|
$
|
2.26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.15
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
basic(i)
|
|
|
84,563,025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,478,437
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
diluted(i)
|
|
|
84,580,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,495,937
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
To reflect the additional increase
in fees related to the refinancing transaction and the related
funded letter of credit in support of the cash flow swaps, which
are required under the terms of the senior secured credit
facility refinanced on December 28, 2006.
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
To increase the interest expense
for (1) additional interest resulting from the refinancing
of the Credit Facility on December 28, 2006 as if it had
occurred on January 1, 2006 and (2) amortization of
the related deferred financing costs of $11.1 million
amortized over the life of the related debt instrument. An
assumed average interest rate of 8.36% based on the interest
rate in effect on the term loans as of December 28, 2006
was used to calculate interest expense on an average annual
balance of $772 million of term debt. Actual interest
expense may be higher or lower depending upon fluctuations in
interest rates. A
1/8%
change in interest rates would have resulted in a $978,504
change in interest expense for the twelve month period.
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
To reflect the income tax effect of
the pro forma pre-tax loss adjustments of $(12,802,091) for the
year ended December 31, 2006 using a combined federal and
state statutory rate of approximately 39.875%.
|
|
|
|
(d)
|
|
Pro forma net earnings includes a
$14.1 million loss on extinguishment of debt, net of
$9.3 million in taxes, related to refinancing of our senior
secured credit facility on December 28, 2006.
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
To reflect the income tax expense
related to the sale of the managing general partner interest in
the Partnership using a combined federal and state statutory
rate of approximately 39.875%.
|
|
|
|
(f)
|
|
To reflect the reduction in
interest expense related to the repayment of long-term debt of
$280 million from the offering proceeds as if it had
occurred on January 1, 2006. An assumed average interest
rate of 8.36% based on the interest rate in effect on the term
loans as of December 28, 2006 was used to calculate the
adjustment to interest expense. Actual interest expense may be
higher or lower depending upon fluctuations in interest rates. A
1/8%
change in interest rates would have resulted in a $624,980
change in interest expense for the twelve month period.
|
|
|
|
(g)
|
|
To reflect the income tax effect of
the pro forma pre-tax income adjustments of $13,643,692 for the
year ended December 31, 2006, based on an effective tax
rate of 69.1%. The effective tax rate was determined by applying
a combined federal and state statutory rate of approximately
39.875% to pro forma pre-tax income adjustments of $23,643,692.
There was no tax effect on pro forma adjustments of pre-tax loss
of $10,000,000 relating to the non-deductible termination fee.
|
|
|
|
(h)
|
|
Reflects $10 million
termination fee in connection with the termination of the
management agreements payable to Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
Kelso & Company, L.P. in conjunction with this offering.
|
|
|
|
(i)
|
|
To calculate earnings per share on
a pro forma basis, based on an assumed number of shares
outstanding at the time of the initial public offering. All
information in this prospectus assumes that prior to the initial
public offering, two newly formed direct wholly owned
subsidiaries of ours will merge with Coffeyville Refinery and
Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc., we
will effect a 658,619.93 for 1 stock split,
252,448 shares of our common stock will be issued to our
chief executive officer in exchange for his shares in two of our
subsidiaries, 27,150 shares of our common stock will be
issued to our employees, 17,500 non-vested restricted shares of
our common stock will be issued to two of our directors, and we
will issue 15,500,000 shares of common stock in this
offering. No effect has been given to any shares that might be
sold in this offering pursuant to the exercise by the
underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares in
the offering. The weighted average shares outstanding also gives
effect to the increase in the number of shares which, when
multiplied by the initial public offering price, would be
sufficient to replace the capital in excess of earnings
withdrawn, as a result of our paying dividends in the year ended
December 31, 2006 in excess of earnings for such period, or
2,921,434 shares. The weighted average number of shares
outstanding for the pro forma column also accounts for the
additional $10.6 million dividend that will be paid to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC.
|
64
CVR Energy,
Inc.
Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro
Forma
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
2007
|
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
|
March 31,
2007
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
390,482,819
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
390,482,819
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
303,670,229
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
303,670,229
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
113,411,569
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113,411,569
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization)
|
|
|
13,149,892
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,149,892
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
14,235,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,235,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
444,467,121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
444,467,121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(53,984,302
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53,984,302
|
)
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(11,856,624
|
)
|
|
|
5,852,000
|
(a)
|
|
|
(6,004,624
|
)
|
Loss on derivatives
|
|
|
(136,959,221
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136,959,221
|
)
|
Other income
|
|
|
452,748
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
452,748
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
and minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
|
(202,347,399
|
)
|
|
|
5,852,000
|
|
|
|
(196,495,399
|
)
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
(47,297,700
|
)
|
|
|
2,333,485
|
(b)
|
|
|
(44,964,215
|
)
|
Minority interest in (income) loss
of subsidiaries
|
|
|
675,747
|
|
|
|
(15,077
|
)(c)
|
|
|
660,670
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(154,373,952
|
)
|
|
|
3,503,438
|
|
|
|
(150,870,514
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma loss per share, basic(d)
|
|
$
|
(1.89
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1.85
|
)
|
Pro forma loss per share,
diluted(d)
|
|
$
|
(1.89
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1.85
|
)
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
basic(d)
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
diluted(d)
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
To reflect the reduction in
interest expense related to the payment of long-term debt of
$280 million from the offering proceeds. An average
interest rate of 8.36% based on the interest rate in effect on
the term loans during the first quarter 2007 was used to
calculate the pro forma interest expense on an average balance
of $495 million of term debt. Actual interest expense may
be higher or lower depending upon fluctuations in interest
rates. A
1/8%
change in interest rates would have resulted in a $154,688
change in interest expense for the three month period.
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
To reflect the income tax effect of
pro forma pre-tax income adjustment of $5,852,000 for the period
ended March 31, 2007 using a combined federal and state
statutory rate of approximately 39.875%.
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
To reflect the adjustment to
minority loss in subsidiaries for the net impact of the pre-tax
income adjustment of $5,852,000 and the related income tax
effect of the adjustment.
|
|
|
|
(d)
|
|
To calculate earnings per share on
a pro forma basis, based on an assumed number of shares
outstanding at the time of the initial public offering. All
information in this prospectus assumes that prior to the initial
public offering, two newly formed direct wholly owned
subsidiaries of CVR Energy will merge with Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizer, Inc., we will effect a 658,619.93 for 1 stock split,
252,448 shares of our common stock will be issued to our
chief executive officer in exchange for his shares in two of our
subsidiaries, 27,150 shares of our common stock will be
issued to our employees, 17,500 non-vested restricted shares of
our common stock will be issued to two of our directors, and we
will issue 15,500,000 shares of common stock in this
offering. No effect has been given to any shares that might be
sold in this offering pursuant to the exercise by the
underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares in
the offering. The 17,500 non-vested restricted shares of our
common stock to be issued to two of our directors have been
excluded from the calculation of pro forma diluted earnings per
share because the inclusion of such shares in the number of
weighted shares outstanding would be antidilutive.
|
65
CVR Energy,
Inc.
Unaudited Pro Forma Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31,
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro
Forma
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
2007
|
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
|
March 31,
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
7,607,943
|
|
|
$
|
(10,600,000
|
)(a)
|
|
$
|
2,940,662
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,600,000
|
(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
310,000,000
|
(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,667,281
|
)(f)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(280,000,000
|
)(g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,000,000
|
)(h)
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of
allowance for doubtful accounts of $140,109
|
|
|
25,197,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,197,308
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
184,418,775
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
184,418,775
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
19,229,965
|
|
|
|
(3,692,934
|
)(f)
|
|
|
15,537,031
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
3,765,991
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,765,991
|
|
Income tax receivable
|
|
|
17,210,500
|
|
|
|
(4,226,750
|
)(c)
|
|
|
12,983,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
257,430,482
|
|
|
|
(12,586,965
|
)
|
|
|
244,843,517
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net
of accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
1,113,555,099
|
|
|
|
1,398,519
|
(d)
|
|
|
1,114,953,618
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
584,081
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
584,081
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
Deferred financing costs, net
|
|
|
8,652,412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,652,412
|
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
5,368,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,368,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,469,365,671
|
|
|
$
|
(11,188,446
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,458,177,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
7,720,986
|
|
|
$
|
(2,789,518
|
)(g)
|
|
$
|
4,931,468
|
|
Revolving debt
|
|
|
29,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,500,000
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
194,575,263
|
|
|
|
(710,215
|
)(f)
|
|
|
193,865,048
|
|
Personnel accruals
|
|
|
20,220,754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,220,754
|
|
Accrued taxes other than income
taxes
|
|
|
7,902,013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,902,013
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
131,071,839
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131,071,839
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
13,879,211
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,879,211
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
22,345,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,345,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
427,215,303
|
|
|
|
(3,499,733
|
)
|
|
|
423,715,570
|
|
Long-term liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
767,279,014
|
|
|
|
(277,210,482
|
)(g)
|
|
|
490,068,532
|
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
|
|
5,879,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,879,762
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
227,709,397
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
227,709,397
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
107,972,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,972,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,108,840,907
|
|
|
|
(277,210,482
|
)
|
|
|
831,630,425
|
|
Minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
|
3,650,441
|
|
|
|
10,600,000
|
(b)
|
|
|
10,600,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,650,441
|
)(d)
|
|
|
|
|
Management voting common units
subject to redemption, 201,063 units issued and outstanding in
2006
|
|
|
7,101,545
|
|
|
|
(92,577
|
)(a)
|
|
|
|
|
Members equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,008,968
|
)(e)
|
|
|
|
|
Voting common units,
22,614,937 units issued and outstanding in 2006
|
|
|
(80,901,264
|
)
|
|
|
(10,412,886
|
)(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101,314,150
|
(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,000,000
|
) (h)
|
|
|
|
|
Management nonvoting override
units, 2,976,353 units issued and outstanding in 2006
|
|
|
3,458,739
|
|
|
|
(94,537
|
)(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,364,202
|
)(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members equity
|
|
$
|
(77,442,525
|
)
|
|
$
|
77,442,525
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRO FORMA STOCKHOLDERS
EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock. $0.01 par value,
350,000,000 shares authorized: 81,641,591 shares
issued and outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
816,416
|
(e)
|
|
|
816,416
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,226,750
|
)(c)
|
|
|
191,414,814
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,048,960
|
(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
218,242,604
|
(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,650,000
|
)(f)
|
|
|
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pro forma stockholders
equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192,231,230
|
|
|
|
192,231,230
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$
|
1,469,365,671
|
|
|
$
|
(11,188,446
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,458,177,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
Reflects estimated payment of a
$10.6 million dividend to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
Reflects gross proceeds of
$10.6 million received for the sale of the managing general
partner interest in the Partnership, through sale of the
managing general partner, to Coffeyville Acquisition III
LLC at estimated fair market value as determined after
consultation with management and a third party valuation firm.
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
Reflects the tax liability
determined at a combined federal and state statutory rate of
approximately 39.875% associated with the estimated gain
recognized on the sale of the managing general partner interest
at estimated fair market value.
|
|
|
|
(d)
|
|
Reflects the exchange of our chief
executive officers shares in two of our subsidiaries for
shares of our common stock at fair market value, resulting in an
estimated step-up in basis in our property, plant and equipment
of approximately $1.4 million.
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
To reflect the public offering of
15,500,000 shares of common stock at an assumed initial
offering price of $20.00 per share resulting in aggregate gross
proceeds of $310.0 million, and in conjunction with the
offering to reflect the conversion from a partnership structure
to a corporate structure of Members equity and Management
voting common units subject to redemption.
|
|
|
|
(f)
|
|
To reflect the payment of
underwriters discounts and commissions and estimated
offering expenses totaling $27.65 million of which
$2,982,719 had been prepaid as of March 31, 2007 and
$710,215 has been accrued as of March 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
(g)
|
|
To reflect the repayment of the
term debt of $280 million with the net proceeds of this
offering.
|
|
|
|
(h)
|
|
Reflects payment of a
$10 million termination fee in connection with the
termination of the management agreements payable to Goldman,
Sachs & Co and Kelso & Company L.P. in conjunction
with this offering.
|
67
SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
You should read the selected historical consolidated financial
data presented below in conjunction with Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and our consolidated financial statements and
the related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus.
The selected consolidated financial information presented below
under the caption Statement of Operations Data for the 62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004, for the 174-day period ended
June 23, 2005, for the 233-day period ended
December 31, 2005 and for the year ended December 31,
2006 and the selected consolidated financial information
presented below under the caption Balance Sheet Data as of
December 31, 2005 and 2006 has been derived from our
audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in
this prospectus, which financial statements have been audited by
KPMG LLP, independent registered public accounting firm. The
consolidated financial information presented below under the
caption Statement of Operations Data for the years ended
December 31, 2002 and 2003, and the consolidated financial
information presented below under the caption Balance Sheet Data
at December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004, are derived from our
audited consolidated financial statements that are not included
in this prospectus. The selected unaudited interim consolidated
financial information presented below under the caption
Statement of Operations Data presented below for the three month
period ended March 31, 2006 and the three month period
ended March 31, 2007, and the selected unaudited interim
consolidated financial information presented below under the
caption Balance Sheet Data as of March 31, 2007, have been
derived from our unaudited interim consolidated financial
statements, which are included elsewhere in this prospectus and
have been prepared on the same basis as the audited consolidated
financial statements. In the opinion of management, the interim
data reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal and
recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of
results for these periods. Operating results for the three month
period ended March 31, 2007 are not necessarily indicative
of the results that may be expected for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
Prior to March 3, 2004, our assets were operated as a
component of Farmland. Farmland filed for bankruptcy protection
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on
May 31, 2002. On March 3, 2004, Coffeyville Resources,
LLC completed the purchase of these assets from Farmland in a
sales process under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code. See note 1 to our consolidated financial statements
included elsewhere in this prospectus. As a result of certain
adjustments made in connection with this acquisition, a new
basis of accounting was established on the date of the
acquisition and the results of operations for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 are not comparable to prior periods.
During Original Predecessor periods, Farmland allocated certain
general corporate expenses and interest expense to Original
Predecessor. The allocation of these costs is not necessarily
indicative of the costs that would have been incurred if
Original Predecessor had operated as a stand-alone entity.
Further, the historical results are not necessarily indicative
of the results to be expected in future periods.
We calculate earnings per share for Successor on a pro forma
basis, based on an assumed number of shares outstanding at the
time of the initial public offering. All information in this
prospectus assumes that in conjunction with the initial public
offering, Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. and
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. will merge with two of
our direct wholly owned subsidiaries, we will effect a
658,619.93 for 1 stock split, 252,448 shares of our common
stock will be issued to our chief executive officer in exchange
for his shares in two of our subsidiaries, 27,150 shares of
our common stock will be issued to our employees,
17,500 non-vested restricted shares of our common stock
will be issued to two of our directors, and we will issue
15,500,000 shares of common stock in this offering. No
effect has been given to any shares that might be sold in this
offering by the selling stockholders pursuant to the exercise by
the underwriters of their option. The weighted average shares
outstanding also gives effect to the increase in number of
shares which, when multiplied by the
68
initial public offering price, would be sufficient to replace
the capital in excess of earnings withdrawn, as a result of our
paying dividends in the year ended December 31, 2006 in
excess of earnings for such period, or 2,921,434 shares.
We have omitted earnings per share data for Immediate
Predecessor because we operated under a different capital
structure than what we will operate under at the time of this
offering and, therefore, the information is not meaningful.
We have omitted per share data for Original Predecessor because,
under Farmlands cooperative structure, earnings of
Original Predecessor were distributed as patronage dividends to
members and associate members based on the level of business
conducted with Original Predecessor as opposed to a common
stockholders proportionate share of underlying equity in
Original Predecessor.
Original Predecessor was not a separate legal entity, and its
operating results were included with the operating results of
Farmland and its subsidiaries in filing consolidated federal and
state income tax returns. As a cooperative, Farmland was subject
to income taxes on all income not distributed to patrons as
qualifying patronage refunds and Farmland did not allocate
income taxes to its divisions. As a result, Original Predecessor
periods do not reflect any provision for income taxes.
On June 24, 2005, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement
dated May 15, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC acquired
all of the subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC. See
note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included
elsewhere in this prospectus. As a result of certain adjustments
made in connection with this acquisition, a new basis of
accounting was established on the date of the acquisition. Since
the assets and liabilities of Successor and Immediate
Predecessor were each presented on a new basis of accounting,
the financial information for Successor, Immediate Predecessor
and Original Predecessor is not comparable.
Financial data for the 2005 fiscal year is presented as the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005. Successor had no financial
statement activity during the period from May 13, 2005 to
June 24, 2005, with the exception of certain crude oil,
heating oil, and gasoline option agreements entered into with a
related party as of May 16, 2005.
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
2006
|
|
|
March 31,
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions,
except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
Statement of Operations
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
669.7
|
|
|
$
|
390.5
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
539.5
|
|
|
|
303.7
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
44.3
|
|
|
|
113.4
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
65.4
|
|
|
$
|
(54.0
|
)
|
Other income
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Interest (expense)
|
|
|
(12.2
|
)
|
|
|
(11.9
|
)
|
Loss on derivatives
|
|
|
(17.6
|
)
|
|
|
(137.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
and minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
$
|
36.2
|
|
|
$
|
(202.4
|
)
|
Income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
(14.1
|
)
|
|
|
47.3
|
|
Minority interest in (income) loss
of subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)(1)
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
$
|
(154.4
|
)
|
Pro forma earnings (loss) per
share, basic
|
|
|
0.27
|
|
|
|
(1.89
|
)
|
Pro forma earnings (loss) per
share, diluted
|
|
|
0.27
|
|
|
|
(1.89
|
)
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
basic
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
diluted
|
|
|
81,659,091
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(169.8
|
)
|
Total assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,469.4
|
|
Total debt, including current
portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
804.5
|
|
Minority interest in subsidiaries(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
Management units subject to
redemption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
Divisional/members equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(77.4
|
)
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
$
|
12.0
|
|
|
$
|
14.2
|
|
Net income (loss) adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap(3)
|
|
|
36.9
|
|
|
|
(82.4
|
)
|
Cash flows provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
Cash flows (used in) investing
activities
|
|
|
(29.3
|
)
|
|
|
(107.4
|
)
|
Cash flows provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
Capital expenditures for property,
plant and equipment
|
|
|
29.3
|
|
|
|
107.4
|
|
Key Operating
Statistics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production (barrels per day)(4)
|
|
|
98,454
|
|
|
|
53,689
|
|
Crude oil throughput (barrels per
day)(4)
|
|
|
85,276
|
|
|
|
47,267
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production Volume:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia (tons in thousands)
|
|
|
102.7
|
|
|
|
86.2
|
|
UAN (tons in thousands)
|
|
|
160.4
|
|
|
|
165.7
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2002
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(in millions, except as otherwise indicated)
|
Statement of Operations
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
887.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,262.2
|
|
|
$
|
261.1
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,479.9
|
|
|
$
|
980.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,454.3
|
|
|
$
|
3,037.6
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
765.8
|
|
|
|
1,061.9
|
|
|
|
221.4
|
|
|
|
|
1,244.2
|
|
|
|
768.0
|
|
|
|
|
1,168.1
|
|
|
|
2,443.4
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
149.4
|
|
|
|
133.1
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
|
117.0
|
|
|
|
80.9
|
|
|
|
|
85.3
|
|
|
|
199.0
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
62.6
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
30.8
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
Impairment, earnings (losses) in
joint ventures, and other charges(5)
|
|
|
(375.1
|
)
|
|
|
(10.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
(loss)
|
|
$
|
(449.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
29.4
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
112.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
158.5
|
|
|
$
|
281.6
|
|
Other income (expense)(6)
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.9
|
)
|
|
|
(8.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
(20.8
|
)
|
Interest (expense)
|
|
|
(11.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.1
|
)
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
(25.0
|
)
|
|
|
(43.9
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivatives
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
(316.1
|
)
|
|
|
94.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
$
|
(465.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
83.5
|
|
|
$
|
88.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
(182.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
311.4
|
|
Income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33.8
|
)
|
|
|
(36.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
63.0
|
|
|
|
(119.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)(1)
|
|
$
|
(465.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
191.6
|
|
Pro forma earnings per share, basic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
Pro forma earnings per share,
diluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.26
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
basic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,563,025
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares,
diluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,580,525
|
|
Historical dividends:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred per unit(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common per unit(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
0.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management common units subject to
redemption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.1
|
|
Common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
246.9
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
0.0
|
|
|
$
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
52.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
64.7
|
|
|
$
|
41.9
|
|
Working capital(8)
|
|
|
122.2
|
|
|
|
150.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
108.0
|
|
|
|
112.3
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
172.3
|
|
|
|
199.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
229.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,221.5
|
|
|
|
1,449.5
|
|
Liabilities subject to compromise(9)
|
|
|
105.2
|
|
|
|
105.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt, including current
portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
499.4
|
|
|
|
775.0
|
|
Minority Interest in subsidiaries(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Management units subject to
redemption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
Divisional/members equity
|
|
|
49.8
|
|
|
|
58.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115.8
|
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
$
|
30.8
|
|
|
$
|
3.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.4
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
$
|
24.0
|
|
|
$
|
51.0
|
|
Net income (loss) adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap(3)
|
|
|
(465.7
|
)
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
49.7
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
115.4
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in)
operating activities
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
53.2
|
|
|
|
|
89.8
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
|
82.5
|
|
|
|
186.6
|
|
Cash flows (used in) investing
activities
|
|
|
(272.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(130.8
|
)
|
|
|
(12.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
(730.3
|
)
|
|
|
(240.2
|
)
|
Cash flows provided by (used in)
financing activities
|
|
|
274.1
|
|
|
|
(19.5
|
)
|
|
|
(53.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
93.6
|
|
|
|
(52.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
712.5
|
|
|
|
30.8
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2002
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(in millions, except as otherwise indicated)
|
Capital expenditures for property,
plant and equipment
|
|
|
272.4
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
|
45.2
|
|
|
|
240.2
|
|
Key Operating
Statistics:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production (barrels per day)(4)(10)
|
|
|
84,343
|
|
|
|
95,701
|
|
|
|
106,645
|
|
|
|
|
102,046
|
|
|
|
99,171
|
|
|
|
|
107,177
|
|
|
|
108,031
|
|
Crude oil throughput (barrels per
day)(4)(10)
|
|
|
74,446
|
|
|
|
85,501
|
|
|
|
92,596
|
|
|
|
|
90,418
|
|
|
|
88,012
|
|
|
|
|
93,908
|
|
|
|
94,524
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production Volume:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia (tons in thousands)(4)
|
|
|
265.1
|
|
|
|
335.7
|
|
|
|
56.4
|
|
|
|
|
252.8
|
|
|
|
193.2
|
|
|
|
|
220.0
|
|
|
|
369.3
|
|
UAN (tons in thousands)(4)
|
|
|
434.6
|
|
|
|
510.6
|
|
|
|
93.4
|
|
|
|
|
439.2
|
|
|
|
309.9
|
|
|
|
|
353.4
|
|
|
|
633.1
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
The following are certain charges
and costs incurred in each of the relevant periods that are
meaningful to understanding our net income and in evaluating our
performance due to their unusual or infrequent nature:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Year
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
Year
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
2002
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
Impairment of property, plant and
equipment(a)
|
|
$
|
375.1
|
|
|
$
|
9.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Fertilizer lease payments(b)
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory fair market value
adjustment(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded letter of credit expense and
interest rate swap not included in interest expense(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major scheduled turnaround
expense(f)
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
Loss on termination of swap(g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gain) loss from Cash
Flow Swap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235.9
|
|
|
|
(126.8
|
)
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
119.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
During the year ended
December 31, 2002, we recorded a $375.1 million asset
impairment related to the write-down of our refinery and
nitrogen fertilizer plant to estimated fair value. During the
year ended December 31, 2003, we recorded an additional
charge of $9.6 million related to the asset impairment of
our refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant based on the expected
sales price of the assets in the Initial Acquisition.
|
|
(b)
|
|
Reflects the impact of an operating
lease structure utilized by Farmland to finance the nitrogen
fertilizer plant which operating lease structure is not
currently in use. The cost of this plant under the operating
lease was $263.0 million and the rental payment was
$0.3 million for the period ended December 31, 2002.
In February 2002, Farmland refinanced the operating lease into a
secured loan structure, which effectively terminated the lease
and all of Farmlands obligations under the lease.
|
72
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
Represents the write-off of
$7.2 million of deferred financing costs in connection with
the refinancing of our senior secured credit facility on
May 10, 2004, the write-off of $8.1 million of
deferred financing costs in connection with the refinancing of
our senior secured credit facility on June 23, 2005 and the
write-off of
$23.4 million in connection with the refinancing of our senior
secured credit facility on December 28, 2006.
|
|
(d)
|
|
Consists of the additional cost of
product sold expense due to the step up to estimated fair value
of certain inventories on hand at March 3, 2004 and
June 24, 2005, as a result of the allocation of the
purchase price of the Initial Acquisition and the Subsequent
Acquisition to inventory.
|
|
(e)
|
|
Consists of fees which are expensed
to Selling, general and administrative expenses in connection
with the funded letter of credit facility of $150.0 million
issued in support of the Cash Flow Swap. We consider these fees
to be equivalent to interest expense and the fees are treated as
such in the calculation of EBITDA in the Credit Facility.
|
|
(f)
|
|
Represents expense associated with
a major scheduled turnaround.
|
|
(g)
|
|
Represents the expense associated
with the expiration of the crude oil, heating oil and gasoline
option agreements entered into by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in
May 2005.
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
Minority interest reflects common
stock in two of our subsidiaries owned by John J. Lipinski
(which will be exchanged for shares of our common stock with an
equivalent value prior to the consummation of this offering).
|
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
Net income adjusted for unrealized
gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap results from adjusting for the
derivative transaction that was executed in conjunction with the
Subsequent Acquisition. On June 16, 2005, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC entered into the Cash Flow Swap with J. Aron, a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and a related party
of ours. The Cash Flow Swap was subsequently assigned by
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC to Coffeyville Resources, LLC on
June 24, 2005. Under these agreements, sales representing
approximately 70% and 17% of then forecasted refinery output for
the periods from July 2005 through June 2009, and July 2009
through June 2010, respectively, have been economically hedged.
The derivative took the form of three NYMEX swap agreements
whereby if crack spreads fall below the fixed level,
J. Aron agreed to pay the difference to us, and if crack
spreads rise above the fixed level, we agreed to pay the
difference to J. Aron. See Description of Our
Indebtedness and the Cash Flow Swap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have determined that the Cash
Flow Swap does not qualify as a hedge for hedge accounting
purposes under current GAAP. As a result, our periodic
statements of operations reflect material amounts of unrealized
gains and losses based on the increases or decreases in market
value of the unsettled position under the swap agreements, which
is accounted for as a liability on our balance sheet. As the
crack spreads increase we are required to record an increase in
this liability account with a corresponding expense entry to be
made to our statement of operations. Conversely, as crack
spreads decline we are required to record a decrease in the swap
related liability and post a corresponding income entry to our
statement of operations. Because of this inverse relationship
between the economic outlook for our underlying business (as
represented by crack spread levels) and the income impact of the
unrecognized gains and losses, and given the significant
periodic fluctuations in the amounts of unrealized gains and
losses, management utilizes Net income adjusted for gain or loss
from Cash Flow Swap as a key indicator of our business
performance. In managing our business and assessing its growth
and profitability from a strategic and financial planning
perspective, management and our Board of Directors considers our
U.S. GAAP net income results as well as Net income adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap. We believe that Net
income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap
enhances the understanding of our results of operations by
highlighting income attributable to our ongoing operating
performance exclusive of charges and income resulting from mark
to market adjustments that are not necessarily indicative of the
performance of our underlying business and our industry. The
adjustment has been made for the unrealized loss from Cash Flow
Swap net of its related tax benefit.
|
|
|
|
Net income adjusted for gain or
loss from Cash Flow Swap is not a recognized term under GAAP and
should not be substituted for net income as a measure of our
performance but instead should be utilized as a supplemental
measure of financial performance or liquidity in evaluating our
business. Because Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or
loss from Cash Flow Swap excludes mark to market adjustments,
the measure does not reflect the fair market value of our Cash
Flow Swap in our net income. As a result, the measure does not
include potential cash payments that may be required to be made
on the Cash Flow Swap in the future. Also, our presentation of
this non-GAAP measure may not be comparable to similarly titled
measures of other companies.
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
The following is a reconciliation
of Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from Cash
Flow Swap to Net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
Year
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
2002
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) adjusted for
unrealized gain (loss) from Cash Flow Swap
|
|
$
|
(465.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.6
|
|
|
$
|
115.4
|
|
|
|
36.9
|
|
|
|
(82.4
|
)
|
Plus:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) from Cash
Flow Swap, net of tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.8
|
)
|
|
|
76.2
|
|
|
|
(14.8
|
)
|
|
|
(72.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(465.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
191.6
|
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
$
|
(154.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4)
|
|
Barrels per day is calculated by
dividing the volume in the period by the number of calendar days
in the period. Barrels per day as shown here is impacted by
plant down-time and other plant disruptions and does not
represent the capacity of the facilitys continuous
operations.
|
|
|
|
(5)
|
|
Includes the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended
December 31, 2002, we recorded a $375.1 million asset
impairment related to the write-down of the refinery and
nitrogen fertilizer plant to estimated fair value.
|
|
|
|
During the year ended
December 31, 2003, we recorded an additional charge of
$9.6 million related to the asset impairment of the
refinery and fertilizer plant based on the expected sales price
of the assets in the Initial Acquisition. In addition, we
recorded a charge of $1.3 million for the rejection of
existing contracts while operating under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
|
|
|
|
(6)
|
|
During the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004, the 174 days ended June 23,
2005 and the year ended December 31, 2006, we recognized a
loss of $7.2 million, $8.1 million and $23.4 million,
respectively, on early extinguishment of debt.
|
|
|
|
(7)
|
|
Historical dividends per unit for
the 304-day
period ended December 31, 2004 and the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005 are calculated based on the
ownership structure of Immediate Predecessor.
|
|
|
|
(8)
|
|
Excludes liabilities subject to
compromise due to Original Predecessors bankruptcy of
$105.2 million as of December 31, 2002 and 2003 in
calculating Original Predecessors working capital.
|
|
|
|
(9)
|
|
While operating under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Original
Predecessors financial statements were prepared in
accordance with
SOP 90-7
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under
Bankruptcy Code.
SOP 90-7
requires that pre-petition liabilities be segregated in the
Balance Sheet.
|
|
|
|
(10)
|
|
Operational information reflected
for the
233-day
Successor period ended December 31, 2005 includes only
191 days of operational activity. Successor was formed on
May 13, 2005 but had no financial statement activity during
the 42-day
period from May 13, 2005 to June 24, 2005, with the
exception of certain crude oil, heating oil and gasoline option
agreements entered into with J. Aron as of May 16,
2005 which expired unexercised on June 16, 2005.
|
74
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our
financial condition and results of operations in conjunction
with our financial statements and related notes included
elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion and analysis
contains forward-looking statements that involve risks,
uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results may differ
materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking
statements as a result of a number of factors, including, but
not limited to, those set forth under Risk Factors,
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
and elsewhere in this prospectus.
Overview and Executive Summary
We are an independent refiner and marketer of high value
transportation fuels and, through a limited partnership in which
we will initially own all of the interests (other than the
managing general partner interest and associated IDRs), a
producer of ammonia and UAN fertilizers. We are one of only
seven petroleum refiners and marketers in the Coffeyville supply
area (Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa) and, at
current natural gas prices, the nitrogen fertilizer business is
the lowest cost producer and marketer of ammonia and UAN in
North America.
We have two business segments: petroleum and nitrogen
fertilizer. For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004,
2005 and 2006, we generated combined net sales of
$1.7 billion, $2.4 billion and $3.0 billion,
respectively. Our petroleum business generated
$1.6 billion, $2.3 billion and $2.9 billion of
our combined net sales, respectively, over these periods, with
the nitrogen fertilizer business generating substantially all of
the remainder. In addition, during these periods, our petroleum
business contributed 76%, 74% and 87% of our combined operating
income, respectively, with the nitrogen fertilizer business
contributing substantially all of the remainder.
Our petroleum business includes a 108,000 bpd complex full
coking sour crude refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas (with capacity
expected to reach approximately 115,000 bpd by the end of 2007).
In addition, supporting businesses include (1) a crude oil
gathering system serving central Kansas and northern Oklahoma,
(2) storage and terminal facilities for asphalt and refined
fuels in Phillipsburg, Kansas, and (3) a rack marketing
division supplying product through tanker trucks directly to
customers located in close geographic proximity to Coffeyville
and Phillipsburg and at throughput terminals on Magellans
refined products distribution systems. In addition to rack sales
(sales which are made at terminals into third party tanker
trucks), we make bulk sales (sales through third party
pipelines) into the mid-continent markets via Magellan and into
Colorado and other destinations utilizing the product pipeline
networks owned by Magellan, Enterprise and NuStar. Our refinery
is situated approximately 100 miles from Cushing, Oklahoma,
one of the largest crude oil trading and storage hubs in the
United States, served by numerous pipelines from locations
including the U.S. Gulf Coast and Canada, providing us with
access to virtually any crude variety in the world capable of
being transported by pipeline.
Throughput (the volume processed at a facility) at the refinery
has markedly increased since July 2005. Managements focus
on crude slate optimization (the process of determining the most
economic crude oils to be refined), reliability, technical
support and operational excellence coupled with prudent
expenditures on equipment has significantly improved the
operating metrics of the refinery. Historically, the Coffeyville
refinery operated at an average crude throughput rate of less
than 90,000 bpd. In the second quarter of 2006, the plant
averaged over 102,000 bpd of crude throughput and over
94,500 bpd for 2006 with peak daily rates in excess of
108,000 bpd. Not only were rates increased but yields were
simultaneously improved. Since June 2005 the refinery has
eclipsed monthly record (30 day) processing rates on
approximately two thirds of the individual units on site.
Crude is supplied to our refinery through our owned and leased
gathering system and by a Plains pipeline from Cushing,
Oklahoma. We maintain capacity on the Spearhead Pipeline from
Canada and receive foreign and deepwater domestic crudes via the
Seaway Pipeline system. We also
75
maintain leased storage in Cushing to facilitate optimal crude
purchasing and blending. We have significantly expanded the
variety of crude grades processed in any given month from a
limited few to nearly a dozen, including onshore and offshore
domestic grades, various Canadian sours, heavy sours and sweet
synthetics, and a variety of South American and West African
imported grades. As a result of the crude slate optimization, we
have improved the crude purchase cost discount to WTI from $3.33
per barrel in 2005 to $4.75 per barrel in 2006. The crude
purchase cost discount to WTI was $5.39 per barrel in the three
months ended March 31, 2006 and $3.96 per barrel in the
three months ended March 31, 2007.
Prior to July 2005, we did not maintain shipper status on the
Magellan pipeline system. Instead, rack marketing was limited to
our owned terminals. Today, while we still rack market at our
own terminals, our growing rack marketing network sells
approximately 23% of produced transportation fuels at enhanced
margins. For 2006, we improved net income on rack sales compared
to alternative pipeline bulk sales that occurred in 2005.
The nitrogen fertilizer business in Coffeyville, Kansas includes
a unique pet coke gasification facility that produces high
purity hydrogen which in turn is converted to ammonia at a
related ammonia synthesis plant. Ammonia is further upgraded
into UAN solution in a related UAN plant. Pet coke is a low
value by-product of the refinery coking process. On average more
than 80% of the pet coke consumed by the fertilizer plant is
produced by our refinery.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is the lowest cost producer of
ammonia and UAN in North America, assuming natural gas prices
remain at current levels. The fertilizer plant is the only
commercial facility in North America utilizing a coke
gasification process to produce nitrogen fertilizers. Its
redundant train gasifier provides exceptional on-stream
reliability and the use of low cost by-product pet coke feed
(rather than natural gas) to produce hydrogen provides the
facility with a significant competitive advantage due to high
and volatile natural gas prices. The plants competition
utilizes natural gas to produce ammonia. Continual operational
improvements resulted in producing nearly 750,000 tons of
product in 2006, despite it being a turnaround year. Recently,
the first phase of a planned expansion successfully resulted in
further output. The Partnership is also considering a
$40 million fertilizer plant expansion, which we estimate
could increase the plants capacity to upgrade ammonia into
premium priced UAN by 50% to approximately 1,000,000 tons per
year. This project is also expected to improve the cost
structure of the nitrogen fertilizer business by eliminating the
need for rail shipments of ammonia, thereby reducing the risks
associated with such rail shipments and avoiding anticipated
cost increases in such transport.
Management has identified and developed several significant
capital projects since June 2005 with a total cost of
approximately $520 million. Most of these capital
expenditures have already been completed and the remainder will
be in service before the end of 2007. Major projects include
construction of a new diesel hydrotreater, a new continuous
catalytic reformer, a new sulfur recovery unit, a new plant-wide
flare system, a technology upgrade to the fluid catalytic
cracking unit and a refinery-wide capacity expansion. The spare
gasifier at the fertilizer plant was expanded and it is expected
that ammonia production will increase by at least
6,500 tons per year. Once completed, these projects are
intended to significantly enhance the profitability of the
refinery in environments of high crack spreads and allow the
refinery to operate more profitably at lower crack spreads than
is currently possible.
Factors Affecting
Comparability
Our results over the past three years have been and our future
results will be influenced by the following factors, which are
fundamental to understanding comparisons of our
period-to-period
financial performance.
76
Acquisitions
On March 3, 2004, Coffeyville Resources, LLC completed the
acquisition of the former Farmland petroleum division and one
facility within Farmlands eight-plant nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturing and marketing division. As a result, financial
information as of and for the periods prior to March 3,
2004 discussed below and included elsewhere in this prospectus
was derived from the financial statements and reporting systems
of Farmland. Prior to March 3, 2004, Farmlands
petroleum division was primarily comprised of our current
petroleum business. The nitrogen fertilizer plant, however, was
the only coke gasification facility within Farmlands
eight-plant nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing and marketing
division.
A new basis of accounting was established on the date of the
Initial Acquisition and, therefore, the financial position and
operating results after March 3, 2004 are not consistent
with the operating results before the Initial Acquisition date.
However, management believes the most meaningful way to comment
on the statement of operations data due to the short period from
January 1, 2004 to March 2, 2004 is to compare the sum
of the operating results for both periods in 2004 with the sum
of the operating results for both periods in 2005. Management
believes it is not practical to comment on the cash flows from
operating activities in the same manner because the Initial
Acquisition resulted in some comparisons not being meaningful.
For instance, we did not assume the accounts receivable or the
accounts payable of Farmland. Farmland collected and made
payments on these accounts after March 3, 2004, and these
transactions are not included in our consolidated statements of
cash flows.
On June 24, 2005, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement
dated May 15, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC acquired
all of the subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC. As a
result of certain adjustments made in connection with this
acquisition, a new basis of accounting was established on the
date of the acquisition and the results of operations for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 are not comparable to
prior periods. In connection with the acquisition, Coffeyville
Resources, LLC entered into a series of commodity derivative
contracts, the Cash Flow Swap, in the form of three long-term
swap agreements pursuant to which sales representing
approximately 70% and 17% of then forecasted refinery output for
the periods from July 2005 through June 2009, and July 2009
through June 2010, respectively, has been economically hedged.
We have determined that the Cash Flow Swap does not qualify as a
hedge for hedge accounting purposes under Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards, or SFAS, No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Activities. Therefore, in the
financial statements for all periods after July 1, 2005,
the statement of operations reflects all the realized and
unrealized gains and losses from this swap. For the 233 day
period ending December 31, 2005, we recorded realized and
unrealized losses of $59.3 million and $235.9 million,
respectively. For the year ending December 31, 2006, we
recorded net realized losses of $46.8 million and net
unrealized gains of $126.8 million. For the three months
ended March 31, 2007, we recorded net realized losses of
$8.5 million and net unrealized losses of
$119.7 million.
Original
Predecessor Corporate Allocations
Our financial statements prior to March 3, 2004 reflect an
allocation of certain general corporate expenses of Farmland,
including general and corporate insurance, property insurance,
corporate retirement and benefits, human resource and payroll
department salaries, facility costs, information services, and
information systems support. For the year ended
December 31, 2003 and for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, these costs allocated to our
businesses were approximately $12.7 million and
$3.9 million, respectively. Our financial statements prior
to March 3, 2004 also reflect an allocation of interest
expense from Farmland. These allocations were made by Farmland
on a basis deemed meaningful for their internal management needs
and may not be representative of the actual expense levels
required to operate the businesses at that time or as they have
been operated after March 3, 2004. With the exception of
insurance, the net impact to our financial statements as a
result of these allocations is higher selling, general and
administrative expense for the period from January 1, 2003
to March 2, 2004. Our insurance costs are greater now as
compared to the period prior to March 3, 2004, as we have
elected to obtain additional insurance coverage that had not
been
77
carried by Farmland. Examples of this additional insurance
coverage are business interruption insurance and a remediation
cost cap policy related to assumed RCRA corrective orders
related to contamination at or that originated from our refinery
and the Phillipsburg terminal. The preceding examples and other
coverage changes resulted in additional insurance costs for us.
Asset
Impairments
In December 2002, Farmland implemented SFAS No. 144,
Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived
Assets, resulting in a reorganization expense from the
impairment of long-lived assets. Under this Statement,
recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by
comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to the estimated
undiscounted future net cash flows expected to be generated by
the asset. It was determined that the carrying amount of the
petroleum assets and the carrying amount of the nitrogen
fertilizer plant in Coffeyville exceeded their estimated future
undiscounted net cash flow. Impairment charges of
$144.3 million and $230.8 million were recognized for
each of the refinery and fertilizer assets, based on
Farmlands best assumptions regarding the use and eventual
disposition of those assets, primarily from indications of value
received from potential bidders through the bankruptcy sale
process. In 2003, as a result of receiving a bid from
Coffeyville Resources, LLC in the bankruptcy courts sales
process, Farmland revised its estimate for the amount to be
generated from the disposition of these assets, and an
additional impairment charge was taken. The charge to earnings
in 2003 was $3.9 million and $5.7 million,
respectively, for the refinery and fertilizer assets.
Original
Predecessor Agreements with CHS, Inc. and Agriliance,
LLC
In December 2001, Farmland entered into an agreement to sell to
CHS, Inc. all of Farmlands refined products produced at
the Coffeyville refinery through November 2003. The selling
price for this production was set by reference to daily market
prices within a defined geographic region. Subsequent to the
expiration of the CHS agreement, the petroleum business began
marketing its refined products in the open market to multiple
customers.
The revenue received by the petroleum business under the CHS
agreement was limited due to the pricing formula and product
mix. From December 2001 through November 2003, under the CHS
agreement, both sales of bulk pipeline shipments and truckload
quantities at the Coffeyville truck rack were priced at
Group III Platts Low. Currently, all sales at the
Coffeyville truck rack are sold at the Platts mean price or
higher. Our term contracted bulk product sales are priced
between the Platts low and Platts mean prices. All other bulk
sales are sold at spot market prices. In addition, we are
selling several value added products that were not produced
under the CHS agreement.
For the period ending December 31, 2003 and the first
62 days of 2004, Farmlands sales of nitrogen
fertilizer products were subject to a marketing agreement with
Agriliance, LLC. Under the agreement, Agriliance, LLC was
responsible for marketing substantially all of the nitrogen made
by Farmland on a basis deemed meaningful to their internal
management. Following the Initial Acquisition, we began
marketing nitrogen fertilizer products directly to distributors
and dealers. As a result, we have been able to generate higher
average netbacks on sales of fertilizer products as a percentage
of market average prices. For example, in 2004 we generated
average netbacks as a percentage of market averages of 90.1% and
80.2% for ammonia and UAN, respectively, compared to average
netbacks as a percentage of market averages of 86.6% and 75.9%
for ammonia and UAN, respectively, in 2003.
Refinancing
and Prior Indebtedness
At March 3, 2004, Immediate Predecessor entered into an
agreement with a financial institution for a term loan of
$21.9 million with an interest rate based on the greater of
the Index Rate (the greater of prime or the federal funds rate
plus 50 basis points per year) plus 4.5% or 9% and a
$100 million revolving credit facility with interest at the
borrowers election of either the Index Rate
78
plus 3% or LIBOR plus 3.5%. Amounts totaling $21.9 million
of the term loan borrowings and $38.8 million of the
revolving credit facility were used to finance the Initial
Acquisition on March 3, 2004 as described above.
Outstanding borrowings on May 10, 2004 were repaid in
connection with the refinancing described below.
Effective May 10, 2004, Immediate Predecessor entered into
a term loan of $150 million and a $75 million
revolving loan facility with a syndicate of banks, financial
institutions, and institutional lenders. Both loans were secured
by substantially all of Immediate Predecessors real and
personal property, including receivables, contract rights,
general intangibles, inventories, equipment, and financial
assets. The covenants contained under the new term loan
contained restrictions which limited the ability to pay
dividends at the complete discretion of the Board of Directors.
The Immediate Predecessor had no other restrictions on its
ability to make dividend payments. Once any debt requirements
were met, any dividends were at the discretion of the Board of
Directors. There were outstanding borrowings of
$148.9 million under the term loan and less than
$0.1 million under the revolving loan facility at
December 31, 2004. Outstanding borrowings on June 23,
2005 were repaid in connection with the Subsequent Acquisition
as described above.
Effective June 24, 2005, Coffeyville Resources, LLC entered
into a first lien credit facility and a second lien credit
facility. The first lien credit facility was in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $525 million, consisting of
$225 million tranche B term loans; $50 million of
delayed draw term loans available for the first 18 months
of the agreement and subject to accelerated payment terms; a
$100 million revolving loan facility; and a funded letter
of credit facility (funded facility) of $150 million for
the benefit of the Cash Flow Swap provider. The first lien
credit facility was secured by substantially all of Coffeyville
Resources, LLCs assets. In June 2006 the first lien credit
facility was amended and restated and the $225 million of
tranche B term loans were refinanced with $225 million
of tranche C term loans. At September 30, 2006,
$222.8 million of tranche C term loans was
outstanding, $30 million of delayed draw term loans was
outstanding and there was $93.6 million available under the
revolving loan facility. At September 30, 2006, Coffeyville
Resources, LLC had $150 million in a funded letter of
credit outstanding to secure payment obligations under
derivative financial instruments. The second lien credit
facility was a $275 million term loan facility secured by
substantially all of Coffeyville Resources, LLCs assets on
a second priority basis.
On December 28, 2006, Coffeyville Resources, LLC entered
into a new credit facility and used the proceeds thereof to
repay its then existing first lien credit facility and second
lien credit facility, and to pay a dividend to the members of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. The credit facility provides
financing of up to $1.075 billion, consisting of
$775 million of tranche D term loans, a
$150 million revolving credit facility, and a funded letter
of credit facility of $150 million issued in support of the
Cash Flow Swap. The credit facility is secured by substantially
all of Coffeyville Resources, LLCs assets. See
Description of Our Indebtedness and the Cash Flow
Swap.
Public Company
Expenses
We expect that our general and administrative expenses will
increase due to the costs of operating as a public company, such
as increases in legal, accounting and compliance, insurance
premiums, and investor relations. We estimate that the increase
in these costs will total approximately $2.5 million to
$3.0 million on an annual basis excluding the costs
associated with this offering and the costs of the initial
implementation of our Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 internal
controls review and testing. Our financial statements following
this offering will reflect the impact of these expenses and will
affect the comparability with our financial statements of
periods prior to the completion of this offering.
Changes in
Legal Structure
Original Predecessor was not a separate legal entity, and its
operating results were included within the operating results of
Farmland and its subsidiaries in filing consolidated federal and
state
79
income tax returns. As a cooperative, Farmland was subject to
income taxes on all income not distributed to patrons as
qualified patronage refunds, and Farmland did not allocate
income taxes to its divisions. As a result, the accompanying
Original Predecessor financial statements do not reflect any
provision for income taxes.
2007
Turnaround
In April 2007, we completed a turnaround of our refining plant
at a total cost of approximately $77 million. The refinery
processed crude until February 11, 2007 at which time a
staged shutdown of the refinery began. The refinery recommenced
operations on March 22, 2007 and continually increased
crude oil charge rates until all of the key units were restarted
by April 23, 2007. Additional capital expenditures of
approximately $156 million will be required to finish the
expansion projects currently scheduled for completion by the end
of 2007, which include, among others, expansion of our fluid
catalytic cracking unit and delayed coker and construction of
our new continuous catalytic reformer. Management expects that
completion of these expansion projects will increase the
refinery processing capacity to approximately 115,000 bpd of
crude oil by the end of 2007. The turnaround had a significant
adverse impact on our first quarter financial results and will
have a significant but smaller adverse impact on our second
quarter financial results.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Limited Partnership
Prior to the consummation of this offering, we will transfer our
nitrogen fertilizer business to the Partnership and will sell
the managing general partner interest in the Partnership to a
new entity owned by our controlling stockholders and senior
management. We will initially own all of the interests in the
Partnership (other than the managing general partner interest
and associated IDRs), and will initially be entitled to all cash
that is distributed by the Partnership. The Partnership will be
primarily managed by the managing general partner, but will be
operated by our senior management pursuant to a management
services agreement to be entered into among us, the managing
general partner and the Partnership. In addition, we will have
approval rights regarding the appointment, termination and
compensation of the chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of the managing general partner, will designate one
member to the board of directors of the managing general partner
and will have approval rights regarding specified major business
decisions by the managing general partner.
We intend to consolidate the Partnership for financial reporting
purposes. We have determined that upon the sale of the managing
general partner interest to an entity owned by our controlling
stockholders and senior management, the Partnership will be a
variable interest entity, or VIE, under the provisions of FASB
Interpretation No. 46R Consolidation of
Variable Interest Entities, or FIN No. 46R.
Using criteria in FIN 46R, management has determined that
we are the primary beneficiary of the Partnership, although 100%
of the managing general partner interest will be owned by our
affiliates outside our reporting structure. Since we are the
primary beneficiary, the financial statements of the Partnership
will remain consolidated in our financial statements. The
managing general partners interest will be reflected as a
minority interest on our balance sheet.
The conclusion that we are the primary beneficiary of the
Partnership and required to consolidate the Partnership as a
variable interest entity is based upon the fact that the
managing general partner is our related party and that we are
more closely associated with the Partnership than the managing
general partner is. We believe we are more closely associated
with the Partnership because we will continue to participate
significantly in the Partnerships profits and losses. We,
as holder of all of the special units, will have the obligation
to absorb the Partnerships economic risks. Also, the
Partnership will be operated by our senior management pursuant
to a management services agreement, and significant intercompany
agreements will govern the business relationships between us and
the Partnership.
80
We will need to reassess from time to time whether we remain the
primary beneficiary of the Partnership in order to determine if
consolidation of the Partnership remains appropriate on a going
forward basis. Should we determine that we are no longer the
primary beneficiary of the Partnership, we will be required to
deconsolidate the Partnership in our financial statements for
accounting purposes on a going forward basis. In that event, we
would be required to account for our investment in the
Partnership under the equity method of accounting, which would
affect our reported amounts of consolidated revenues, expenses
and other income statement items.
The principal events that would require the reassessment of our
accounting treatment related to our interest in the Partnership
include:
|
|
|
|
|
a sale of some or all of our partnership interests to an
unrelated party;
|
|
|
|
a sale of the managing general partner interest to a third party;
|
|
|
|
the issuance by the Partnership of partnership interests to
parties other than us or our related parties; and
|
|
|
|
the acquisition by us of additional partnership interests
(either new interests issued by the Partnership or interests
acquired from unrelated interest holders).
|
In addition, we would need to reassess our consolidation of the
Partnership if the Partnerships governing documents or
contractual arrangements are changed in a manner that
reallocates between us and other unrelated parties either
(1) the obligation to absorb the expected losses of the
Partnership or (2) the right to receive the expected
residual returns of the Partnership.
Industry
Factors
Earnings for our petroleum business depend largely on refining
industry margins, which have been and continue to be volatile.
Crude oil and refined product prices depend on factors beyond
our control. While it is impossible to predict refining margins
due to the uncertainties associated with global crude oil supply
and global and domestic demand for refined products, we believe
that refining margins for U.S. refineries will generally
remain above those experienced in the period from and including
1998 through 2003 as growth in demand for refining products in
the United States, particularly transportation fuels, continues
to exceed the ability of domestic refiners to increase capacity.
In addition, changes in global supply and demand and other
factors have constricted the extent to which product importation
to the United States can relieve domestic supply deficits. This
phenomenon is more pronounced in our marketing region, where
demand for refined products exceeded refining production by
approximately 22% in 2006.
During 2004, the market price of distillates (primarily
No. 1 diesel fuel and kerosene) relative to crude oil was
above average due to low industry inventories and strong
consumer demand brought about by the relatively cold winter
weather in the Midwest and high natural gas prices. In addition,
gasoline margins were above average, and substantially so during
the spring and summer driving seasons, primarily because of very
low pre-driving season inventories exacerbated by high demand
growth. The increased demand for refined products due to the
relatively cold winter and the decreased supply due to high
turnaround activity led to increasing refining margins during
the early part of 2004. The key event of 2005 to our industry
was the hurricane season which produced a record number of named
storms. The location and intensity of these storms caused
significant disruption to both crude and natural gas production
as well as extensive disruption to many U.S. Gulf Coast
refinery operations. These events caused both price spikes in
the commodity markets as well as substantial increases in crack
spreads. The U.S. Gulf Coast refining market was most
affected, which then led to very strong margins in the Group 3
market as the U.S. Gulf Coast refined products were not
being shipped north. In addition, several environmental mandates
took effect in 2005 and 2006, such as the banning of Methyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether, or MTBE (an ether produced from the
reaction of isobutylene and methanol specifically for use as a
gasoline blendstock), in the gasoline pool and initial
implementation of the reduced sulfur requirements on diesel
fuels, which caused price
81
fluctuations due to logistical and supply/demand implications.
2006 showed marked increases in crack spreads over 2005 despite
a minor hurricane season. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, or ULSD,
premiums further boosted distillate product margins and thus
crack spreads in 2006. Transportation fuels product demand
continued to exceed production in the Coffeyville Marketing
Area. This favorable supply/demand relationship resulted in
strong product commodity prices in the petroleum industry during
2006.
Average discounts for sour and heavy sour crude oil compared to
sweet crude increased in 2005 and 2006 from already favorable
2004 levels due to increasing worldwide production of sour and
heavy sour crude oil relative to the worldwide production of
light sweet crude oil coupled with the continuing demand for
light sweet crude oil. In 2004, the average discount for West
Texas Sour, or WTS, compared to WTI widened to $3.96 per
barrel and again in 2005 to $4.73. With the newly discovered
deepwater Gulf of Mexico production combined with the
introduction of Canadian sours to the mid-continent this
sweet/sour spread continues to exceed average historic levels,
as evidenced by the average discount of $5.36 per barrel for
2006 and $4.18 per barrel for the three months ended
March 31, 2007. WTI also continues to trade at a premium to
WTS due to continued high demand for sweet crude oil resulting
from the more stringent fuel specifications implemented both in
the United States and globally. We continue to recognize
significant benefits from our ability to meet current fuel
specifications using predominantly heavy and medium sour crude
oil feedstocks to the extent the discount for heavy and medium
sour crude oil compared to WTI continues at its current level.
Earnings for the nitrogen fertilizer business depend largely on
the prices of nitrogen fertilizer products, the floor price of
which is directly influenced by natural gas prices. Natural gas
prices have been and continue to be volatile.
Factors Affecting
Results
Petroleum
Business
In our petroleum business, earnings and cash flow from
operations are primarily affected by the relationship between
refined product prices and the prices for crude oil and other
feedstocks. Feedstocks are petroleum products, such as crude oil
and natural gas liquids, that are processed and blended into
refined products. The cost to acquire feedstocks and the price
for which refined products are ultimately sold depend on factors
beyond our control, including the supply of, and demand for,
crude oil, as well as gasoline and other refined products which,
in turn, depend on, among other factors, changes in domestic and
foreign economies, weather conditions, domestic and foreign
political affairs, production levels, the availability of
imports, the marketing of competitive fuels and the extent of
government regulation. While our net sales fluctuate
significantly with movements in crude oil prices, these prices
do not generally have a direct long-term relationship to net
income. Because we apply
first-in,
first-out, or FIFO, accounting to value our inventory, crude oil
price movements may impact net income in the short term because
of instantaneous changes in the value of the minimally required,
unhedged on hand inventory. The effect of changes in crude oil
prices on our results of operations is influenced by the rate at
which the prices of refined products adjust to reflect these
changes.
Feedstock and refined product prices are also affected by other
factors, such as product pipeline capacity, local market
conditions and the operating levels of competing refineries.
Crude oil costs and the prices of refined products have
historically been subject to wide fluctuations. An expansion or
upgrade of our competitors facilities, price volatility,
international political and economic developments and other
factors beyond our control are likely to continue to play an
important role in refining industry economics. These factors can
impact, among other things, the level of inventories in the
market, resulting in price volatility and a reduction in product
margins. Moreover, the refining industry typically experiences
seasonal fluctuations in demand for refined products, such as
increases in the demand for gasoline during the summer driving
season and for home heating oil during the winter, primarily in
the Northeast. For further details on the economics of refining,
see Industry Overview Oil Refining
Industry.
82
In order to assess our operating performance, we compare our net
sales, less cost of product sold (refining margin), against an
industry refining margin benchmark. The industry refining margin
is calculated by assuming that two barrels of benchmark light
sweet crude oil is converted, or cracked, into one barrel of
conventional gasoline and one barrel of distillate. This
benchmark is referred to as the 2-1-1 crack spread. Because we
calculate the benchmark margin using the market value of NYMEX
gasoline and heating oil against the market value of NYMEX WTI
(WTI) crude oil (West Texas Intermediate crude oil, which is
used as a benchmark for other crude oils), we refer to the
benchmark as the NYMEX 2-1-1 crack spread, or simply, the 2-1-1
crack spread. The 2-1-1 crack spread is expressed in dollars per
barrel and is a proxy for the per barrel margin that a sweet
crude refinery would earn assuming it produced and sold the
benchmark production of conventional gasoline and distillate.
Although the 2-1-1 crack spread is a benchmark for our refinery
margin, because our refinery has certain feedstock costs and/or
logistical advantages as compared to a benchmark refinery and
our product yield is less than total refinery throughput, the
crack spread does not account for all the factors that affect
refinery margin. Our refinery is able to process a blend of
crude oil that includes quantities of heavy and medium sour
crude oil that has historically cost less than WTI crude oil. We
measure the cost advantage of our crude oil slate by calculating
the spread between the price of our delivered crude oil to the
price of WTI crude oil, a light sweet crude oil. The spread is
referred to as our consumed crude differential. Our refinery
margin can be impacted significantly by the consumed crude
differential. Our consumed crude differential will move
directionally with changes in the WTS differential to WTI and
the Maya differential to WTI as both these differentials
indicate the relative price of heavier, more sour slate to WTI.
The correlation between our consumed crude differential and
published differentials will vary depending on the volume of
light medium sour crude and heavy sour crude we purchase as a
percent of our total crude volume and will correlate more
closely with such published differentials the heavier and more
sour the crude oil slate. The WTI less Maya crude oil
differential was $15.67 and $14.99 per barrel, for the years
ended December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively, compared to
$15.71 and $12.82 per barrel for the three months ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively. The WTI less WTS
crude oil differential was $4.73 and $5.36 per barrel for the
years ended December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively, and
$6.72 and $4.18 per barrel for the three months ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively. The Companys
consumed crude differential increased to $4.54 per barrel for
the year ended December 31, 2006 from $3.28 per barrel for
the comparable period in 2005 and to $6.29 for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 from $5.39 for the same period in
2006. The consumed crude differential for the first quarter of
2007 is not comparable to prior periods due to the
refinery-wide
turnaround we undertook in the first quarter of 2007.
We produce a high volume of high value products, such as
gasoline and distillates. We benefit from the fact that our
marketing region consumes more refined products than it produces
so that the market prices of our products have to be high enough
to cover the logistics cost for U.S. Gulf Coast refineries
to ship into our region. The result of this logistical advantage
and the fact the actual product specification used to determine
the NYMEX is different from the actual production in the
refinery, is that prices we realize are different than those
used in determining the 2-1-1 crack spread. The difference
between our price and the price used to calculate the 2-1-1
crack spread is referred to as gasoline PADD II, Group 3 vs.
NYMEX basis, or gasoline basis, and heating oil PADD II, Group 3
vs. NYMEX basis, or heating oil basis. Both gasoline and heating
oil basis are greater than zero, which represents that prices in
our marketing area exceeds those used in the 2-1-1 crack spread.
Since 2003, the heating oil basis has been positive in all
periods presented including an increase to $7.42 per barrel for
2006 from $3.20 per barrel for 2005. The increase for 2006 was
significantly impacted by the introduction of Ultra Low Sulfur
Diesel, which provides significant tax benefits. Gasoline basis
for 2006 was $1.52 per barrel compared to ($0.53) per barrel for
2005. Beginning January 1, 2007, the benchmark used for
gasoline will change from Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) to
Reformulated Blend for Oxygenate Blend (RBOB). Given that RBOB
has limited historical information the change to RBOB from RFG
may have an unfavorable impact on our gasoline basis compared to
the historical numbers presented.
83
Our direct operating expense structure is also important to our
profitability. Major direct operating expenses include energy,
employee labor, maintenance, contract labor, and environmental
compliance. Our predominant variable cost is energy and the most
important benchmark for energy costs is the value of natural
gas. Our predominant variable of direct operating expense is
largely energy related and therefore sensitive to the movements
of natural gas prices.
Consistent, safe, and reliable operations at our refinery is key
to our financial performance and results of operations.
Unplanned downtime of our refinery may result in lost margin
opportunity, increased maintenance expense and a temporary
increase in working capital investment and related inventory
position. We seek to mitigate the financial impact of planned
downtime, such as major turnaround maintenance, through a
diligent planning process that takes into account the margin
environment, the availability of resources to perform the needed
maintenance, feedstock logistics and other factors.
We purchase most of our crude oil using a credit intermediation
agreement. Our credit intermediation agreement is structured
such that we take title, and the price of the crude oil is set,
when it is metered and delivered at Broome Station, which is
connected to, and located approximately 22 miles from, our
refinery. Once delivered at Broome Station, the crude oil is
delivered to our refinery through two of our wholly owned
pipelines which begin at Broome Station and end at our refinery.
The crude oil is delivered at Broome Station because Broome
Station is located near our facility and is connected via
pipeline to our facility. The terms of the credit intermediation
agreement provide that we will obtain all of the crude oil for
our refinery, other than the crude we obtain through our own
gathering system, through J. Aron. Once we identify cargos of
crude oil and pricing terms that meet our requirements, we
notify J. Aron and J. Aron then provides credit, transportation
and other logistical services to us for a fee. This agreement
significantly reduces the investment that we are required to
maintain in petroleum inventories relative to our competitors
and reduces the time we are exposed to market fluctuations
before the inventory is priced to a customer.
Because petroleum feedstocks and products are essentially
commodities, we have no control over the changing market.
Therefore, the lower target inventory we are able to maintain
significantly reduces the impact of commodity price volatility
on our petroleum product inventory position relative to other
refiners. This target inventory position is generally not
hedged. To the extent our inventory position deviates from the
target level, we consider risk mitigation activities usually
through the purchase or sale of futures contracts on the New
York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX. Our hedging activities carry
customary time, location and product grade basis risks generally
associated with hedging activities. Because most of our titled
inventory is valued under the FIFO costing method, price
fluctuations on our target level of titled inventory have a
major effect on our financial results unless the market value of
our target inventory is increased above cost.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Business
In the nitrogen fertilizer business, earnings and cash flow from
operations are primarily affected by the relationship between
nitrogen fertilizer product prices and direct operating
expenses. Unlike its competitors, the nitrogen fertilizer
business uses minimal natural gas as feedstock and, as a result,
is not directly impacted in terms of cost, by high or volatile
swings in natural gas prices. Instead, our adjacent oil refinery
supplies the majority of the coke feedstock needed by the
nitrogen fertilizer business. The price at which nitrogen
fertilizer products are ultimately sold depends on numerous
factors, including the supply of, and the demand for, nitrogen
fertilizer products which, in turn, depends on, among other
factors, the price of natural gas, the cost and availability of
fertilizer transportation infrastructure, changes in the world
population, weather conditions, grain production levels, the
availability of imports, and the extent of government
intervention in agriculture markets. While net sales of the
nitrogen fertilizer business could fluctuate significantly with
movements in natural gas prices during periods when fertilizer
markets are weak and sell at the floor price, high natural gas
prices do not force the nitrogen fertilizer business to shut
down its operations because it employs pet coke as a feedstock
to produce ammonia and UAN.
84
Nitrogen fertilizer prices are also affected by other factors,
such as local market conditions and the operating levels of
competing facilities. Natural gas costs and the price of
nitrogen fertilizer products have historically been subject to
wide fluctuations. An expansion or upgrade of competitors
facilities, price volatility, international political and
economic developments and other factors are likely to continue
to play an important role in nitrogen fertilizer industry
economics. These factors can impact, among other things, the
level of inventories in the market resulting in price volatility
and a reduction in product margins. Moreover, the industry
typically experiences seasonal fluctuations in demand for
nitrogen fertilizer products. The demand for fertilizers is
affected by the aggregate crop planting decisions and fertilizer
application rate decisions of individual farmers. Individual
farmers make planting decisions based largely on the prospective
profitability of a harvest, while the specific varieties and
amounts of fertilizer they apply depend on factors like crop
prices, their current liquidity, soil conditions, weather
patterns and the types of crops planted. For further details on
the economics of fertilizer, see Industry
Overview Nitrogen Fertilizer Industry.
Natural gas is the most significant raw material required in the
production of most nitrogen fertilizers. North American natural
gas prices have increased substantially and, since 1999, have
become significantly more volatile. In 2005, North American
natural gas prices reached unprecedented levels due to the
impact hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on an already tight
natural gas market. Recently, natural gas prices have moderated,
returning to pre-hurricane levels or lower.
In order to assess the operating performance of the nitrogen
fertilizer business, we calculate netbacks, also referred to as
plant gate price, to determine our operating margin. Netbacks
refer to the unit price of fertilizer, in dollars per ton,
offered on a delivered basis, excluding shipment costs. Given
the use of low cost pet coke, the nitrogen fertilizer business
is not presently subjected to the high raw materials costs of
competitors that use natural gas, the cost of which has been
high in recent periods. Instead of experiencing high variability
in the cost of raw materials, the nitrogen fertilizer business
utilizes less than 1% of the natural gas relative to other
natural gas-based fertilizer producers and we estimate that the
nitrogen fertilizer business would continue to have a production
cost advantage in comparison to U.S. Gulf Coast ammonia
producers at natural gas prices as low as $2.50 per million
Btu. The spot price for natural gas at Henry Hub on
March 30, 2007 was $7.73 per million Btu.
Because the fertilizer plant has certain logistical advantages
relative to end users of ammonia and UAN and so long as demand
relative to production remains high, the nitrogen fertilizer
business can afford to target end users in the U.S. farm belt
where it incurs lower freight costs as compared to competitors.
The farm belt refers to the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. The nitrogen
fertilizer business does not incur any intermediate transfer,
storage, barge freight or pipeline freight charges, giving us a
distribution cost advantage over U.S. Gulf Coast importers,
assuming freight rates and pipeline tariffs for U.S. Gulf Coast
importers as recently in effect. Selling products to customers
in close proximity to the fertilizer plant and keeping
transportation costs low are keys to maintaining profitability.
The value of nitrogen fertilizer products is also an important
consideration in understanding our results. The nitrogen
fertilizer business currently upgrades approximately two-thirds
of its ammonia production into UAN, a product that presently
generates a greater value than ammonia. UAN production is a
major contributor to our profitability.
The direct operating expense structure of the nitrogen
fertilizer business is also important to its profitability.
Using a pet coke gasification process, the nitrogen fertilizer
business has significantly higher fixed costs than natural
gas-based fertilizer plants. Major direct operating expenses
include electrical energy, employee labor, maintenance,
including contract labor, and outside services. These costs
comprise the fixed costs associated with the fertilizer plant.
Variable costs associated with the fertilizer plant have
averaged approximately 1.6% of direct operating expenses over
the last 24 months
85
ending March 31, 2007. The average fixed costs over the
last 24 months ending March 31, 2007 have approximated
$61 million.
Consistent, safe, and reliable operations at the nitrogen
fertilizer plant are critical to its financial performance and
results of operations. Unplanned downtime of the nitrogen
fertilizer plant may result in lost margin opportunity,
increased maintenance expense and a temporary increase in
working capital investment and related inventory position. The
financial impact of planned downtime, such as major turnaround
maintenance, is mitigated through a diligent planning process
that takes into account margin environment, the availability of
resources to perform the needed maintenance, feedstock logistics
and other factors.
In connection with our transfer of the nitrogen fertilizer
business to the Partnership, we will enter into a number of
agreements with the Partnership that will govern the business
relations between the parties. These include a coke supply
agreement, under which we will sell pet coke to the nitrogen
fertilizer business; a feedstock and shared services agreement,
which will govern the provision of hydrogen, high-pressure
steam, nitrogen, instrument air, oxygen and natural gas; a raw
water and facilities sharing agreement, which will allocate raw
water resources between the two businesses; a land transfer; an
easement agreement; an environmental agreement; and a lease
agreement pursuant to which we will lease office space and
laboratory space to the Partnership.
The price paid by the nitrogen fertilizer business pursuant to
the coke supply agreement will be based on the lesser of a coke
price derived from the price received by the Partnership for UAN
(subject to a UAN based price ceiling and floor) or a coke price
index for pet coke. Historically, the cost of product sold
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in the nitrogen
business was based on a coke price of $15 per ton beginning with
the Initial Acquisition. This is reflected in the segment data
in our historical financial statements as a cost for the
nitrogen fertilizer business and as revenue for the petroleum
business. If the new terms of the coke supply agreement had been
in place over the past three years, the new coke supply
agreement would have resulted in a decrease in cost of product
sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the
nitrogen fertilizer business (and a decrease in revenue for the
petroleum business) of $2.9 million, $1.5 million,
$0.7 million, $3.5 million and $0.4 million for
the 304 day period ending December 31, 2004, the 174 day
period ended June 24, 2005, the 233 day period ended
December 31, 2005, the year ended December 31, 2006
and the three months ended March 31, 2007. There would have
been no impact to the consolidated financial statements as
intercompany transactions are eliminated upon consolidation.
In addition, based on managements current estimates, the
management services agreement will result in an annual charge of
approximately $11.5 million to the nitrogen fertilizer
business for its portion of expenses which have been
historically reflected in selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in our
consolidated statement of operations. Historical nitrogen
fertilizer segment operating income would decrease
$4.1 million, increase $0.8 million, decrease
$0.1 million, increase $7.4 million and decrease
$0.7 million for the 304-day period ended December 31,
2004, the 174-day period ended June 23, 2005, the 233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, the year ended
December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31,
2007, respectively, assuming an annualized $11.5 million
charge for the management services in lieu of the historical
allocations of selling, general and administrative expenses. The
petroleum segments operating income would have had
offsetting increases or decreases, as applicable, for these
periods.
The total change to operating income for the nitrogen fertilizer
segment with respect to both the coke supply agreement included
in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) and the management services agreement included in
selling, general and administrative (exclusive of depreciation
and amortization) would be a decrease of $1.2 million,
increase of $2.3 million, increase of $0.6 million,
increase of $10.9 million and a decrease of
$0.3 million for the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended
86
December 31, 2005, the year ended December 31, 2006
and the three months ended March 31, 2007, respectively.
The feedstock and shared services agreement, the raw water and
facilities sharing agreement, the cross-easement agreement and
the environmental agreement are not expected to have a
significant impact on the financial results of the nitrogen
fertilizer business. However, the requirement to supply hydrogen
contained in the feedstock and shared services agreement could
result in reduced fertilizer production due to a commitment to
supply hydrogen to the refinery. The feedstock and shared
services agreement requires the refinery to compensate the
nitrogen fertilizer business for the value of production lost
due to the hydrogen supply requirement. See The Nitrogen
Fertilizer Limited Partnership Other
Intercompany Agreements.
Results of
Operations
The period to period comparisons of our results of operations
have been prepared using the historical periods included in our
financial statements. As discussed in Note 1 to our
consolidated financial statements, effective March 3, 2004,
Immediate Predecessor acquired the net assets of Original
Predecessor in a business combination accounted for as a
purchase, and effective June 24, 2005, Successor acquired
the net assets of Immediate Predecessor in a business
combination accounted for as a purchase. As a result of these
acquisitions, the consolidated financial statements for the
periods after the acquisitions are presented on a different cost
basis than that for the periods before the acquisitions and,
therefore, are not comparable. Accordingly, in this
Results of Operations section we compare the three
months ended March 31, 2007 with the three months ended
March 31, 2006, the year ended December 31, 2006 with
the 174-day
period ended June 23, 2005 and the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005. In addition, we compare the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005 and the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 with the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004 and the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004.
Net sales consist principally of sales of refined fuel and
nitrogen fertilizer products. For the petroleum business, net
sales are mainly affected by crude oil and refined product
prices, changes to the input mix and volume changes caused by
operations. Product mix refers to the percentage of production
represented by higher value light products, such as gasoline,
rather than lower value finished products, such as pet coke. In
the nitrogen fertilizer business, net sales are primarily
impacted by manufactured tons and nitrogen fertilizer prices.
Industry-wide petroleum results are driven and measured by the
relationship, or margin, between refined products and the prices
for crude oil referred to as crack spreads. See
Factors Affecting Results. We discuss
our results of petroleum operations in the context of per barrel
consumed crack spreads and the relationship between net sales
and cost of product sold.
Our consolidated results of operations include certain other
unallocated corporate activities and the elimination of
intercompany transactions and therefore are not a sum of only
the operating results of the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer
businesses.
In order to effectively review and assess our historical
financial information below, we have also included supplemental
operating measures and industry measures which we believe are
material to understanding our business. For the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2005 we have provided this
supplemental information on a combined basis in order to provide
a comparative basis for similar periods of time. As discussed
above, due to the various acquisitions that occurred, there were
multiple financial statement periods of less than
12 months. We believe that the most meaningful way to
present this supplemental data for the various periods is to
compare the sum of the combined operating results for the 2004
and 2005 calendar years with prior fiscal years, and to compare
the sum of the combined operating results for the year ended
December 31, 2005 with the year ended December 31,
2006.
87
Accordingly, for purposes of displaying supplemental operating
data for the year ended December 31, 2005, we have combined
the 174-day
period ended June 23, 2005 and the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 to provide a comparative
year ended December 31, 2005 to the year ended
December 31, 2006. Additionally, the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004 and the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004 have been combined to
provide a comparative twelve month period ended
December 31, 2004 to a combined twelve month period ended
December 31, 2005 comprised of the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005 and the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
March
2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June
23,
|
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Ended
March 31,
|
|
Consolidated
Financial Results
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,262.2
|
|
|
$
|
261.1
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,479.9
|
|
|
$
|
980.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,454.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,037.6
|
|
|
$
|
669.7
|
|
|
$
|
390.5
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
1,061.9
|
|
|
|
221.4
|
|
|
|
|
1,244.2
|
|
|
|
768.0
|
|
|
|
|
1,168.1
|
|
|
|
|
2,443.4
|
|
|
|
539.5
|
|
|
|
303.7
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
133.1
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
|
117.0
|
|
|
|
80.9
|
|
|
|
|
85.3
|
|
|
|
|
199.0
|
|
|
|
44.3
|
|
|
|
113.4
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expense (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
|
62.6
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
Depreciation and amortization(1)
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
Impairment, (losses) in joint
ventures, and other charges(2)
|
|
|
(10.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
29.4
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
112.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
158.5
|
|
|
|
$
|
281.6
|
|
|
$
|
65.4
|
|
|
$
|
(54.0
|
)
|
Net income (loss)(3)
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
49.7
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
|
(119.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
191.6
|
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
|
|
(154.4
|
)
|
Net income (loss) adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap(4)
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
49.7
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
|
115.4
|
|
|
|
36.9
|
|
|
|
(82.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Depreciation and amortization is
comprised of the following components as excluded from cost of
products sold, direct operating expense and selling, general and
administrative expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
included in cost of product sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
included in direct operating expenses
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
|
47.7
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
included in selling, general and administrative expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
During the year ended
December 31, 2003, we recorded an additional charge of
$9.6 million related to the asset impairment of the
refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant based on the expected
sales price of the assets in the Initial Acquisition. In
addition, we recorded a charge of $1.3 million for the
rejection of existing contracts while operating under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
|
88
|
|
|
(3)
|
|
The following are certain charges
and costs incurred in each of the relevant periods that are
meaningful to understanding our net income and in evaluating our
performance due to their unusual or infrequent nature:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
March
2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June
23,
|
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of property, plant and
equipment(a)
|
|
$
|
9.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of extinguishment of debt(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory fair market value
adjustment(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded letter of credit expense
& interest rate swap not included in interest expense(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major scheduled turnaround
expense(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on termination of swap(f)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gain) loss from Cash
Flow Swap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235.9
|
|
|
|
|
(126.8
|
)
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
119.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
During the year ended
December 31, 2003, we recorded an additional charge of
$9.6 million related to the asset impairment of the
refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant based on the expected
sales price of the assets in the Initial Acquisition.
|
|
(b)
|
|
Represents the write-off of
$7.2 million of deferred financing costs in connection with
the refinancing of our senior secured credit facility on
May 10, 2004, the write-off of $8.1 million of
deferred financing costs in connection with the refinancing of
our senior secured credit facility on June 23, 2005 and the
write-off of
$23.4 million in connection with the refinancing of our senior
secured credit facility on December 28, 2006.
|
|
(c)
|
|
Consists of the additional cost of
product sold expense due to the step up to estimated fair value
of certain inventories on hand at March 3, 2004 and
June 24, 2005, as a result of the allocation of the
purchase price of the Initial Acquisition and the Subsequent
Acquisition to inventory.
|
|
(d)
|
|
Consists of fees which are expensed
to selling, general and administrative expense in connection
with the funded letter of credit facility of $150.0 million
issued in support of the Cash Flow Swap. We consider these fees
to be equivalent to interest expense and the fees are treated as
such in the calculation of EBITDA in the Credit Facility.
|
|
(e)
|
|
Represents expenses associated with
a major scheduled turnaround at the nitrogen fertilizer plant
and our refinery.
|
|
(f)
|
|
Represents the expense associated
with the expiration of the crude oil, heating oil and gasoline
option agreements entered into by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in
May 2005.
|
|
|
|
(4)
|
|
Net income adjusted for unrealized
gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap results from adjusting for the
derivative transaction that was executed in conjunction with the
Subsequent Acquisition. On June 16, 2005, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC entered into the Cash Flow Swap with J. Aron, a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and a related party
of ours. The Cash Flow Swap was subsequently assigned from
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC to Coffeyville Resources, LLC on
June 24, 2005. Under these agreements, sales representing
approximately 70% and 17% of then forecasted refinery output for
the periods from July 2005 through June 2009, and July 2009
through June 2010, respectively, have been economically hedged.
The derivative took the form of three NYMEX swap agreements
whereby if crack spreads fall below the fixed level,
J. Aron agreed to pay the difference to us, and if crack
spreads rise above the fixed level, we agreed to pay the
difference to J. Aron. See Description of Our Indebtedness
and the Cash Flow Swap.
|
|
|
|
We have determined that the Cash
Flow Swap does not qualify as a hedge for hedge accounting
purposes under current GAAP. As a result, our periodic
statements of operations reflect material amounts of unrealized
gains and losses based on the increases or decreases in market
value of the unsettled position under the swap agreements which
is accounted for as a liability on our balance sheet. As the
crack spreads increase we are required to record an increase in
this liability account with a corresponding expense entry to be
made to our statement of operations. Conversely, as crack
spreads decline, we are required to record a decrease in the
swap related liability and post a corresponding income entry to
our statement of operations. Because of this inverse
relationship between the economic outlook for our underlying
business (as represented by crack spread levels) and the income
impact of the unrecognized gains and losses, and given the
significant periodic fluctuations in the amounts of unrealized
gains and losses, management utilizes Net income adjusted for
gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap as a key indicator of our
business performance. In managing our business and assessing its
growth and profitability from a strategic and financial planning
perspective, management and our Board of Directors considers our
U.S. GAAP net income results as well as Net income adjusted
for unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap. We believe that
Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow
Swap enhances the understanding of our
|
89
|
|
|
|
|
results of operations by
highlighting income attributable to our ongoing operating
performance exclusive of charges and income resulting from mark
to market adjustments that are not necessarily indicative of the
performance of our underlying business and our industry. The
adjustment has been made for the unrealized loss from Cash Flow
Swap net of its related tax benefit.
|
|
|
|
Net income adjusted for unrealized
gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap is not a recognized term under
GAAP and should not be substituted for net income as a measure
of our financial performance or liquidity but instead should be
utilized as a supplemental measure of performance in evaluating
our business. Because Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or
loss from Cash Flow Swap excludes mark to market adjustments,
the measure does not reflect the fair market value of our cash
flow swap in our net income. As a result, the measure does not
include potential cash payments that may be required to be made
on the Cash Flow Swap in the future. Also, our presentation of
this non-GAAP measure may not be comparable to similarly titled
measures of other companies.
|
|
|
|
The following is a reconciliation
of Net income adjusted for unrealized gain or loss from Cash
Flow Swap to Net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
March
2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June
23,
|
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
March
31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
Net Income (loss) adjusted for
unrealized gain or loss from Cash Flow Swap
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
$
|
115.4
|
|
|
$
|
36.9
|
|
|
$
|
(82.4
|
)
|
Plus:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain or (loss) from Cash
Flow Swap, net of taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
76.2
|
|
|
|
(14.8
|
)
|
|
|
(72.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.7
|
|
|
$
|
52.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119.2
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
191.6
|
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
$
|
(154.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
Business Results of Operations
Refining margin is a measurement calculated as the difference
between net sales and cost of products sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization). Refining margin is a non-GAAP
measure that we believe is important to investors in evaluating
our refinerys performance as a general indication of the
amount above our cost of products that we are able to sell
refined products. Each of the components used in this
calculation (net sales and cost of products sold exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) can be taken directly from our
statement of operations. Our calculation of refining margin may
differ from similar calculations of other companies in our
industry, thereby limiting its
90
usefulness as a comparative measure. The following table shows
selected information about our petroleum business including
refining margin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in millions, except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
Petroleum Business:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,161.3
|
|
|
$
|
241.6
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,390.8
|
|
|
$
|
903.8
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,363.4
|
|
|
$
|
2,880.4
|
|
|
$
|
619.6
|
|
|
$
|
352.5
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
1,040.0
|
|
|
|
217.4
|
|
|
|
|
1,228.1
|
|
|
|
761.7
|
|
|
|
|
1,156.2
|
|
|
|
2,422.7
|
|
|
|
533.7
|
|
|
|
298.5
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
80.1
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
|
|
52.6
|
|
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
135.3
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
|
|
96.7
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
39.1
|
|
|
$
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
$
|
88.0
|
|
|
$
|
88.7
|
|
|
|
$
|
135.4
|
|
|
$
|
289.4
|
|
|
$
|
47.4
|
|
|
$
|
(52.5
|
)
|
Plus direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
80.1
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
|
|
52.6
|
|
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
135.3
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
|
|
96.7
|
|
Plus depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining margin
|
|
$
|
121.3
|
|
|
$
|
24.2
|
|
|
|
$
|
162.7
|
|
|
$
|
142.1
|
|
|
|
$
|
207.2
|
|
|
$
|
457.7
|
|
|
$
|
85.9
|
|
|
$
|
54.0
|
|
Refining margin per refinery
throughput barrel
|
|
$
|
3.89
|
|
|
$
|
4.23
|
|
|
|
$
|
5.92
|
|
|
$
|
9.28
|
|
|
|
$
|
11.55
|
|
|
|
13.27
|
|
|
|
11.19
|
|
|
|
12.69
|
|
Gross profit (loss) per refinery
throughput barrel
|
|
$
|
1.25
|
|
|
$
|
1.57
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.20
|
|
|
$
|
5.79
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.55
|
|
|
$
|
8.39
|
|
|
$
|
6.18
|
|
|
$
|
(12.34
|
)
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization) per refinery
throughput barrel
|
|
$
|
2.57
|
|
|
$
|
2.60
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.66
|
|
|
$
|
3.44
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.13
|
|
|
$
|
3.92
|
|
|
$
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
22.73
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
76.7
|
|
|
|
|
123.0
|
|
|
|
245.6
|
|
|
|
41.6
|
|
|
|
(63.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Immediate
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
and Successor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
Combined
|
|
Combined
|
|
Successor
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
Market Indicators
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(dollars per barrel)
|
|
|
|
|
|
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude
oil
|
|
$
|
30.99
|
|
|
$
|
41.47
|
|
|
$
|
56.70
|
|
|
$
|
66.25
|
|
|
$
|
63.48
|
|
|
$
|
58.27
|
|
NYMEX 2-1-1 Crack Spread
|
|
|
5.53
|
|
|
|
7.43
|
|
|
|
11.62
|
|
|
|
10.84
|
|
|
|
9.05
|
|
|
|
12.15
|
|
Crude Oil Differentials:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTI less WTS (sour)
|
|
|
2.67
|
|
|
|
3.96
|
|
|
|
4.73
|
|
|
|
5.36
|
|
|
|
6.72
|
|
|
|
4.18
|
|
WTI less Maya (heavy sour)
|
|
|
6.78
|
|
|
|
11.40
|
|
|
|
15.67
|
|
|
|
14.99
|
|
|
|
15.71
|
|
|
|
12.82
|
|
WTI less Dated Brent (foreign)
|
|
|
2.16
|
|
|
|
3.20
|
|
|
|
2.18
|
|
|
|
1.13
|
|
|
|
1.69
|
|
|
|
0.51
|
|
PADD II Group 3 versus NYMEX
Basis:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
0.62
|
|
|
|
(0.52
|
)
|
|
|
(0.53
|
)
|
|
|
1.52
|
|
|
|
0.33
|
|
|
|
(0.54
|
)
|
Heating Oil
|
|
|
1.11
|
|
|
|
1.24
|
|
|
|
3.20
|
|
|
|
7.42
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
|
|
|
8.77
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
and Immediate
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Three
|
|
|
Original
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
and Successor
|
|
|
|
Months
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
Combined
|
|
Combined
|
|
Successor
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
Company Operating Statistics
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(in millions, except as otherwise indicated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per barrel profit, margin and
expense of crude oil throughput:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining margin
|
|
$
|
3.89
|
|
|
$
|
5.62
|
|
|
$
|
10.50
|
|
|
$
|
13.27
|
|
|
$
|
11.19
|
|
|
$
|
12.69
|
|
Gross profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
1.25
|
|
|
$
|
2.92
|
|
|
$
|
6.74
|
|
|
$
|
8.39
|
|
|
$
|
6.18
|
|
|
$
|
(12.34
|
)
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
2.57
|
|
|
|
2.65
|
|
|
|
3.27
|
|
|
|
3.92
|
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
|
22.73
|
|
Per gallon sales price:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
0.91
|
|
|
|
1.19
|
|
|
|
1.61
|
|
|
|
1.88
|
|
|
|
1.71
|
|
|
|
1.59
|
|
Distillate
|
|
|
0.84
|
|
|
|
1.15
|
|
|
|
1.71
|
|
|
|
1.99
|
|
|
|
1.80
|
|
|
|
1.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Immediate
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Selected Company
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
|
|
Volumetric Data
|
|
Per Day
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Per Day
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Per Day
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Per Day
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Per Day
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Per Day
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gasoline
|
|
|
48,230
|
|
|
|
50.4
|
|
|
|
48,420
|
|
|
|
47.1
|
|
|
|
45,275
|
|
|
|
43.8
|
|
|
|
48,248
|
|
|
|
44.7
|
|
|
|
46,459
|
|
|
|
47.2
|
|
|
|
23,499
|
|
|
|
43.8
|
|
Total distillate
|
|
|
34,363
|
|
|
|
35.9
|
|
|
|
38,104
|
|
|
|
37.1
|
|
|
|
39,997
|
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
42,175
|
|
|
|
39.0
|
|
|
|
39,158
|
|
|
|
39.8
|
|
|
|
21,976
|
|
|
|
40.9
|
|
Total other
|
|
|
13,108
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
16,301
|
|
|
|
15.9
|
|
|
|
18,090
|
|
|
|
17.5
|
|
|
|
17,608
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
12,837
|
|
|
|
13.0
|
|
|
|
8,214
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total all production
|
|
|
95,701
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
102,825
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
103,362
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
108,031
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
98,454
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
53,689
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
Crude oil throughput
|
|
|
85,501
|
|
|
|
93.4
|
|
|
|
90,787
|
|
|
|
92.8
|
|
|
|
91,097
|
|
|
|
92.6
|
|
|
|
94,524
|
|
|
|
92.1
|
|
|
|
85,276
|
|
|
|
91.5
|
|
|
|
47,267
|
|
|
|
92.7
|
|
All other inputs
|
|
|
6,085
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
7,023
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
7,246
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
8,067
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
7,930
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
3,716
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total feedstocks
|
|
|
91,586
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
97,810
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
98,343
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
102,591
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
93,206
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
50,983
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Immediate
|
|
|
Predecessor and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput by crude type:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sweet
|
|
|
18,187,215
|
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
15,232,022
|
|
|
|
45.8
|
|
|
|
13,958,567
|
|
|
|
42.0
|
|
|
|
17,481,803
|
|
|
|
50.7
|
|
|
|
2,762,927
|
|
|
|
36.0
|
|
|
|
2,782,136
|
|
|
|
65.4
|
|
Light/medium sour
|
|
|
12,311,203
|
|
|
|
39.4
|
|
|
|
17,995,949
|
|
|
|
54.2
|
|
|
|
19,291,951
|
|
|
|
58.0
|
|
|
|
16,695,173
|
|
|
|
48.4
|
|
|
|
4,911,870
|
|
|
|
64.0
|
|
|
|
1,454,878
|
|
|
|
34.2
|
|
Heavy sour
|
|
|
709,300
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
324,312
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,016
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total crude oil throughput
|
|
|
31,207,718
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
33,227,971
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
33,250,518
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
34,501,288
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
7,674,797
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
4,254,030
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
92
Three Months
Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to the Three Months Ended
March 31, 2006.
Net Sales. Petroleum net sales were
$352.5 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007 compared to $619.6 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2006. The decrease of $267.1 million from
the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the
three months ended March 31, 2006 was primarily the result
of significantly lower sales volumes ($230.0 million) and
lower product prices ($37.1 million). Overall sales volumes
of refined fuels for the three months ended March 31, 2007
decreased 40% as compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2006. The decreased sales volume primarily
resulted from a significant reduction in refined fuel production
volumes over the comparable periods due to the refinery
turnaround which began in February 2007 and was completed in
April 2007. Our average sales price per gallon for the three
months ended March 31, 2007 for gasoline of $1.59 and
distillate of $1.78 decreased by 7% and 1%, respectively, as
compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006.
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold includes
cost of crude oil, other feedstocks and blendstocks, purchased
products for resale, transportation and distribution costs.
Petroleum cost of product sold exclusive of depreciation and
amortization was $298.5 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 compared to $533.7 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2006. The decrease of
$235.2 million from the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006
was primarily the result of a significant reduction in crude
throughput due to the refinery turnaround which began in
February 2007 and was completed in April 2007. In addition to
the impact of the turnaround, lower crude oil prices, reduced
sales volumes and the impact of FIFO accounting also impacted
cost of product sold during the comparable periods. Our average
cost per barrel of crude oil for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 was $51.98, compared to $58.09 for the
comparable period of 2006, a decrease of 11%. Sales volume of
refined fuels decreased 40% for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 as compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2006 principally due to the turnaround. In
addition, under our FIFO accounting method, changes in crude oil
prices can cause fluctuations in the inventory valuation of our
crude oil, work in process and finished goods, thereby resulting
in FIFO inventory gains when crude oil prices increase and FIFO
inventory losses when crude oil prices decrease. For the three
months ended March 31, 2007, we reported FIFO inventory
gains of $5.2 million compared to FIFO inventory gains of
$5.0 million for the comparable period of 2006.
Refining margin per barrel of crude throughput increased from
$11.19 for the three months ended March 31, 2006 to $12.69
for the three months ended March 31, 2007 primarily due to
the 34% increase ($3.10 per barrel) in the average NYMEX
2-1-1 crack spread over the comparable periods and positive
regional differences between distillate prices in our primary
marketing region (the Coffeyville supply area) and those of the
NYMEX. The average distillate basis for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 increased by $5.68 per barrel to
$8.77 per barrel compared to $3.09 per barrel in the
comparable period of 2006. The positive effects of the increased
NYMEX 2-1-1 crack spreads and average distillate basis over the
comparable periods was partially offset by reductions in average
gasoline basis in the Coffeyville supply area and crude oil
differentials over the comparable periods. The average gasoline
basis for the three months ended March 31, 2007 decreased
by $0.87 per barrel to negative $0.54 per barrel in
comparison to $0.33 per barrel in the comparable period of
2006. In addition, decreased discounts for sour crude oils
evidenced by the $2.54 per barrel, or 38%, decrease in the
spread between the WTI price, which is a market indicator for
the price of light sweet crude, and the WTS price, which is an
indicator for the price of sour crude, also negatively impacted
refining margin for the three months ended March 31, 2007
as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Petroleum depreciation and
amortization was $9.8 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 as compared $7.8 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2006. The increase of
$2.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007
compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006 was
primarily the result of the completion of the ultra low sulfur
diesel and sulfur recovery unit projects in late 2006.
93
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for
our Petroleum operations include costs associated with the
actual operations of our refinery, such as energy and utility
costs, catalyst and chemical costs, repairs and maintenance
(turnaround), labor and environmental compliance costs.
Petroleum direct operating expenses exclusive of depreciation
and amortization were $96.7 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 compared to direct operating expenses
of $30.7 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. The increase of $66.0 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2006 was the result of increases in expenses
associated with repairs and maintenance associated with the
refinery turnaround ($66.0 million), direct labor
($2.9 million), taxes ($1.5 million) and insurance
($0.6 million). These increases in direct operating
expenses were partially offset by reductions in expenses
associated with energy and utilities ($2.7 million) and
environmental compliance ($0.6 million). On a per barrel of
crude throughput basis, direct operating expenses per barrel of
crude throughput for the three months ended March 31, 2007
increased to $22.73 per barrel as compared to
$4.00 per barrel for the three months ended March 31,
2006 principally due to the turnaround since we produced
significantly fewer barrels of crude to spread our costs across.
Operating Income. Petroleum operating
loss was $63.5 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 as compared to operating income of
$41.6 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. This decrease of $105.1 million from the three months
ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2006 was primarily the result of the refinery
turnaround which began in February 2007 and was completed in
April 2007. The turnaround negatively impacted daily refinery
crude throughput and refined fuels production. In addition,
direct operating expenses increased substantially during the
three months ended March 31, 2007 due to expenses
associated with the refinery turnaround ($66.0 million)
direct labor ($2.9 million), taxes ($1.5 million),
insurance ($0.6 million) and depreciation and amortization
($2.0 million). These increases in expenses were partially
offset by reductions in expenses associated with energy and
utilities ($2.7 million) and environmental compliance
($0.6 million).
Year Ended
December 31, 2006 Compared to the 174 Days Ended
June 23, 2005 and the 233 Days Ended December 31,
2005.
Net Sales. Petroleum net sales were
$2,880.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
compared to $903.8 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 and $1,363.4 million for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005. The increase of
$613.2 million from the year ended December 31, 2006
as compared to the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2005 resulted from significantly higher
product prices ($384.1 million) and increased sales volumes
($229.1 million) over the comparable periods. Our average
sales price per gallon for the year ended December 31, 2006
for gasoline of $1.88 and distillate of $1.99 increased by 17%
and 16%, respectively, as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2005. Overall sales volumes of refined fuels
for the year ended December 31, 2006 increased 9% as
compared to the year ended December 31, 2005. The increased
sales volume primarily resulted from higher production levels of
refined fuels during the year ended December 31, 2006 as
compared to the same period in 2005 because of our increased
focus on process unit maximization and lower production levels
in 2005 due to a scheduled reformer regeneration and minor
maintenance in the coker unit and one of our crude units.
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold includes
cost of crude oil, other feedstocks and blendstocks, purchased
products for resale, transportation and distribution costs.
Petroleum cost of product sold exclusive of depreciation and
amortization was $2,422.7 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to $761.7 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $1,156.2 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. The increase
of $504.8 million from the year ended December 31,
2006 as compared to the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2005 was primarily the result of higher crude
oil
94
prices, increased sales volumes and the impact of FIFO
accounting. Our average cost per barrel of crude oil for the
year ended December 31, 2006 was $61.71, compared to $53.42
for the comparable period of 2005, an increase of 16%. Crude oil
prices increased on average by 17% during the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to the comparable period of
2005 due to the residual impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
on the refining sector, geopolitical concerns and strong demand
for refined products. Sales volume of refined fuels increased 9%
for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the
year ended December 31, 2005. In addition, under our FIFO
accounting method, changes in crude oil prices can cause
significant fluctuations in the inventory valuation of our crude
oil, work in process and finished goods, thereby resulting in
FIFO inventory gains when crude oil prices increase and FIFO
inventory losses when crude oil prices decrease. For the year
ended December 31, 2006, we reported FIFO inventory loss of
$7.6 million compared to FIFO inventory gains of
$18.6 million for the comparable period of 2005.
Refining margin per barrel of crude throughput increased from
$10.50 for the year ended December 31, 2005 to $13.27 for
the year ended December 31, 2006, due to increased discount
for sour crude oils demonstrated by the $0.63, or 13%, increase
in the spread between the WTI price, which is a market indicator
for the price of light sweet crude, and the WTS price, which is
an indicator for the price of sour crude, for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2005. In addition, positive regional
differences between refined fuel prices in our primary marketing
region (the Coffeyville supply area) and those of the NYMEX,
known as basis, significantly contributed to the increase in our
consumed crack spread in the year ended December 31, 2006
as compared to the year ended December 31, 2005. The
average distillate basis for the year ended December 31,
2006 increased by $4.22 per barrel to $7.42 per barrel
compared to $3.20 per barrel in the comparable period of
2005. The average gasoline basis for the year ended
December 31, 2006 increased by $2.05 per barrel to
$1.52 per barrel in comparison to a negative basis of
$0.53 per barrel in the comparable period of 2005.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Petroleum depreciation and
amortization was $33.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared $0.8 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $15.6 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. The increase
of $16.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
compared to the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2005 was primarily the result of the
step-up in
our property, plant and equipment for the Subsequent
Acquisition. See Factors Affecting
Comparability.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for our
Petroleum operations include costs associated with the actual
operations of our refinery, such as energy and utility costs,
catalyst and chemical costs, repairs and maintenance, labor and
environmental compliance costs. Petroleum direct operating
expenses exclusive of depreciation and amortization were
$135.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
compared to direct operating expenses of $52.6 million for
the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 and
$56.2 million for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005. The increase of $26.5 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to the combined periods for the
year ended December 31, 2005 was the result of increases in
expenses associated with direct labor ($3.3 million), rent
and lease ($2.3 million), environmental compliance
($1.9 million), operating materials ($1.2 million),
repairs and maintenance ($7.7 million), major scheduled
turnaround ($4.0 million), chemicals ($3.0 million),
insurance $(1.3 million) and outside services
($1.4 million). On a per barrel of crude throughput basis,
direct operating expenses per barrel of crude throughput for the
year ended December 31, 2006 increased to $3.92 per
barrel as compared to $3.27 per barrel for the year ended
December 31, 2005.
Operating Income. Petroleum operating
income was $245.6 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to $76.7 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $123.0 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005 This increase
of $45.9 million from the year ended December 31, 2006
as compared to the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2005 primarily resulted from higher refining
margins due to improved crude differentials and strong gasoline
and distillate basis during the comparable periods. The increase
in operating
95
income was somewhat offset by expenses associated with direct
labor ($3.3 million), rent and lease ($2.3 million),
environmental compliance ($1.9 million), operating
materials ($1.2 million), repairs and maintenance
($7.7 million), major scheduled turnaround
($4.0 million), chemicals ($3.0 million), insurance
($1.3 million), outside services ($1.4 million) and
depreciation and amortization ($16.6 million).
233 Days Ended
December 31, 2005 and the 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005
Compared to the 304 Days Ended December 31, 2004 and the 62
Days Ended March 2, 2004.
Net Sales. Petroleum net sales were
$1,363.4 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $903.8 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 compared to
$1,390.8 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $241.6 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. The increase of
$634.8 million for the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to the combined periods for
the year ended December 31, 2004 was primarily attributable
to increases in product prices ($688.3 million) offset by
reduced sales volumes ($53.5 million) as compared to 2004.
As compared to 2004, sales prices of gasoline and distillates
increased for the combined 2005 period by 35% and 49%,
respectively. Sales prices increased primarily as a result of
increased crude oil prices and improvements in the gasoline and
distillate crack spreads. The increase in average refined
product prices was partially offset by a 3% decrease in refined
fuels sales volume due to a 1% reduction in refined fuels
production volumes in 2005 as compared to 2004. Refined fuels
production was negatively impacted in 2005 due to a scheduled
reformer regeneration and an outage in the fluidized catalytic
cracking unit at our Coffeyville refinery.
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold includes cost of
crude oil, other feedstocks and blendstocks, purchased products
for resale, transportation and distribution costs. Petroleum
cost of product sold exclusive of depreciation and amortization
was $1,156.2 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $761.7 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 compared to
$1,228.1 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $217.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. The increase of
$472.5 million for the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to the combined periods in
the year ended December 31, 2004 was primarily the result
of higher crude oil prices partially offset by lower sales
volumes and the impact of FIFO accounting. Our average cost per
barrel of crude oil for the year ended December 31, 2005
was $53.42, compared to $40.23 for the same period in 2004, an
increase of 33%. Crude oil prices increased significantly in
2005 as compared to 2004 due to the impact of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, geopolitical concerns and strong demand for refined
products in 2005. Sales volume decreased 3.0% for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to 2004. In addition, under
our FIFO accounting method, changes in crude oil prices can
cause significant fluctuations in the inventory valuation of our
crude oil, work in process and finished goods, thereby resulting
in FIFO inventory gains when crude oil prices increase and FIFO
inventory losses when crude oil prices decrease. For the year
ended December 31, 2005, we reported FIFO inventory gains
of $18.6 million compared to FIFO inventory gains of
$9.2 million for the comparable period of 2004.
Refining margin per barrel of crude throughput increased from
$5.62 for the year ended December 31, 2004 to $10.50 for
the year ended December 31, 2005, due to historically high
differentials between refined fuel prices and crude oil prices
as exemplified in the average NYMEX crack spread of
$11.62 per barrel for the year ended December 31, 2005
as compared to $7.43 per barrel for 2004. Increased
discount for heavy crude oils demonstrated by the $4.27, or 37%,
increase in the spread between the WTI price, which is a market
indicator for the price of light sweet crude, and the Maya
price, which is an indicator for the price of heavy crude, in
the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to the same
period in 2004 also contributed to the increased refining margin
over the comparable period. In addition to the widening of the
NYMEX crack spread and the increase in crude differentials,
positive regional differences between refined fuel prices in our
primary marketing region (PADD II, Group 3) and
those of the NYMEX, known as basis, also contributed to the
dramatic
96
increase in our consumed crack spread in the year ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to 2004. The average
distillate basis for the year ended December 31, 2005
increased $1.96 per barrel to $3.20 per barrel as compared
to $1.24 per barrel for the comparable period of 2004. The
average gasoline basis for the year ended December 31, 2005
as compared to the year ended December 31, 2004 was
essentially flat at a negative basis of $0.53 per barrel as
compared to a negative basis of $0.52 per barrel in 2004.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Petroleum depreciation and
amortization was $15.6 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $0.8 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 compared to
$1.5 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $0.3 million for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. The increase of $14.6 million for the
combined period ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the
combined period ended December 31, 2004 was primarily the
result of the step-up in our property, plant and equipment for
the Subsequent Acquisition. See Factors
Affecting Comparability.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for our
Petroleum operations include costs associated with the actual
operations of our refinery, such as energy and utility costs,
catalyst and chemical costs, repairs and maintenance, labor and
environmental compliance costs. Petroleum direct operating
expenses were $56.2 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $52.6 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 compared to
$73.2 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $14.9 million for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. The increase of $20.6 million for the
combined period ended December 31, 2005 as compared to
direct operating expenses of $88.2 million for the combined
period in 2004 was the result of increases in expenses
associated with labor and incentive bonuses ($2.2 million),
environmental compliance ($2.5 million), repairs and
maintenance ($9.1 million), chemicals ($1.9 million),
energy and utilities ($1.9 million) and outside services
($1.9 million). On a per barrel of crude throughput basis,
direct operating expenses per barrel of crude throughput for
2005 increased to $3.27 per barrel as compared to $2.65 per
barrel for 2004.
Operating Income. Petroleum operating
income was $123.0 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $76.7 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 compared to
$77.1 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $7.7 million for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. The increase of $114.9 million for the
combined period ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the
combined period ended December 31, 2004 primarily resulted
from higher refining margin due to favorable market conditions
in the domestic refining industry somewhat offset by a 3%
decrease in sales volumes and increases in expenses associated
with labor and incentive bonuses ($2.2 million),
environmental compliance ($2.5 million), repairs and
maintenance ($9.1 million), chemicals ($1.9 million),
energy and utilities ($1.9 million), outside services
($1.9 million) and depreciation and amortization
($14.6 million).
304 Days Ended
December 31, 2004 and the 62 Days Ended March 2, 2004
Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2003.
Net Sales. Petroleum net sales were
$1,390.8 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $241.6 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 compared to
$1,161.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2003.
This revenue increase for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was attributable to increased production
volumes ($83.2 million) and higher product prices
($387.9 million), which reacted favorably to the increase
in global crude oil prices over the period. In 2004, crude oil
throughput increased by an average of 5,286 bpd, or 6%, as
compared to 2003. The higher crude throughput experienced in
2004 as compared to 2003 was directly attributable to
Farmlands inability, because of its impending
reorganization, to purchase optimum crude oil blends necessary
to operate the refinery at 2004 levels in 2003. During 2004, our
petroleum business experienced increases in gasoline and
distillate prices of 31% and 37%, respectively, as compared to
the same period in 2003.
97
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold includes
cost of crude oil, other feedstocks and blendstocks, purchased
products for resale, transportation and distribution costs.
Petroleum cost of product sold exclusive of depreciation and
amortization was $1,228.1 million for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 and $217.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 compared to
$1,040.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2003.
This increase for the combined periods of the year ended
December 31, 2004 as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was attributable to strong differentials
between refined products prices and crude oil prices as
exemplified in the average NYMEX crack spread of $7.43 per
barrel for the year ended December 31, 2004 as compared to
$5.53 per barrel in the comparable period of 2003.
Increased discount for heavy crude oils demonstrated by the
$4.62, or 68%, increase in the spread between the WTI price,
which is a market indicator for the price of light sweet crude,
and the Maya price, which is a market indicator for the price of
heavy crude, in the year ended December 31, 2004 as
compared to the same period in 2003 also contributed to the
increase in refining margin over the comparable periods.
Diluting the positive impact of the widening of the NYMEX crack
spread and the increased crude differentials was the negative
impact of gasoline prices in our primary marketing area
(PADD II, Group 3) in comparison to gasoline prices on
the NYMEX, known as basis. The average gasoline basis for the
year ended December 31, 2004 decreased $1.14 per
barrel to a negative basis of $0.52 per barrel as compared
to $0.62 per barrel for 2003. The average distillate basis
for the year ended December 31, 2004 was $1.24 per
barrel compared to $1.11 per barrel in 2003. Additionally,
our refining margin for the year ended December 31, 2004
improved as a result of the termination of a single customer
product marketing agreement in November 2003. During 2003
Farmland was party to a marketing agreement that required it to
sell all refined products to a single customer at a fixed
differential to an index price. Subsequent to the conclusion of
the contract, we have expanded our customer base and increased
the realized differential to that index.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Petroleum depreciation and
amortization was $1.5 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $0.3 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 compared to
$2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The
decrease of $0.3 million for the combined periods of the
year ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was primarily the result of the petroleum
assets useful lives being reset to longer periods in the
Initial Acquisition as compared to the prior period based on
managements assessment of the condition of the petroleum
assets acquired, offset by the impact of the step-up in value of
the acquired assets in the Initial Acquisition.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for
our Petroleum operations include costs associated with the
actual operations of our refinery, such as energy and utility
costs, catalyst and chemical costs, repairs and maintenance,
labor and environmental compliance costs. Petroleum direct
operating expenses exclusive of depreciation and amortization
were $73.2 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $14.9 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 as compared to
$80.1 million in the corresponding period of 2003. The
primary reason for the increase for the combined periods for the
year ended December 31, 2004 relative to the year ended
December 31, 2003 were due to expenses associated with
environmental compliance ($1.1 million), repairs and
maintenance ($2.8 million), chemicals ($2.3 million)
and energy and utilities ($3.3 million). These increases
were offset by a $2.4 million reduction in rent expense.
Direct operating expenses per barrel of crude throughput for the
year ended December 31, 2004 increased by $0.08 per barrel
compared to direct operating expenses per barrel of crude
throughput of $2.57 in 2003.
Operating Income. Petroleum operating
income was $77.1 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $7.7 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 as compared to
$21.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2003.
This increase for the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 primarily resulted from higher refining
margin due to improved conditions in the domestic refining
industry and a 6% increase in sales volumes. The increase in
operating income was somewhat offset by increases in
98
expenses related to environmental compliance
($1.1 million), repairs and maintenance
($2.8 million), chemicals ($2.3 million) and energy
and utilities ($3.3 million).
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Business Results of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
62 Days
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
233 Days
|
|
Year
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
|
|
December
31,
|
|
March
2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June
23,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March
31,
|
Business
Financial Results
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
(unaudited)
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
100.9
|
|
|
$
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
$
|
93.4
|
|
|
$
|
79.3
|
|
|
|
$
|
93.7
|
|
|
$
|
162.5
|
|
|
$
|
51.5
|
|
|
$
|
38.6
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
21.9
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
|
|
25.9
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
17.1
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
53.0
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
43.8
|
|
|
|
28.3
|
|
|
|
|
29.2
|
|
|
|
63.7
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
16.7
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
|
22.9
|
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
|
35.7
|
|
|
|
36.8
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
Market Indicators
|
|
2003
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
Natural gas (dollars per million
Btu)
|
|
$
|
5.49
|
|
|
$
|
6.18
|
|
|
$
|
9.01
|
|
|
$
|
6.98
|
|
|
$
|
7.84
|
|
|
$
|
7.17
|
|
Ammonia southern plains
(dollars per ton)
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
297
|
|
|
|
356
|
|
|
|
353
|
|
|
|
415
|
|
|
|
389
|
|
UAN corn belt (dollars
per ton)
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
171
|
|
|
|
212
|
|
|
|
197
|
|
|
|
221
|
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Immediate
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
and Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
Ended March 31,
|
|
Company Operating Statistics
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Production (thousand tons):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia
|
|
|
335.7
|
|
|
|
309.2
|
|
|
|
413.2
|
|
|
|
369.3
|
|
|
|
102.7
|
|
|
|
86.2
|
|
UAN
|
|
|
510.6
|
|
|
|
532.6
|
|
|
|
663.3
|
|
|
|
633.1
|
|
|
|
160.4
|
|
|
|
165.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
846.3
|
|
|
|
841.8
|
|
|
|
1,076.5
|
|
|
|
1,002.4
|
|
|
|
263.1
|
|
|
|
251.9
|
|
Sales (thousand tons)(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia
|
|
|
134.8
|
|
|
|
103.9
|
|
|
|
141.8
|
|
|
|
117.3
|
|
|
|
35.6
|
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
UAN
|
|
|
528.9
|
|
|
|
541.6
|
|
|
|
646.5
|
|
|
|
645.5
|
|
|
|
170.1
|
|
|
|
166.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
663.7
|
|
|
|
645.5
|
|
|
|
788.3
|
|
|
|
762.8
|
|
|
|
205.7
|
|
|
|
187.5
|
|
Product pricing (plant gate)
(dollars per ton)(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia
|
|
$
|
235
|
|
|
$
|
266
|
|
|
$
|
324
|
|
|
$
|
338
|
|
|
$
|
410
|
|
|
$
|
347
|
|
UAN
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
$
|
162
|
|
|
$
|
195
|
|
|
$
|
169
|
|
On-stream factor(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasification
|
|
|
90.1
|
%
|
|
|
92.4
|
%
|
|
|
98.1
|
%
|
|
|
92.5
|
%
|
|
|
98.6
|
%
|
|
|
91.8
|
%
|
Ammonia
|
|
|
89.6
|
%
|
|
|
79.9
|
%
|
|
|
96.7
|
%
|
|
|
89.3
|
%
|
|
|
94.1
|
%
|
|
|
86.3
|
%
|
UAN
|
|
|
81.6
|
%
|
|
|
83.3
|
%
|
|
|
94.3
|
%
|
|
|
88.9
|
%
|
|
|
92.8
|
%
|
|
|
89.4
|
%
|
Capacity utilization:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia(3)
|
|
|
83.6
|
%
|
|
|
76.8
|
%
|
|
|
102.9
|
%
|
|
|
92.0
|
%
|
|
|
103.8
|
%
|
|
|
87.0
|
%
|
UAN(4)
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
|
|
97.0
|
%
|
|
|
121.2
|
%
|
|
|
115.6
|
%
|
|
|
118.8
|
%
|
|
|
122.7
|
%
|
Reconciliation to net sales
(dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freight in revenue
|
|
$
|
12,535
|
|
|
$
|
11,429
|
|
|
$
|
15,010
|
|
|
$
|
17,890
|
|
|
$
|
3,650
|
|
|
$
|
3,139
|
|
Sales net plant gate
|
|
|
88,373
|
|
|
|
101,439
|
|
|
|
157,989
|
|
|
|
144,575
|
|
|
|
47,843
|
|
|
|
35,436
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
|
100,908
|
|
|
|
112,868
|
|
|
|
172,999
|
|
|
|
162,465
|
|
|
|
51,493
|
|
|
|
38,575
|
|
99
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Plant gate sales per ton represents net sales less freight
revenue divided by sales tons. Plant gate pricing per ton is
shown in order to provide industry comparability. |
|
(2) |
|
On-stream factor is the total number of hours operated divided
by the total number of hours in the reporting period. |
|
(3) |
|
Based on nameplate capacity of 1,100 tons per day. |
|
(4) |
|
Based on nameplate capacity of 1,500 tons per day. |
Three Months
Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to the Three Months Ended
March 31, 2006.
Net Sales. Nitrogen fertilizer net
sales were $38.6 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 compared to $51.5 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2006. The decrease of
$12.9 million from the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006
was the result of both decreases in selling prices
($6.9 million) and reductions in overall sales volumes
($6.0 million) of our fertilizer products.
In regard to product sales volumes for the three months ended
March 31, 2007, our nitrogen operations experienced a
decrease of 42% in ammonia sales unit volumes (14,890 tons) and
a decrease of 2.0% in UAN sales unit volumes (3,345 tons). The
decrease in ammonia sales volume was the result of decreased
production volumes during the three months ended March 31,
2007 relative to the comparable period of 2006 due to
unscheduled downtime at our fertilizer plant and the transfer of
hydrogen to our Petroleum operations to facilitate sulfur
recovery in the ultra low sulfur diesel production unit. The
transfer of hydrogen to our Petroleum operations is scheduled to
be replaced with hydrogen produced by the new continuous
catalytic reformer scheduled to be completed in late 2007.
On-stream factors (total number of hours operated divided by
total hours in the reporting period) for all units of our
nitrogen operations (gasifier, ammonia plant and UAN plant) were
less than the comparable period primarily due to a two day
outage at the air separation unit. It is typical to experience
brief outages in complex manufacturing operations such as our
nitrogen fertilizer plant which result in less than one hundred
percent on-stream availability for one or more specific units.
Plant gate prices are prices FOB the delivery point less any
freight cost we absorb to deliver the product. We believe plant
gate price is meaningful because we sell products both FOB our
plant gate (sold plant) and FOB the customers designated
delivery site (sold delivered) and the percentage of sold plant
versus sold delivered can change month to month or three months
to three months. The plant gate price provides a measure that is
consistently comparable period to period. Plant gate prices for
the three months ended March 31, 2007 for both ammonia and
UAN were less than plant gate prices for the comparable period
of 2006 by 16% and 13%, respectively. Our ammonia and UAN sales
prices for product shipped during the three months ended
March 31, 2006 benefited from a period of relatively high
natural gas prices in 2005 primarily driven by the impact of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It is typical for the reported
pricing in our fertilizer business to lag the spot market prices
due to forward price contracts. As a result, forward price
contracts entered into the late summer and fall of 2005
comprised a significant portion of the product shipped in the
three months ended March 31, 2006 and therefore reflect
higher nitrogen fertilizer prices associated with the
aforementioned increase in natural gas prices. In contrast,
sales in the three months ended March 31, 2007 were
primarily executed in late summer and fall of 2006 and in a
comparably lower natural gas price environment, ahead of the
recent rise in nitrogen fertilizer prices driven by expanded use
of corn for the production of ethanol.
The demand for fertilizer is affected by the aggregate crop
planting decisions and fertilizer application rate decisions of
individual farmers. Individual farmers make planting decisions
based largely on the prospective profitability of a harvest,
while the specific varieties and amounts of fertilizer they
apply depend on factors like crop prices, their current
liquidity, soil conditions, weather patterns and the types of
crops planted.
100
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold exclusive
of depreciation and amortization is primarily comprised of pet
coke expense, hydrogen reimbursement and freight and
distribution expenses. Cost of product sold excluding
depreciation and amortization for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 was $6.1 million compared to
$7.2 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. The decrease of $1.1 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2006 was primarily the result of increased
hydrogen reimbursement due to the transfer of hydrogen to our
Petroleum operations to facilitate sulfur recovery in the ultra
low sulfur diesel production unit partially offset by an
increase in petroleum coke costs.
Depreciation and Amortization. Nitrogen
fertilizer depreciation and amortization increased to
$4.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007
as compared to $4.2 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2006.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for
our Nitrogen fertilizer operations include costs associated with
the actual operations of our nitrogen plant, such as repairs and
maintenance, energy and utility costs, catalyst and chemical
costs, outside services, labor and environmental compliance
costs. Nitrogen direct operating expenses exclusive of
depreciation and amortization for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 were $16.7 million as compared to
$13.6 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. The increase of $3.1 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2006 was primarily the result of increases in
labor ($0.1 million), repairs and maintenance
($1.4 million), equipment rental ($0.3 million),
outside services ($0.3 million), utilities
($1.0 million) and insurance ($0.2 million). The
increase in repairs and maintenance expense was specifically
related to preventative maintenance performed during a two day
air separation unit outage during the three months ended
March 31, 2007.
Operating Income. Nitrogen fertilizer
operating income was $9.3 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 as compared to $24.0 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2006. This decrease of
$14.7 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006
was the result of reduced sales volumes ($6.0 million),
lower plant gate prices for both UAN and ammonia
($6.9 million) and increased direct operating expenses
related to labor ($0.1 million), repairs and maintenance
($1.4 million), equipment rental ($0.3 million),
outside services ($0.3 million), utilities
($1.0 million) and insurance ($0.2 million).
Year Ended
December 31, 2006 Compared to the 174 Days Ended
June 23, 2005 and the 233 Days Ended December 31,
2005.
Net Sales. Nitrogen fertilizer net
sales were $162.5 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to $79.3 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $93.7 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. The decrease
of $10.5 million from the year ended December 31, 2006
as compared to the combined periods for the year ended
December 31, 2005 was the result of both decreases in
selling prices ($1.6 million) and reductions in overall
sales volumes ($8.9 million) of the fertilizer products as
compared to the year ended December 31, 2005.
In regard to product sales volumes for the year ended
December 31, 2006, the nitrogen fertilizer operations
experienced a decrease of 17% in ammonia sales unit volumes
(24,500 tons) and a decrease of 0.2% in UAN sales unit volumes
(988 tons). The decrease in ammonia sales volume was the result
of decreased production volumes during the year ended
December 31, 2006 relative to the comparable period of 2005
due to the scheduled turnaround at the fertilizer plant during
July 2006 and the transfer of hydrogen to our Petroleum
operations to facilitate sulfur recovery in the ultra low sulfur
diesel production unit. The transfer of hydrogen to our
petroleum operations is scheduled to be replaced with hydrogen
produced by the new continuous catalytic reformer scheduled to
be completed in the fall of 2007. We do not expect this will be
affected or changed due to our new Partnership structure for the
nitrogen fertilizer business. On-stream factors (total number of
hours operated divided
101
by total hours in the reporting period) for all units of the
nitrogen fertilizer operations (gasifier, ammonia plant and UAN
plant) were less in 2006 than in 2005 primarily due to the
scheduled turnaround in July 2006 and downtime in the ammonia
plant due to a crack in the converter. It is typical to
experience brief outages in complex manufacturing operations
such as the nitrogen fertilizer plant which result in less than
one hundred percent on-stream availability for one or more
specific units.
Plant gate prices are prices FOB the delivery point less any
freight cost absorbed to deliver the product. We believe plant
gate price is meaningful because the nitrogen fertilizer
business sells products both FOB the plant gate (sold plant) and
FOB the customers designated delivery site (sold
delivered) and the percentage of sold plant versus sold
delivered can change month to month or year to year. The plant
gate price provides a measure that is consistently comparable
period to period. Plant gate prices for the year ended
December 31, 2006 for ammonia were greater than plant gate
prices for the comparable period of 2005 by 4%. In contrast to
ammonia, UAN prices decreased for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2005 by 6%. The positive price comparisons for
ammonia sales, given the dramatic decline in natural gas prices
during the comparable periods, were the result of prepay
contracts executed during the period of relatively high natural
gas prices that resulted from the impact of hurricanes Katrina
and Rita on an already tight natural gas market.
The demand for fertilizer is affected by the aggregate crop
planting decisions and fertilizer application rate decisions of
individual farmers. Individual farmers make planting decisions
based largely on the prospective profitability of a harvest,
while the specific varieties and amounts of fertilizer they
apply depend on factors like crop prices, their current
liquidity, soil conditions, weather patterns and the types of
crops planted.
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold exclusive
of depreciation and amortization is primarily comprised of pet
coke expense and freight and distribution expenses. Cost of
product sold excluding depreciation and amortization for the
year ended December 31, 2006 was $25.9 million
compared to $9.1 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 and $14.5 million for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005. The increase of $2.3 million
for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the
combined periods for the year ended December 31, 2005 was
primarily the result of increases in freight expense.
Depreciation and Amortization. Nitrogen
fertilizer depreciation and amortization increased to
$17.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
compared to $0.3 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 and $8.4 million for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005. This increase of $8.4 million
for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the
combined periods for the year ended December 31, 2005 was
primarily the result of the
step-up in
property, plant and equipment for the Subsequent Acquisition.
See Factors Affecting Comparability.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for
the nitrogen fertilizer operations include costs associated with
the actual operations of the fertilizer plant, such as repairs
and maintenance, energy and utility costs, catalyst and chemical
costs, outside services, labor and environmental compliance
costs. Nitrogen direct operating expenses exclusive of
depreciation and amortization for the year ended
December 31, 2006 were $63.7 million as compared to
$28.3 million for the 174 days ended June 23,
2005 and $29.2 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005. The increase of $6.2 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the
combined periods for the year ended December 31, 2005 was
primarily the result of increases in labor ($0.7 million),
repairs and maintenance ($0.5 million), turnaround expenses
($2.6 million), outside services ($0.6 million),
utilities ($2.3 million) and insurance ($0.5 million),
partially offset by reductions in expenses related to catalyst
($0.6 million) and environmental ($0.8 million).
Operating Income. Nitrogen fertilizer
operating income was $36.8 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to $35.3 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and
102
$35.7 million for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005. This decrease of $34.2 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to the combined periods for
the year ended December 31, 2005 was the result of reduced
sales volumes, lower plant gate prices for UAN and increased
direct operating expenses related to labor ($0.7 million),
repairs and maintenance ($0.5 million), turnaround expenses
($2.6 million), outside services ($0.6 million),
utilities ($2.3 million), insurance ($0.5 million) and
depreciation ($8.4 million), partially offset by reductions
in expenses related to catalyst ($0.6 million) and
environmental ($0.8 million) and higher ammonia prices.
233 Days Ended
December 31, 2005 and the 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005
Compared to the 304 Days Ended December 31, 2004 and the 62
Days Ended March 2, 2004.
Net Sales. Nitrogen fertilizer net
sales were $93.7 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $79.3 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 compared to
$93.4 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $19.4 million for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. The increase of $60.1 million for the
combined periods for the year ended December 31, 2005 as
compared to the combined periods ended December 31, 2004
was the result of increases in both sales volumes
($33.2 million) and selling prices of ammonia and UAN
($26.9 million) as compared to 2004.
In regard to product sales volumes for the year ended
December 31, 2005, nitrogen fertilizer experienced an
increase of 36% in ammonia sales unit volumes (37,949 tons) and
an increase of 19% in UAN sales unit volumes (104,982 tons) as
compared to 2004. The increases in both ammonia and UAN sales
were due to improved on-stream factors for all units of the
nitrogen fertilizer operations (gasifier, ammonia plant and UAN
plant) in 2005 as compared to 2004. On-stream factors in 2004
were negatively impacted during September 2004 by additional
downtime from a scheduled turnaround, which resulted from delay
in start-up
associated with projects completed during the turnaround and
outages in the ammonia plant to repair a damaged heat exchanger.
Plant gate prices are prices FOB the delivery point less any
freight cost absorbed to deliver the product. We believe plant
gate price is meaningful because the nitrogen fertilizer
business sells products both FOB the plant gate (sold plant) and
FOB the customers designated delivery site (sold
delivered) and the percentage of sold plant as compared to sold
delivered can change month to month or year to year. The plant
gate price provides a measure that is consistently comparable
period to period. Plant gate prices in 2005 for ammonia and UAN
were greater than 2004 by 22% and 27%, respectively. These
prices reflected the strong market conditions in the nitrogen
fertilizer business as reflected in relatively high natural gas
prices during 2005.
The demand for fertilizer is affected by the aggregate crop
planting decisions and fertilizer application rate decisions of
individual farmers. Individual farmers make planting decisions
based largely on the prospective profitability of a harvest,
while the specific varieties and amounts of fertilizer they
apply depend on factors like their current liquidity, soil
conditions, weather patterns and the types of crops planted.
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold exclusive
of depreciation and amortization is primarily comprised of pet
coke expense and freight and distribution expenses. Cost of
product sold excluding depreciation and amortization was
$14.5 million for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005 and $9.1 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 compared to $20.4 million for the
304 days ended December 31, 2004 and $4.1 million
for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004. For the combined
periods for the year ended December 31, 2005 as compared to
the combined periods ended December 31, 2004, cost of
product sold exclusive of depreciation and amortization
decreased by $0.9 million.
Depreciation and Amortization. Nitrogen
fertilizer depreciation and amortization was $8.4 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005 and
$0.3 million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005
compared to $0.9 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $0.1 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. The increase of
$7.7 million for the combined periods ending
December 31, 2005 as compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was primarily
103
the result of the step-up in property, plant and equipment for
the Subsequent Acquisition. See Factors
Affecting Comparability.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for
the nitrogen fertilizer operations include costs associated with
the actual operations of the fertilizer plant, such as repairs
and maintenance, energy and utility costs, catalyst and chemical
costs, outside services, labor and environmental compliance
costs. Nitrogen fertilizer direct operating expenses exclusive
of depreciation and amortization were $29.2 million for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 and
$28.3 million for the 174 days ended June 23,
2005 compared to $43.8 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $8.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. The increase of
$5.3 million for the combined period ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to the combined period ended
December 31, 2004 was primarily the result of increases in
labor ($1.9 million), outside services ($1.4 million),
and energy and utilities costs ($3.8 million), partially
offset by reductions in turnaround expenses ($1.8 million)
and catalyst expense ($1.6 million).
Operating Income. Nitrogen fertilizer
operating income was $35.7 million for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005 and $35.3 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 compared to
$22.9 million for the 304 days ended December 31, 2004
and $3.5 million for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004. The
increase of $44.6 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was due to improved sales volume and nitrogen
fertilizer pricing that resulted from improved on-stream factors
for the fertilizer plant and strong market conditions in the
nitrogen fertilizer business. These positive factors were
partially offset by increased direct operating expenses due to
increases in labor ($1.9 million), outside services
($1.4 million), and energy and utilities costs
($3.8 million).
304 Days Ended
December 31, 2004 and the 62 Days Ended March 2, 2004
Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2003.
Net Sales. Nitrogen fertilizer net
sales were $93.4 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $19.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 as compared to
$100.9 million in 2003. This revenue increase for the
combined periods of the year ended December 31, 2004 as
compared to the year ended December 31, 2003 was entirely
attributable to increased nitrogen fertilizer prices
($18.8 million), which more than offset a slight decline in
total sales volume ($6.8 million) due to a planned
turnaround in August 2004. For 2004, southern plains ammonia and
corn belt UAN prices increased 8% and 20%, respectively, as
compared to the comparable period in 2003. In addition, due to
direct marketing efforts, the nitrogen fertilizer business
actual plant gate prices, relative to the market indices
presented above, improved substantially. Plant gate prices for
the year ended December 31, 2004 for ammonia and UAN were
greater than the comparable period in 2003 by 13% and 27%,
respectively. Plant gate prices are prices FOB the delivery
point less any freight cost absorbed to deliver the product. We
believe the plant gate price is meaningful because the nitrogen
fertilizer business sells products both FOB the plant gate (sold
plant) and FOB the customers designated delivery site
(sold delivered) and the percentage of sold plant versus sold
delivered can change month to month or year to year. The plant
gate price provides a measure that is consistently comparable
period to period. The improvement in plant gate price relative
to the market index was the result of eliminating the reseller
discount offered under the terms of a prior marketing agreement
and maximizing shipments to customers that were more freight
logical to the facility.
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Cost of product sold exclusive
of depreciation and amortization is primarily comprised of pet
coke expense and freight and distribution expenses. Cost of
product sold excluding depreciation and amortization was
$20.4 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $4.1 million for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004 as compared to $21.9 million in 2003.
The increase for the combined periods of the year ended
December 31, 2004 as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was primarily the result of the
recognition of the cost of pet coke after the Initial
Acquisition as compared to a zero value transfer during the
Original Predecessor period. Subsequent to the Initial
Acquisition in 2004 the nitrogen fertilizer business was charged
$4.3 million for pet coke transferred from our petroleum
business. During the Original Predecessor period, pet coke was
transferred at zero value.
104
Depreciation and Amortization. Nitrogen
fertilizer depreciation and amortization was $0.9 million
for the 304 days ended December 31, 2004 and
$0.1 million for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004
as compared to $1.2 million in 2003. This decrease for the
combined periods of the year ended December 31, 2004 and
the year ended December 31, 2003 was principally due to the
nitrogen fertilizer assets useful lives being reset to
longer periods in the Initial Acquisition period compared to the
prior period based on managements assessment of the
condition of the nitrogen fertilizer assets acquired offset by
the impact of the step-up in value of the acquired nitrogen
fertilizer assets in the Initial Acquisition.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Direct operating expenses for
the nitrogen fertilizer operations include costs associated with
the actual operations of the fertilizer plant, such as repairs
and maintenance, energy and utility costs, catalyst and chemical
costs, outside services, labor and environmental compliance
costs. Nitrogen fertilizer direct operating expenses exclusive
of depreciation and amortization were $43.8 million for the
304 days ended December 31, 2004 and $8.4 million
for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004 as compared to
$53.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.
Operating Income. Nitrogen fertilizer
operating income was $22.9 million for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 and $3.5 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 as compared to
$7.8 million in 2003. This increase of $18.6 million
for the combined periods of the year ended December 31,
2004 and the year ended December 31, 2003 was due to
improved market conditions and pricing in the domestic nitrogen
fertilizer industry and a decrease in direct operating expenses.
The improvement in operating income was negatively impacted
subsequent to the Initial Acquisition in 2004 as the nitrogen
fertilizer business was charged $4.3 million for pet coke
transferred from our petroleum business. During the Original
Predecessor period, pet coke was transferred at zero value.
Consolidated Results of Operations
Three Months
Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to the Three Months Ended
March 31, 2006.
Net Sales. Consolidated net sales were
$390.5 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007 compared to $669.7 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2006. The decrease of $279.2 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the three
months ended March 31, 2006 was primarily due to a decrease
in petroleum net sales of $267.1 million that resulted from
lower product prices ($37.1 million) and decreased sales
volumes ($230.0 million) over the comparable periods.
Nitrogen fertilizer net sales decreased $12.9 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the
three months ended March 31, 2006 due to decreased selling
prices ($6.9 million) and a reduction in overall sales
volumes ($6.0 million).
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated cost of product
sold exclusive of depreciation and amortization was
$303.7 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to $539.5 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2006. The decrease of $235.8 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to
the three months ended March 31, 2006 was primarily due to
the refinery turnaround that began in February 2007 and was
completed in April 2007. Our fertilizer business accounted for
approximately $1.1 million of the decrease in cost of
products sold over the comparable periods primarily the result
of increased hydrogen reimbursement due to the transfer of
hydrogen to our Petroleum operations to facilitate sulfur
recovery in the ultra low sulfur diesel production unit
partially offset by an increase in petroleum coke costs.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated depreciation and
amortization was $14.2 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 as compared to $12.0 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2006. The increase of
$2.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007
as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006 was
primarily the result of the completion of the ultra low sulfur
diesel and sulfur recovery unit projects in late 2006 in our
Petroleum business.
105
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated direct operating
expenses exclusive of depreciation and amortization were
$113.4 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to $44.3 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2006. This increase of $69.1 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to
the three months ended March 31, 2006 was due to an
increase in petroleum direct operating expenses of
$66.0 million, primarily related to the refinery
turnaround, and an increase in nitrogen fertilizer direct
operating expenses of $3.1 million.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses Exclusive of
Depreciation and Amortization. Consolidated
selling, general and administrative expenses were
$13.2 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to $8.5 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2006. This variance was primarily the result of
increases in administrative labor related to increased headcount
and deferred compensation ($3.8 million), bank charges
($0.1 million), office costs ($0.1 million) and
outside services ($0.3 million).
Operating Income. Consolidated
operating loss was $54.0 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 as compared to operating income of
$65.4 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. For the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared
to the three months ended March 31, 2006, petroleum
operating income decreased $105.1 million and nitrogen
fertilizer operating income decreased by $14.7 million.
Interest Expense. Consolidated interest
expense for the three months ended March 31, 2007 was
$11.9 million as compared to interest expense of
$12.2 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. This 2% decrease for the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006
was the result of an overall decrease in the applicable margins
under our Credit Facility dated December 28, 2006 as
compared to our borrowing facility completed in association with
the Subsequent Acquisition (see Liquidity and
Capital Resources Debt). Additionally, a
$3.2 million increase in capitalized interest over the
comparable periods due to the increase of capital projects in
progress during the three months ended March 31, 2007 also
positively impacted consolidated interest expense. These
positive impacts on consolidated interest expense over the
comparable periods were partially offset by increases in the
index rates (primarily LIBOR) and an increase in average
borrowings outstanding during the comparable periods.
Interest Income. Interest income was
$0.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007
as compared to $0.6 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2006.
Gain (loss) on Derivatives. For the
three months ended March 31, 2007, we incurred
$137.0 million in losses on derivatives. This compares to a
$17.6 million loss on derivatives for the three months
ended March 31, 2006. This significant change in gain
(loss) on derivatives for the three months ended March 31,
2007 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2006
was primarily attributable to our Cash Flow Swap and the
accounting treatment for all of our derivative transactions. We
determined that the Cash Flow Swap and our other derivative
instruments do not qualify as hedges for hedge accounting
purposes under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Since the
Cash Flow Swap had a significant term remaining as of
March 31, 2007 (approximately three years and three months)
and the NYMEX crack spread that is the basis for the underlying
swap contracts that comprised the Cash Flow Swap had increased
during this period, the unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap
increased significantly.
Provision for Income Taxes. Income tax
benefit for the three months ended March 31, 2007 was
$47.3 million, or 23.37% of loss before income taxes, as
compared to income tax expense of $14.1 million, or 38.94%
of earnings before income taxes, for the three months ended
March 31, 2006. The effective tax rate was primarily lower
due to the federal income tax credit available to small business
refiners related to the production of ultra low sulfur diesel
fuel.
106
Minority Interest in (income) loss of
Subsidiaries. Minority interest in (income)
loss of subsidiaries for the three months ended March 31,
2007 was $0.7 million. Minority interest relates to common
stock in two of our subsidiaries owned by our chief executive
officer.
Net Income. For the three months ended
March 31, 2007, net income decreased to a net loss of
$154.4 million as compared to net income of
$22.1 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. Net income decreased $176.5 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the three months
ended March 31, 2006, primarily due to the refinery
turnaround and a significant change in the value of the Cash
Flow Swap over the comparable periods.
Year Ended
December 31, 2006 Compared to the 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005
and the 233 Days Ended December 31, 2005.
Net Sales. Consolidated net sales were
$3,037.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
compared to $980.7 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 and $1,454.3 million for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005. The increase of
$602.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
compared to the combined periods ended December 31, 2005
was primarily due to an increase in petroleum net sales of
$613.2 million that resulted from significantly higher
product prices ($384.1 million) and increased sales volumes
($229.1 million) over the comparable periods. Nitrogen
fertilizer net sales decreased $10.5 million for the year
ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the combined periods
ended December 31, 2005 due to decreased selling prices
($1.6 million) and a reduction in overall sales volumes
($8.9 million).
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated cost of product
sold exclusive of depreciation and amortization was $2,443.4
million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to
$768.0 million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005
and $1,168.1 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005. The increase of $507.3 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the
combined periods ended December 31, 2005 was primarily due
to an increase in crude oil prices, sales volumes and the impact
of FIFO accounting in our petroleum business. The nitrogen
fertilizer business accounted for approximately
$2.3 million of the increase in cost of products sold over
the comparable period primarily related to increases in freight
expense.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated depreciation and
amortization was $51.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to $1.1 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $24.0 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. The increase of
$25.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
compared to the combined periods ended December 31, 2005
was due to an increase in petroleum depreciation and
amortization of $16.6 million and an increase in nitrogen
fertilizer depreciation and amortization of $8.4 million.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated direct operating
expenses exclusive of depreciation and amortization were $199.0
million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to
$80.9 million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $85.3
million for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. This increase
of $32.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
compared to the combined periods ended December 31, 2005 was due
to an increase in petroleum direct operating expenses of $26.5
million and an increase in nitrogen fertilizer direct operating
expenses of $6.2 million.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses Exclusive of
Depreciation and Amortization. Consolidated
selling, general and administrative expenses were $62.6 million
for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to $18.4
million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $18.4 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. Consolidated selling,
general and administrative expenses for the 174 days ended June
23, 2005 were negatively impacted by certain expenses associated
with $3.3 million of unearned compensation related to the
management equity of Immediate Predecessor in relation to the
Subsequent Acquisition. Adjusting for this expense, consolidated
selling, general and administrative expenses increased $29.1
million for the year ended
107
December 31, 2006 as compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005. This variance was primarily the result of
increases in administrative labor related to increased headcount
and share-based compensation ($18.6 million), office costs ($1.3
million), letter of credit fees due under our $150.0 million
funded letter of credit facility utilized as collateral for the
Cash Flow Swap which was not in place for approximately six
months in the comparable period ($2.1 million), public relations
expense ($0.5 million) and outside services expense ($2.4
million).
Operating Income. Consolidated
operating income was $281.6 million for the year ended December
31, 2006 as compared to $112.3 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 and $158.5 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005. For the year ended December 31, 2006 as
compared to the combined periods ended December 31, 2005,
petroleum operating income increased $45.9 million and nitrogen
fertilizer operating income decreased by $34.2 million.
Interest Expense. We reported
consolidated interest expense for the year ended December 31,
2006 of $43.9 million as compared to interest expense of $7.8
million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $25.0 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. This 34% increase for
the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the combined
periods ended December 31, 2005 was the direct result of
increased average borrowings over the comparable periods
associated with both our Credit Facility dated December 28, 2006
and our borrowing facility completed in association with the
Subsequent Acquisition (see Liquidity and
Capital Resources Debt) and an increase
in the actual rate of our borrowings due primarily to increases
both in index rates (LIBOR and prime rate) and applicable
margins. The comparability of interest expense during the
comparable periods has been impacted by the differing capital
structures of Successor and Immediate Predecessor periods. See
Factors Affecting Comparability.
Interest Income. Interest income was
$3.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to
$0.5 million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 and $1.0
million for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005. The increase
for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the combined
periods ended December 31, 2005 was primarily due to larger cash
balances and higher yields on invested cash.
Gain (loss) on Derivatives. For the
year ended December 31, 2006, we reported $94.5 million in gains
on derivatives. This compares to a $7.7 million loss on
derivatives for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 and a $316.1
million loss on derivatives for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005. This significant change in gain (loss) on derivatives for
the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to the combined
period ended December 31, 2005 was primarily attributable to our
Cash Flow Swap and the accounting treatment for all of our
derivative transactions. We determined that the Cash Flow Swap
and our other derivative instruments do not qualify as hedges
for hedge accounting purposes under SFAS No. 133, Accounting
for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Since the
Cash Flow Swap had a significant term remaining as of December
31, 2006 (approximately three years and six months) and the
NYMEX crack spread that is the basis for the underlying swap
contracts that comprised the Cash Flow Swap had declined during
this period, the unrealized gains on the Cash Flow Swap
increased significantly. The $323.7 million loss on derivatives
during the combined period ended December 31, 2005 is inclusive
of the expensing of a $25.0 million option entered into by
Successor for the purpose of hedging certain levels of refined
product margins. At closing of the Subsequent Acquisition, we
determined that this option was not economical and we allowed
the option to expire worthless, which resulted in the expensing
of the associated premium during the year ended December 31,
2005. See Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosures About Market Risk Commodity Price
Risk.
Extinguishment of Debt. On December 28,
2006, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC refinanced its existing first
lien credit facility and second lien credit facility and raised
$1.075 billion in long-term debt commitments under the new
Credit Facility. See Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt. As a result of the
retirement of the first and second lien credit facilities with
the proceeds of the Credit Facility, we recognized $23.4 million
as a loss on extinguishment of debt in 2006. On June 24, 2005
108
and in connection with the acquisition of Immediate Predecessor
by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC (see Factors
Affecting Comparability), we raised $800.0 million in
long-term debt commitments under both the first lien credit
facility and second lien credit facility. See
Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt. As a result of the
retirement of Immediate Predecessors outstanding
indebtedness consisting of $150.0 million term loan and
revolving credit facilities, we recognized $8.1 million as
a loss on extinguishment of debt in 2005.
Other Income (Expense). For the year
ended December 31, 2006, other expense was $0.9 million as
compared to other expense of $0.8 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 and other expense of $0.6 million for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005.
Provision for Income Taxes. Income tax
expense for the year ended December 31, 2006 was $119.8 million,
or 38.5% of earnings before income taxes, as compared to a tax
benefit of $26.9 million, or 28.7% of earnings before
income taxes, for the combined periods ended December 31, 2005.
The effective tax rate for 2005 was impacted by a realized loss
on option agreements that expired unexercised. Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC was party to these agreements and the loss was
incurred at that level which we effectively treated as a
permanent non-deductible loss.
Net Income. For the year ended December
31, 2006, net income increased to $191.6 million as compared to
net income of $52.4 million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005
and a net loss of $119.2 million for the 233 days ended December
31, 2005. Net income increased $258.4 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005, primarily due to improved operating income in
our Petroleum operations and a significant change in the value
of the Cash Flow Swap over the comparable periods.
233 Days Ended
December 31, 2005 and the 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005
Compared to the 304 Days Ended December 31, 2004 and the 62
Days Ended March 2, 2004.
Net Sales. Consolidated net sales were
$1,454.3 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $980.7 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 as compared to
$1,479.9 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $261.1 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. This increase of
$694.0 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was primarily due to an increase in
petroleum net sales of $634.8 million that resulted from
increased refined product prices ($688.3 million) offset by
reduced sales volumes ($53.5 million) as compared to 2004.
Also contributing to the increase in net sales during the
comparable periods was a $60.1 million increase in nitrogen
fertilizer net sales primarily driven by increase in both sales
volumes ($33.2 million) and selling prices of ammonia and
UAN ($26.9 million).
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated cost of product
sold exclusive of depreciation and amortization was
$1,168.1 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $768.1 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 as compared to
$1,244.2 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $221.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. This increase of
$470.5 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was primarily due to increased crude oil
prices partially offset by lower sales volumes and the impact of
FIFO inventory valuation.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated depreciation and
amortization was $24.0 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $1.1 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 as compared to
$2.4 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $0.4 million for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. This increase of $22.3 million for the
combined periods ended December 31, 2005 compared to the
combined periods ended December 31, 2004 was due to an
increase in petroleum depreciation and amortization of
$14.6 million and in nitrogen fertilizer depreciation and
amortization of $7.7 million primarily the result of a
step-up in property, plant and equipment for the Subsequent
Acquisition. See Factors Affecting
Comparability.
109
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated direct operating
expenses exclusive of depreciation and amortization were
$85.3 million for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005 and $80.9 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 as compared to $117.0 million for the
304 days ended December 31, 2004 and
$23.4 million for the 62 days ended March 2,
2004. This increase of $25.8 million for the combined
periods ended December 31, 2005 compared to the combined
periods ended December 31, 2004 was due to an increase in
petroleum direct operating expenses of $20.5 million and an
increase in nitrogen fertilizer direct operating expenses of
$5.3 million.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses Exclusive of
Depreciation and Amortization. Consolidated
selling, general and administrative expenses were
$18.3 million for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005 and $18.3 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 as compared to $16.3 million for the
304 days ended December 31, 2004 and $4.6 million
for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004. This increase of
$15.7 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was primarily the result of increases in
insurance costs associated with Successors
$1.25 billion property insurance limit requirement, letter
of credit fees due under our $150.0 million funded letter
of credit facility utilized as collateral for the Cash Flow Swap
which was not in place in the prior period, management fees,
discretionary bonuses and the write-off of unearned compensation
associated with the Subsequent Acquisition.
Operating Income. Consolidated
operating income was $158.5 million for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005 and $112.3 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 as compared to
$100.0 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $11.2 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. This increase of
$159.6 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was the result of an increase in
petroleum operating income of $114.9 million and an
increase in nitrogen fertilizer operating income of
$44.6 million.
Interest Expense. Consolidated interest
expense was $25.0 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and $7.8 million for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 as compared to
$10.1 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $0 for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004. This
increase of $22.7 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was the direct result of increased
borrowings in 2005 associated with our first tier credit
facility and second tier credit facility completed in
association with the Subsequent Acquisition (See
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Debt) and an increase in the actual rate of our borrowings
due to both increases in index rates (LIBOR and prime rate) and
applicable margins. The comparability of 2005 and 2004 interest
expense has been impacted by the differing capital structures of
Successor, Immediate Predecessor and Original Predecessor. See
Factors Affecting Comparability.
Interest Income. Interest income was
$1.0 million for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005 and $0.5 million for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 as compared to $0.2 million for the
304 days ended December 31, 2004 and $0.0 million
for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004. This increase of
$1.3 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was the result of larger cash balances
and higher yields on invested cash.
Gain (loss) on Derivatives. Gain (loss)
on derivatives was a loss of $316.1 million for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 and a loss of
$7.7 million for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005
as compared to a $0.5 million gain for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 and $0 for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. This dramatic decrease of
$324.2 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 is the result of a dramatic increase in
losses on derivatives primarily attributable to our Cash Flow
Swap and the accounting treatment for all of our derivative
transactions. We determined that the Cash Flow Swap and our
other derivative instruments do not qualify as hedges for hedge
accounting purposes under
110
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities. Therefore, the net income for the
year ended December 31, 2005 included both the realized and
the unrealized losses on all derivatives. Since the Cash Flow
Swap had a significant term remaining as of December 31,
2005 (approximately four years) and the NYMEX crack spread that
is the basis for the underlying swap contracts that comprised
the Cash Flow Swap had improved substantially, the unrealized
losses on the Cash Flow Swap increased significantly as of
December 31, 2005. The impact of these unrealized losses on
all derivatives, including the Cash Flow Swap, resulted in
unrealized losses of $229.8 million for 2005. Realized
losses on derivative transaction comprised the balance of the
losses for 2005 or $93.9 million. See
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About
Market Risk Commodity Price Risk.
Extinguishment of Debt. On
June 24, 2005 and in connection with the acquisition of
Immediate Predecessor by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC (see
Factors Affecting Comparability), we
raised $800.0 million in long-term debt commitments under a
first lien credit facility and a second lien credit facility. As
a result of the retirement of Immediate Predecessors
outstanding indebtedness consisting of $150.0 million term
loan and revolving credit facilities, we recognized
$8.1 million as a loss on extinguishment of debt in 2005.
This compares to a loss on extinguishment of debt of
$7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. On
May 10, 2004, we used proceeds from a $150.0 million
term loan to pay off our then existing debt which was originally
incurred on March 3, 2004. In connection with the
extinguishment of debt, we recognized $7.2 million as a
loss on extinguishment of debt in the 304 day period ended
December 31, 2004.
Other Income (Expense). Other income
(expense) was expense of $0.6 million for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005 and expense of $0.8 million
for the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 as compared to
income of $0.1 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $0 for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. This decrease of $1.4 million for the
combined periods ended December 31, 2005 compared to the
combined periods ended December 31, 2004 was primarily the
result of asbestos related accruals in 2005.
Provision for Income Taxes. Our income
tax benefit in the year ended December 31, 2005 was
($26.9 million), or 28.7% of loss before income tax, as
compared to $33.8 million in 2004. The effective tax rate
for 2005 was impacted by a realized loss on option agreements
that expired unexercised. Coffeyville Acquisition LLC was the
party to these agreements and the loss was incurred at that
level which we effectively treated as a permanent non-deductible
loss, therefore generating a lower effective tax rate on the net
loss for the year.
Net Income. Net income was a loss of
$119.2 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and net income of $52.4 million for
the 174 days ended June 23, 2005 as compared to net
income of $49.7 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and net income of $11.2 million for
the 62 days ended March 2, 2004. This decrease of
$127.7 million for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the combined periods ended
December 31, 2004 was primarily due to losses on
derivatives offset by improved margins in the year ending
December 31, 2005 as compared to 2004.
304 Days Ended
December 31, 2004 and the 62 Days Ended March 2, 2004
Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2003.
Net Sales. Consolidated net sales were
$1,479.9 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $261.1 million for the 62 days
ended March 2, 2004 compared to $1,262.2 million for
the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase of
$478.8 million for the combined periods of the year ended
December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was primarily due to an increase in
petroleum net sales of $471.1 million due to both increased
sales volumes ($83.2 million) and increased refined product
prices ($387.9 million). Nitrogen fertilizer net sales
increased $12.0 million in the combined periods of the year
ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the year
111
ended December 31, 2003 as a result of improved nitrogen
fertilizer prices ($18.8 million), offset by a decline in
overall fertilizer sales volume ($6.8 million).
Cost of Product Sold Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated cost of product
sold exclusive of depreciation and amortization was
$1,244.2 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $221.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 compared to
$1,061.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.
This increase of $403.8 million for the combined periods of
the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was primarily due to an increase in crude
oil costs and increased crude throughput in our petroleum
business for the year ended December 31, 2004 as compared
to the year ended December 31, 2003. Nitrogen fertilizer
cost of product sold also increased in the comparable periods
primarily due to the recognition of the cost of pet coke after
the Initial Acquisition as compared to zero value transfer
during the Original Predecessor period.
Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated depreciation and
amortization was $2.4 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $0.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 compared to
$3.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.
This decrease of $0.5 million for the combined periods of
the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was due to a decrease in petroleum
depreciation and amortization of $0.3 million and a
decrease in nitrogen fertilizer depreciation and amortization of
$0.2 million.
Direct Operating Expenses Exclusive of Depreciation and
Amortization. Consolidated direct operating
expenses exclusive of depreciation and amortization were
$117.0 million for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and $23.4 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 compared to
$133.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.
The increase of $7.2 million for the combined periods of
the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was primarily due to an increase in
petroleum direct operating expenses of $8.1 million. This
increase in the petroleum business was partially offset by a
decrease in nitrogen fertilizer direct operating expenses of
$0.8 million.
Operating Income. Consolidated
operating income was $100.0 million for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 and $11.2 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004 compared to
$29.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.
For the combined periods of the year ended December 31,
2004 compared to the year ended December 31, 2003,
petroleum operating income increased $63.3 million and
nitrogen fertilizer operating income increased by
$18.6 million.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses Exclusive of
Depreciation and Amortization, Reorganization Expenses and
Interest Expense. Consolidated selling,
general and administrative expenses were $16.3 million for
the 304 days ended December 31, 2004 and
$4.7 million for the 62 days ended March 2, 2004
compared to $23.6 million for the year ended
December 31, 2003. The $16.3 million of consolidated
selling, general and administrative expenses for the
304 days ended December 31, 2004 represented the cost
associated with corporate governance, legal expenses, treasury,
accounting, marketing, human resources and maintaining corporate
offices in New York and Kansas City. During the predecessor
periods, Farmland allocated corporate overhead based on internal
needs, which may not have been representative of the actual cost
to operate the businesses. In addition, during the year ended
December 31, 2003, Farmland incurred a number of charges
related to its bankruptcy. As a result of the charges and issues
related to allocations, a comparison of selling, general and
administrative expenses for the year ended December 31,
2004 to the year ended December 31, 2003 is not meaningful.
Extinguishment of Debt. On May 10,
2004, we used proceeds from a $150.0 million dollar term
loan to pay off our then existing debt which was originally
incurred on March 3, 2004. In connection with the
extinguishment of debt, we recognized $7.2 million as a
loss on extinguishment of debt in the 304 day period ended
December 31, 2004.
112
Provision for Income Taxes. Original
Predecessor was not a separate legal entity, and its operating
results were included with the operating results of Farmland and
its subsidiaries in filing consolidated federal and state income
tax returns. Farmland did not allocate income taxes to its
divisions. As a result, Original Predecessor periods do not
reflect any provision for income taxes.
Net Income. Net income was
$49.7 million for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004 and $11.2 million for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004 compared to $27.9 million for the year
ended December 31, 2003. This increase of
$33.0 million for the combined periods of the year ended
December 31, 2004 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2003 was due to both the change in ownership
and improved results in both the petroleum business and the
nitrogen fertilizer business.
Critical
Accounting Policies
We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance
with GAAP. In order to apply these principles, management must
make judgments, assumptions and estimates based on the best
available information at the time. Actual results may differ
based on the accuracy of the information utilized and subsequent
events. Our accounting policies are described in the notes to
our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus. Our critical accounting policies, which are
described below, could materially affect the amounts recorded in
our financial statements.
Impairment of
Long-Lived Assets
During 2001, Farmland accounted for long-lived assets in
accordance with SFAS No. 121, Accounting for
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be
Disposed of. SFAS 121 was superseded by
SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, which was adopted by Farmland
effective January 1, 2002.
In accordance with both SFAS 144 and SFAS 121,
Farmland reviewed its long-lived assets for impairment whenever
events or changes in circumstances indicated that the carrying
amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of
assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the
carrying amount of an asset to estimated undiscounted future net
cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the
carrying amount of an asset exceeded its estimated future
undiscounted net cash flows, an impairment charge was recognized
by the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets
exceeded the fair value of the assets. Assets to be disposed of
are reported at the lower of the carrying value or fair value
less cost to sell, and are no longer depreciated.
In its Plan of Reorganization, Farmland stated, among other
things, its intent to dispose of its petroleum and nitrogen
fertilizer assets. Despite this stated intent, these assets were
not classified as held for sale under SFAS 144 until
October 7, 2003 because, ultimately, any disposition must
be approved by the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy court did
not approve such disposition until that date. Since Farmland
determined that it was more likely than not that its assets
would be disposed of, those assets were tested for impairment in
2002 pursuant to SFAS 144, using projected undiscounted net
cash flows. Based on Farmlands best assumptions regarding
the use and eventual disposition of those assets, primarily from
indications of value received from potential bidders in the
bankruptcy sales process, the assets were determined to exceed
the fair value expected to be received on disposition by
approximately $375.1 million. Accordingly, an impairment
charge was recognized for that amount in 2002. The ultimate
proceeds from disposition of these assets were decided in a
bidding and auction process conducted in the bankruptcy
proceedings. In 2003, as a result of receiving a bid from
Coffeyville Resources, LLC, Farmland revised its estimate of the
amount to be generated from the disposition of these assets and
an additional impairment charge of $9.6 million was taken
in the year ended December 31, 2003.
113
As of March 31, 2007, net property, plant and equipment
totaled $1,113.6 million. To the extent events or
circumstances change indicating the carrying amounts of our
assets may not be recoverable, we could experience asset
impairments in the future.
Derivative
Instruments and Fair Value of Financial
Instruments
We use futures contracts, options, and forward contracts
primarily to reduce exposure to changes in crude oil prices,
finished goods product prices and interest rates to provide
economic hedges of inventory positions and anticipated interest
payments on long term-debt. Although management considers these
derivatives economic hedges, the Cash Flow Swap and our other
derivative instruments do not qualify as hedges for hedge
accounting purposes under SFAS No. 133, Accounting
for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and
accordingly are recorded at fair value in the balance sheet.
Changes in the fair value of these derivative instruments are
recorded into earnings as a component of other income (expense)
in the period of change. The estimated fair values of forward
and swap contracts are based on quoted market prices and
assumptions for the estimated forward yield curves of related
commodities in periods when quoted market prices are
unavailable. The Company recorded net gains (losses) from
derivative instruments of ($323.7 million),
$94.5 million and $(137.0) million in gain (loss) on
derivatives for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2005
and 2006 and for the three months ended March 31, 2007,
respectively.
As of March 31, 2007, a $1.00 change in quoted prices for
the crack spreads utilized in the Cash Flow Swap would result in
a $61.3 million change to the fair value of derivative
commodity position and the same change to net income.
Environmental
Expenditures
Liabilities related to future remediation of contaminated
properties are recognized when the related costs are considered
probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these
costs are based upon currently available facts, existing
technology, site-specific costs, and currently enacted laws and
regulations. In reporting environmental liabilities, no offset
is made for potential recoveries. All liabilities are monitored
and adjusted as new facts or changes in law or technology occur.
Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such costs
provide future economic benefits. Changes in laws, regulations
or assumptions used in estimating these costs could have a
material impact to our financial statements. The amount recorded
for environmental obligations at March 31, 2007 totaled
$7.1 million, including $1.2 million included in
current liabilities.
Share-Based Compensation
We estimated fair value of units for all applicable periods as
described below.
At March 3, 2004, we determined the per unit value of the
Original Predecessor common units by assessing the fair value of
the preference components associated with the preferred units
based on expected future cash flows of the business and
subtracting that value from the total fair value of our equity
to arrive at a fair value of the residual interests of the
preferred and common units.
In addition to voting rights, the holders of the preferred
units, who contributed all the cash into the Original
Predecessor on the acquisition date, were entitled to a return
of their contributed capital plus a 15% per annum preferred
yield on any outstanding unreturned contributed capital. In
determining the value that the preferred unit holders
transferred to the common unit holders, rather than applying a
waterfall method which would have resulted in no value, we
applied a discounted cash flow analysis based on a range of
potential earnings outcomes and assumptions. The percent of
equity value transferred from the preferred unit holders to the
common unit holders was based on the discounted cash flow
analysis after giving effect to the preference obligations,
including the 15% per annum preferred yield. Changes in
assumptions such as discount rates, prices or operating plant
operating conditions used to determine the forecasted cash flows
used in the valuation could have a material impact on the
percent of equity value allocated to the common units. In
preparing the
114
discounted cash flow analysis, the product sales price
assumptions used for the fertilizer and refinery products
assumed sustained prices for a five-year period at historically
high levels.
In connection with its refinancing on May 10, 2004, we had
obtained independent third party appraisals for the refinery and
the nitrogen fertilizer plant property, plant and equipment.
Taking into account the third party appraisals, we calculated an
equity value for the business. The appraisals included market
approach valuations and income approach valuations in the form
of a discounted cash flow. The discounted cash flow analysis
included assumptions for product sales prices consistent with
readily available forward market indicators and reflected
existing plant performance measures. Changes in assumptions
such as discount rates, prices or operating plant operating
conditions used to determine the forecasted cash flows used in
the valuation could have a material impact on the equity value.
Given the refinancing allowed us to settle the preference
obligations, the equity value resulting from the appraisal was
allocated pro rata to all unit holders for the 74,852,941 shares
outstanding subject to a discount of 8% attributed to the common
units for the non-voting status.
For the 233day period ended December 31, 2005, the year
ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended
March 31, 2007, we account for share-based compensation in
accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), Share-Based Payments.
SFAS 123(R) requires that compensation costs relating to
share-based payment transactions be recognized in a
companys financial statements. SFAS 123(R) applies to
transactions in which an entity exchanges its equity instruments
for goods or services and also may apply to liabilities an
entity incurs for goods or services that are based on the fair
value of those equity instruments.
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), we apply a fair-value-based
measurement method in accounting for share-based override units
and phantom points. See Management Employment
Agreements, Separation and Consulting Agreement and Other
Arrangements. Override units are equity classified awards
measured using the grant date fair value with compensation
expense recognized over the respective vesting period. Phantom
points are liability classified awards marked to market based on
their fair value at the end of each reporting period with
compensation expense recognized over the respective vesting
period.
At June 24, 2005 an independent third party appraisal for the
refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer plant were obtained.
Additionally, an independent appraisal process occurred at that
time, to value the management common units that were subject to
redemption and our override value units, override operating
units and phantom points. The Monte Carlo method of valuation
was utilized to value the override operating units, override
value units and phantom points that were issued on June 24, 2005.
In addition, an independent appraisal process occurs each
reporting period in order to revalue the management common units
and phantom points. The significant assumptions that are used
each reporting period to value the phantom and performance
service points are: (1) estimated forfeiture rate; (2) explicit
service period or derived service period as applicable, (3)
grant-date fair valuecontrolling basis; (4) marketability
and minority interest discounts and (5) volatility.
For the independent valuations that occurred as of December 31,
2005, June 30, 2006 and September 30, 2006, a Binomial Option
Pricing Model was utilized to value the phantom points.
Probability-weighted values that were determined in this
independent valuation process were discounted to determine the
present value of the units. Prospective financial information is
utilized in the valuation process. A discounted cash flow
method, a variation of the income approach, and a guideline
company method, which is a variation of a market approach is
utilized to value the management common units.
A combination of a binomial model and a probability-weighted
expected return method which utilizes the companys cash
flow projections was utilized to value the additional override
operating units and override value units that were issued on
December 28, 2006. Additionally, this combination of a binomial
model and probability-weighted expected return method was
utilized to value the phantom points as of December 31, 2006.
Management believes that this method is preferable for the
valuation of the override units and phantom points as it allows
a better integration of the cash flows
115
with other inputs including the timing of potential exit events
that impact the estimated fair value of the override units and
phantom points.
There is considerable judgment in the determination of the
significant assumptions used in determining the fair value for
our share based compensation. Changes in these assumptions could
result in material changes in the amounts recognized as
compensation expense in our consolidated financial statements.
For example, if we accelerated the expected term or maturity
date of the override units as a result of a change in
assumptions for the timeframe for when the override units begin
to receive distributions (i.e., timing of an exit event), or
increased the current value of the common units based on changes
in the projected future cash flows of the business, the
measurement date fair value of the override units and the
phantom points could materially increase, which could materially
increase the amount of compensation expense recognized in our
consolidated financial statements. In addition, changes in the
assumptions of discount rate, volatility, or free cash flows
will impact the amount of compensation expense recognized. The
extent of the impact is influenced by the expected term or
maturity date of the override units and current value of the
common units.
Assuming an override maturity date beyond ten years, which
increases the strike price as a result of requiring a higher
return on the common units before distributions are paid to the
override units, any changes to the discount rate, volatility, or
free cash flows that would increase compensation expense are
largely offset by the increase in the strike price. Assuming a
25% increase in the projected free cash flows used in the
analysis, additional compensation expense of approximately
$10.1 million would be recognized over the vesting period
related to the phantom points.
Purchase Price
Accounting and Allocation
The Initial Acquisition and the Subsequent Acquisition described
in Note 1 to our audited consolidated financial statements
included elsewhere in this prospectus have been accounted for
using the purchase method of accounting as of March 3, 2004
and June 24, 2005, respectively. The allocations of the
purchase prices to the net assets acquired have been performed
in accordance with SFAS No. 141, Business
Combinations. In connection with the allocations of the
purchase prices, management used estimates and assumptions to
determine the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities
assumed. Changes in these assumptions and estimates such as
discount rates and future cash flows used in the appraisal
process could have a material impact on how the purchase prices
were allocated at the dates of acquisition.
Income
Taxes
Income tax expense is estimated based on the projected effective
tax rate based upon future tax return filings. The amounts
anticipated to be reported in those filings may change between
the time the financial statements are prepared and the time the
tax returns are filed. Further, because tax filings are subject
to review by taxing authorities, there is also the risk that a
position on a tax return may be challenged by a taxing
authority. If the taxing authority is successful in asserting a
position different than that taken by us, differences in a tax
expense or between current and deferred tax items may arise in
future periods. Any of these differences which could have a
material impact on our financial statements would be reflected
in the financial statements when management considers them
probable of occurring and the amount reasonably estimatable.
Valuation allowances reduce deferred tax assets to an amount
that will more likely than not be realized. Managements
estimates of the realization of deferred tax assets is based on
the information available at the time the financial statements
are prepared and may include estimates of future income and
other assumptions that are inherently uncertain. No valuation
allowance is currently recorded, as we expect to realize our
deferred tax assets.
Consolidation
of Variable Interest Entities
In accordance with FASB Interpretation No. 46R,
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, or
FIN No. 46R, management has reviewed the terms
associated with our interests in the Partnership based upon the
partnership agreement as it will apply when the managing general
partner interest in
116
the Partnership is sold. Management has determined that the
Partnership will be treated as a variable interest entity and as
such has evaluated the criteria under FIN 46R to determine
that we are the primary beneficiary of the Partnership.
FIN 46R requires the primary beneficiary of a variable
interest entitys activities to consolidate the VIE.
FIN 46R defines a variable interest entity as an entity in
which the equity investors do not have substantive voting rights
and where there is not sufficient equity at risk for the entity
to finance its activities without additional subordinated
financial support. As the primary beneficiary, we absorb the
majority of the expected losses and/or receive a majority of the
expected residual returns of the VIEs activities.
We will need to reassess our investment in the Partnership from
time to time to determine whether we are the primary
beneficiary. If in the future we conclude that we are no longer
the primary beneficiary, we will be required to deconsolidate
the activities of the Partnership on a going forward basis. The
interest would then be recorded using the equity method and the
Partnership gross revenues, expenses, net income, assets and
liabilities as such would not be included in our consolidated
financial statements.
Liquidity and
Capital Resources
Our principal sources of liquidity are from cash and cash
equivalents, cash from operations and borrowings under
Coffeyville Resources, LLCs senior secured credit
facilities.
Cash Balance
and Other Liquidity
As of March 31, 2007, we had cash, cash equivalents and
short-term investments of $7.6 million. We believe our
March 31, 2007 cash levels, together with the availability
of borrowings under our revolving loan facilities and the
proceeds we receive from this offering, will be adequate to fund
our cash requirements based on our current level of operations
for at least the next twelve months. As of March 31, 2007,
we had available up to $114.1 million under our revolving
loan facilities. As of May 31, 2007, we had outstanding
$42.0 million of revolver borrowings and availability of
$101.6 million under our revolving credit facility.
As of March 31, 2007, our working capital and total
members equity were negatively impacted by the mark to
market accounting treatment of the Cash Flow Swap. In addition,
our working capital was negatively impacted by increased
borrowings under our revolving credit facility and uses of cash
for the refinery turnaround and significant capital
expenditures. The payable to swap counterparty included in the
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2007 was
approximately $239.0 million, and the current portion
included an increase of $94.2 million from
December 31, 2006, resulting in an equal reduction in our
working capital for that same period. If the unrealized portion
of this obligation becomes realized during 2007 and we are
required to satisfy the obligations associated with the realized
losses, assuming the plant is operating in a commercially
reasonable manner, we will have cash flows from operations
sufficient to meet this obligation, as a result of the inherent
nature of the Cash Flow Swap.
Debt
On December 28, 2006, our subsidiary Coffeyville Resources,
LLC entered into a Credit Facility which provides financing of
up to $1.075 billion. The Credit Facility consists of
$775 million of tranche D term loans, a
$150 million revolving credit facility, and a funded letter
of credit facility of $150 million issued in support of the
Cash Flow Swap. The Credit Facility is guaranteed by all of our
subsidiaries and is secured by substantially all of their assets
including the equity of our subsidiaries on a first lien
priority basis.
The Credit Facility refinanced our then existing first lien
credit facility and second lien credit facility, which were
initially entered into on June 24, 2005 in conjunction with
the Subsequent Acquisition. The first lien credit facility
consisted of $225.0 million of tranche B term loans;
$50 million of delayed draw term loans; a
$100.0 million revolving loan facility; and a
$150.0 million funded letter
117
of credit facility issued in support of the Cash Flow Swap. The
second lien credit facility consisted of a $275.0 million
term loan. The first lien credit facility was amended and
restated on June 29, 2006 on substantially the same terms
as the June 24, 2005 agreement; the primary reason for the
June 2006 amendment and restatement was to reduce the applicable
margin spreads for borrowings on the first lien term loans and
the funded letter of credit facility.
The $775.0 million of tranche D term loans are subject
to quarterly principal amortization payments of 0.25% of the
outstanding balance commencing on April 1, 2007 and
increasing to 23.5% of the outstanding principal balance on
April 1, 2013 and the next two quarters, with a final
payment of the aggregate outstanding balance on
December 28, 2013. Our first lien credit facility, now
repaid in full, had a similar amortization schedule and prior to
repayment in full we had made all of the quarterly principal
amortization payments under that facility.
The revolving loan facility of $150.0 million provides for
direct cash borrowings for general corporate purposes and on a
short-term basis. Letters of credit issued under the revolving
loan facility are subject to a $75.0 million sub-limit. The
revolving loan commitment expires on December 28, 2012. The
borrower has an option to extend this maturity upon written
notice to the lenders; however, the revolving loan maturity
cannot be extended beyond the final maturity of the term loans,
which is December 28, 2013. As of December 31, 2006,
we had available $143.6 million under the revolving credit
facility.
The $150.0 million funded letter of credit facility
provides credit support for our obligations under the Cash Flow
Swap. The funded letter of credit facility is fully cash
collateralized by the funding by the lenders of cash into a
credit linked deposit account. This account is held by the
funded letter of credit issuing bank. Contingent upon the
requirements of the Cash Flow Swap, the borrower has the ability
to reduce the funded letter of credit at any time upon written
notice to the lenders. The funded letter of credit facility
expires on December 28, 2010.
The net proceeds of $775.0 million received on
December 28, 2006 from the term loans under the Credit
Facility were used to repay the term loans under our then
existing first lien credit facility, repay all amounts
outstanding under our then existing second lien credit facility,
pay related fees and expenses, and pay a dividend to existing
members of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in the amount of
$250 million.
The net proceeds received in June 2005 from the tranche B
term loan of $225.0 million under our then-existing first
lien credit facility, second lien term loans of
$275.0 million, $12.5 million of revolving loan
facilities and a $227.7 million equity contribution from
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC were utilized to fund the following
upon the closing of the Subsequent Acquisition:
|
|
|
|
|
$685.8 million for cash proceeds to Immediate Predecessor
($1,038.9 million of assets acquired less
$353.1 million of liabilities assumed), including
$12.6 million of legal, accounting, advisory, transaction
and other expenses associated with the Subsequent Acquisition;
|
|
|
|
$49.6 million of other fees and expenses related to the
Subsequent Acquisition, including financing fees, risk
management fees associated with option premiums for crack spread
swaps, and title fees; and
|
|
|
|
$4.9 million of cash to fund our operating accounts.
|
The Credit Facility incorporates the following pricing by
facility type:
|
|
|
|
|
Tranche D term loans bear interest at either (a) the
greater of the prime rate and the federal funds effective rate
plus 0.5%, plus in either case 2.00%, or, at the borrowers
option, (b) LIBOR plus 3.00% (with step-downs to the prime
rate/federal funds rate plus 1.75% or 1.50% or LIBOR plus 2.75%
or 2.50%, respectively, upon achievement of certain rating
conditions). Prior to the December 2006 amendment and
restatement, first lien term loans accrued interest at
(a) the greater of the prime rate and the federal funds
rate plus 0.5%, plus in either case 1.25%, or, at the
borrowers option, (b) LIBOR plus 2.25% (with
potential
|
118
|
|
|
|
|
stepdowns to LIBOR plus 2.00% or the prime rate plus 1.00%), and
second lien term loans accrued interest at a rate of LIBOR plus
6.75% or, at the borrowers option, the prime rate plus
5.75%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving loan borrowings bear interest at either (a) the
greater of the prime rate and the federal funds effective rate
plus 0.5%, plus in either case 2.00%, or, at the borrowers
option, (b) LIBOR plus 3.00% (with step-downs to the prime
rate/federal funds rate plus 1.75% or 1.50% or LIBOR plus 2.75%
or 2.50%, respectively, upon achievement of certain rating
conditions). Prior to the December 2006 amendment and
restatement, revolving loans under the then-existing first lien
credit facility accrued interest at (a) the greater of the
prime rate and the federal funds effective rate plus 0.5%, plus
in either case 1.50%, or, at the borrowers option,
(b) LIBOR plus 2.50%, (with potential stepdowns to LIBOR
plus 2.00% or the prime rate plus 1.00%).
|
|
|
|
Letters of credit issued under the $75.0 million sub-limit
available under the revolving loan facility are subject to a fee
equal to the applicable margin on revolving LIBOR loans owing to
all revolving lenders and a fronting fee of 0.25% per annum
owing to the issuing lender.
|
|
|
|
Funded letters of credit are subject to a fee equal to the
applicable margin on term LIBOR loans owed to all funded letter
of credit lenders and a fronting fee of 0.125% per annum owing
to the issuing lender. The borrower is also obligated to pay a
fee of 0.10% to the administrative agent on a quarterly basis
based on the average balance of funded letters of credit
outstanding during the calculation period, for the maintenance
of a credit-linked deposit account backstopping funded letters
of credit.
|
In addition to the fees stated above, the Credit Facility
requires the borrower to pay 0.50% per annum in commitment fees
on the unused portion of the revolving loan facility.
The Credit Facility requires the borrower to prepay outstanding
loans, subject to certain exceptions, with:
|
|
|
|
|
100% of the net asset sale proceeds received from specified
asset sales and net insurance/condemnation proceeds, if the
borrower does not reinvest those proceeds in assets to be used
in its business or make other permitted investments within
12 months or if, within 12 months of receipt, the
borrower does not contract to reinvest those proceeds in assets
to be used in its business or make other permitted investments
within 18 months of receipt, each subject to certain
limitations;
|
|
|
|
100% of the cash proceeds from the incurrence of specified debt
obligations;
|
|
|
|
|
|
75% of consolidated excess cash flow less 100% of
voluntary prepayments made during the fiscal year; provided that
with respect to any fiscal year commencing with fiscal 2008 this
percentage will be reduced to 50% if the total leverage ratio at
the end of such fiscal year is less than 1.50:1.00 or 25% if the
total leverage ratio as of the end of such fiscal year is less
than 1.00:1.00; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% of the cash proceeds received by us from any initial public
offering or secondary registered offering of equity interests,
until the aggregate amount of such proceeds is equal to
$280 million.
|
Mandatory prepayments will be applied first to the term loan,
second to the swing line loans, third to the revolving loans,
fourth to outstanding reimbursement obligations with respect to
revolving letters of credit and funded letters of credit, and
fifth to cash collateralize revolving letters of credit and
funded letters of credit. Voluntary prepayments of loans under
the Credit Facility are permitted, in whole or in part, at the
borrowers option, without premium or penalty. This
offering will trigger a mandatory prepayment of the Credit
Facility.
119
The Credit Facility contains customary covenants. These
agreements, among other things, restrict, subject to certain
exceptions, the ability of Coffeyville Resources, LLC and its
subsidiaries to incur additional indebtedness, create liens on
assets, make restricted junior payments, enter into agreements
that restrict subsidiary distributions, make investments, loans
or advances, engage in mergers, acquisitions or sales of assets,
dispose of subsidiary interests, enter into sale and leaseback
transactions, engage in certain transactions with affiliates and
stockholders, change the business conducted by the credit
parties, and enter into hedging agreements. The Credit Facility
provides that Coffeyville Resources, LLC may not enter into
commodity agreements if, after giving effect thereto, the
exposure under all such commodity agreements exceeds 75% of
Actual Production (the borrowers estimated future
production of refined products based on the actual production
for the three prior months) or for a term of longer than six
years from December 28, 2006. In addition, the borrower may
not enter into material amendments related to any material
rights under the Cash Flow Swap or the management agreements
with Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Kelso &
Company, L.P., without the prior written approval of the
lenders. These limitations are subject to critical exceptions
and exclusions and are not designed to protect investors in our
common stock.
The Credit Facility also requires the borrower to maintain
certain financial ratios as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
interest
|
|
leverage
|
Fiscal quarter ending
|
|
coverage ratio
|
|
ratio
|
|
March 31, 2007
|
|
|
2.25:1.00
|
|
|
4.75:1.00
|
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
2.50:1.00
|
|
|
4.50:1.00
|
September 30, 2007
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
|
|
4.25:1.00
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
|
|
4.00:1.00
|
March 31, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
June 30, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
3.00:1.00
|
September 30, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
2.50:1.00
|
March 31, 2009 and thereafter
|
|
|
3.75:1.00
|
|
|
2.25:1.00
to December 31, 2009,
2.00:1.00 thereafter
|
The computation of these ratios is governed by the specific
terms of the Credit Facility and may not be comparable to other
similarly titled measures computed for other purposes or by
other companies. The minimum interest coverage ratio is the
ratio of consolidated adjusted EBITDA to consolidated cash
interest expense over a four quarter period. The maximum
leverage ratio is the ratio of consolidated total debt to
consolidated adjusted EBITDA over a four quarter period. The
computation of these ratios requires a calculation of
consolidated adjusted EBITDA. In general, under the terms of our
Credit Facility, consolidated adjusted EBITDA is calculated by
adding consolidated net income, consolidated interest expense,
income taxes, depreciation and amortization, other non-cash
expenses, any fees and expenses related to permitted
acquisitions, any non-recurring expenses incurred in connection
with the issuance of debt or equity, management fees, any
unusual or non-recurring charges up to 7.5% of consolidated
adjusted EBITDA, any net after-tax loss from disposed or
discontinued operations, any incremental property taxes related
to abatement non-renewal, any losses attributable to minority
equity interests and major scheduled turnaround expenses. As
of March 31, 2007, we were in compliance with our covenants
under the Credit Facility.
120
We present consolidated adjusted EBITDA because it is a material
component of material covenants within our current Credit
Facility and significantly impacts our liquidity and ability to
borrow under our revolving line of credit. However, consolidated
adjusted EBITDA is not a defined term under GAAP and should not
be considered as an alternative to operating income or net
income as a measure of operating results or as an alternative to
cash flows as a measure of liquidity. Consolidated adjusted
EBITDA is calculated under the Credit Facility as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Immediate
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
and Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
(non-GAAP)
|
|
|
(non-GAAP)
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
Consolidated
Financial Results
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
27.9
|
|
|
$
|
60.9
|
|
|
$
|
(66.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
191.6
|
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
$
|
(154.4
|
)
|
Plus:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
25.1
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
32.8
|
|
|
|
43.9
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.8
|
|
|
|
(26.9
|
)
|
|
|
119.8
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
|
|
(47.3
|
)
|
Impairment of property, plant and
equipment
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory fair market value
adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded letters of credit expenses
and interest rate swap not included in interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major scheduled turnaround expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
Loss on termination of Swap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gain) or loss on
derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
229.8
|
|
|
|
(128.5
|
)
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
126.9
|
|
Non-cash
compensation expense for equity awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
(Gain) or loss on disposition of
fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses related to acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
Management fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
42.1
|
|
|
$
|
121.2
|
|
|
$
|
253.6
|
|
|
$
|
328.2
|
|
|
$
|
82.7
|
|
|
$
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the financial covenants summarized in the table
above, the Credit Facility restricts the capital expenditures of
Coffeyville Resources, LLC to $225 million in 2007 (plus
the difference between $260 million and the amount spent on
capital expenditures in 2006), $100 million in 2008,
$80 million in 2009, $80 million in 2010, and
$50 million in 2011 and each year thereafter. We intend to
amend the Credit Facility prior to the consummation of this
offering to change the capital expenditures limits to
$375 million in 2007, $125 million in 2008,
$125 million in 2009, $80 million in 2010, and
$50 million in 2011 and thereafter. The capital
expenditures covenant includes a mechanism for carrying over the
excess of any previous years capital expenditure limit.
The capital expenditures limitation will not apply for any
fiscal year commencing with fiscal 2009 if the borrower
consummates an initial public offering and obtains a total
leverage ratio of less than or equal to 1.25:1.00 for any
quarter commencing with the quarter ended December 31,
2008. We believe the limitations on our capital expenditures
imposed by the Credit Facility should allow us to meet our
current capital expenditure needs. However, if future events
require us or make it beneficial for us to make capital
expenditures beyond those currently planned, we would need to
obtain consent from the lenders under our Credit Facility.
The Credit Facility also contains customary events of default.
The events of default include the failure to pay interest and
principal when due, including fees and any other amounts owed
under the Credit Facility, a breach of certain covenants under
the Credit Facility, a breach of any representation or warranty
contained in the Credit Facility, any default under any of the
documents entered into in connection with the Credit Facility,
the failure to pay principal or interest or any other amount
payable under other debt arrangements in an aggregate amount of
at least $20 million, a breach or default with respect to
material terms under other debt arrangements in an aggregate
amount of at least $20 million which results in the debt
becoming payable or declared due and payable before its stated
121
maturity, a breach or default under the Cash Flow Swap that
would permit the holder or holders to terminate the Cash Flow
Swap, events of bankruptcy, judgments and attachments exceeding
$20 million, events relating to employee benefit plans
resulting in liability in excess of $20 million, a change
in control, the guarantees, collateral documents or the Credit
Facility failing to be in full force and effect or being
declared null and void, any guarantor repudiating its
obligations, the failure of the collateral agent under the
Credit Facility to have a lien on any material portion of the
collateral, and any party under the Credit Facility (other than
the agent or lenders under the Credit Facility) contesting the
validity or enforceability of the Credit Facility.
Under the terms of our Credit Facility, this offering will be
deemed a Qualified IPO if the offering generates at
least $250 million of gross proceeds and we use the
proceeds of the offering, together with cash on hand, to repay
at least $275 million of term loans under the Credit
Facility. Assuming that the initial public offering price is at
least $20 per share and that the total number of shares does not
decrease, we expect this offering to constitute a Qualified IPO.
However, it is possible that due to market conditions or
otherwise this offering may fail to meet the criteria of a
Qualified IPO under the Credit Facility. If this offering is not
a Qualified IPO, the interest margin on LIBOR loans will
increase from 3.00% to 3.25%; if this offering is a Qualified
IPO, the interest margin on LIBOR loans may in the future
decrease from 3.00% to 2.75% (if we have credit ratings of
B2/B) or 2.50% (if we have credit ratings of B1/B+).
Interest on base rate loans will similarly be adjusted. In
addition, if the offering is a Qualified IPO, (1) we will
be allowed to borrow an additional $225 million under the
Credit Facility after June 30, 2008 to finance capital
enhancement projects if we are in pro forma compliance with the
financial covenants in the Credit Facility and the rating
agencies confirm our ratings, (2) we will be allowed to pay
an additional $35 million of dividends each year, if our
corporate family ratings are at least B2 from Moodys and B
from S&P, (3) we will not be subject to any capital
expenditures limitations commencing with fiscal 2009 if our
total leverage ratio is less than or equal to 1.25:1 for any
quarter commencing with the quarter ended December 31,
2008, and (4) at any time after March 31, 2008 we will
be allowed to reduce the Cash Flow Swap to not less than 35,000
barrels a day for fiscal 2008 and terminate the Cash Flow Swap
for any year commencing with fiscal 2009, so long as our total
leverage ratio is less than or equal to 1.25:1 and we have a
corporate family rating of at least B2 from Moodys and B
from S&P.
The Credit Facility is subject to an intercreditor agreement
among the lenders and the Cash Flow Swap provider, which deal
with, among other things, priority of liens, payments and
proceeds of sale of collateral.
At December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007, funded
long-term debt, including current maturities, totaled
$775.0 million of tranche D term loans. Other
commitments at December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007
included a $150.0 million funded letter of credit facility
and a $150.0 million revolving credit facility. As of
December 31, 2006, the commitment outstanding on the
revolving credit facility was a $6.4 million letter of
credit issued to provide transitional collateral to the lender
that issued $3.2 million in letters of credit in support of
certain environmental obligations and $3.2 million in
letters of credit to secure transportation services for a crude
oil pipeline. As of March 31, 2007, the commitment
outstanding on the revolving credit facility was
$35.9 million, including $29.5 million in borrowings,
$3.2 million in letters of credit in support of certain
environmental obligations and $3.2 million in letters of
credit to secure transportation services for a crude oil
pipeline.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Limited Partnership
We intend to amend our Credit Facility prior to the consummation
of this offering in order to permit the transfer of our nitrogen
fertilizer business to the Partnership and the sale of the
managing general partner in the Partnership to a new entity
owned by our controlling stockholders and senior management. In
connection with this amendment, the Partnership, CVR Special GP,
LLC (the subsidiary through which we own our general partner
interest in the Partnership) and CVR LP, LLC (the subsidiary
through which we own our limited partner interest in the
Partnership) will be added as guarantors and collateral grantors
under the Credit Facility. In addition, the amendment will
provide
122
that we may not enter into material amendments related to any
material rights under the Partnerships limited partnership
agreement without the prior written approval of the lenders.
The managing general partner of the Partnership may, from time
to time, seek to raise capital through a public or private
offering of limited partner interests in the Partnership. Any
decision to pursue such a transaction would be made in the
discretion of the managing general partner, not us, and any
proceeds raised in a primary offering would be for the benefit
of the Partnership, not us (although in some cases, depending on
the structure of the transaction, the Partnership might remit
proceeds to us). If the managing general partner elects to
pursue a public or private offering of limited partner interests
in the Partnership, we expect that any such transaction would
require amendments to our Credit Facility, as well as the Cash
Flow Swap, in order to remove the Partnership and its
subsidiaries as obligors under such instruments. Any such
amendments could result in significant changes to the Credit
Facilitys pricing, mandatory repayment provisions,
covenants and other terms and could result in increased interest
costs and require payment by us of additional fees. We have
agreed to use our commercially reasonable efforts to obtain such
amendments if the managing general partner elects to cause the
Partnership to pursue a public or private offering and gives us
at least 90 days written notice. However, we cannot assure
you that we will be able to obtain any such amendment on terms
acceptable to us or at all. If we are not able to amend our
Credit Facility on terms satisfactory to us, we may need to
refinance it with another facility. We will not be considered to
have used our commercially reasonable efforts to
obtain such amendments if we do not effect the requested
modifications due to (i) payment of fees to the lenders or
the swap counterparty, (ii) the costs of this type of
amendment, (iii) an increase in applicable margins or
spreads or (iv) changes to the terms required by the
lenders including covenants, events of default and repayment and
prepayment provisions; provided that (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
in the aggregate are not likely to have a material adverse
effect on us. In order to effect the requested amendments, we
may require that (1) the Partnerships initial public
or private offering generate at least $140 million in net
proceeds to us and (2) the Partnership repay its
$75 million intercompany note due to us in full prior to or
concurrently with the closing of its initial offering. If the
managing general partner sells interests to third party
investors, we expect that the Partnership may at such time seek
to enter into its own credit facility. See The Nitrogen
Fertilizer Limited Partnership.
In addition, we may elect to sell our interests in the
Partnership in a secondary public offering (either in connection
with a public offering by the Partnership, but subject to
priority rights in favor of the Partnership, or following
completion of the Partnerships initial public offering, if
any) or in a private placement. Neither the consent of the
managing general partner nor the consent of the Partnership is
required for any sale of our interests in the Partnership, other
than customary blackout periods relating to offerings by the
Partnership. Any proceeds raised would be for our benefit. The
Partnership has granted us registration rights which will
require the Partnership to register our interests with the SEC
at our request from time to time (following any public offering
by the Partnership), subject to various limitations and
requirements.
Capital
Spending
We divide our capital spending needs into two categories:
non-discretionary, which is either capitalized or expensed, and
discretionary, which is capitalized. Non-discretionary capital
spending, such as for planned turnarounds and other maintenance,
is required to maintain safe and reliable operations or to
comply with environmental, health and safety regulations. The
total non-discretionary capital spending needs for our refinery
business and the nitrogen fertilizer business, including major
scheduled turnaround expenses, were approximately
$175 million in 2006 and we estimate that the total
non-discretionary capital spending needs of our refinery
business and the nitrogen fertilizer business will be
approximately $242 million in 2007 and approximately
$207 million in the aggregate over the three-year period
beginning 2008. These estimates include, among other items, the
capital costs necessary to comply with environmental
regulations, including Tier II gasoline standards and
on-road diesel regulations. As described above, our Credit
Facility limits the amount we can spend on capital expenditures.
123
Compliance with the Tier II gasoline and on-road diesel
standards required us to spend approximately $133 million
during 2006 and we estimate that compliance will require us to
spend approximately $116 million during 2007 and
approximately $46 million in the aggregate between 2008 and
2010. These amounts are reflected in the table below under
Environmental capital needs. See
Business Environmental Matters
Fuel Regulations Tier II, Low Sulfur
Fuels.
The following table sets forth our estimate of non-discretionary
spending for our refinery business and the nitrogen fertilizer
business for the years presented as of March 31, 2007
(other than 2006 which reflects actual spending). After
consummation of this offering, capital spending for the
fertilizer business will be determined by the managing general
partner of the Partnership. The data contained in the table
below represents our current plans, but these plans may change
as a result of unforeseen circumstances and we may revise these
estimates from time to time or not spend the amounts in the
manner allocated below.
Petroleum
Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Cumulative
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Environmental capital needs
|
|
$
|
144.6
|
|
|
$
|
139.5
|
|
|
$
|
13.3
|
|
|
$
|
27.0
|
|
|
$
|
51.6
|
|
|
$
|
376.0
|
|
Sustaining capital needs
|
|
|
11.8
|
|
|
|
21.4
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
15.2
|
|
|
|
78.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156.4
|
|
|
|
160.9
|
|
|
|
27.2
|
|
|
|
42.8
|
|
|
|
66.8
|
|
|
|
454.1
|
|
Major scheduled turnaround expenses
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
73.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|
|
127.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total estimated non-discretionary
spending
|
|
$
|
160.4
|
|
|
$
|
233.9
|
|
|
$
|
27.2
|
|
|
$
|
42.8
|
|
|
$
|
116.8
|
|
|
$
|
581.1
|
|
Nitrogen
Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Cumulative
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Environmental capital needs
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
2.4
|
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
6.8
|
|
Sustaining capital needs
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
|
|
34.8
|
|
Major scheduled turnaround expenses
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total estimated non-discretionary
spending
|
|
$
|
14.6
|
|
|
$
|
8.5
|
|
|
$
|
9.7
|
|
|
$
|
1.3
|
|
|
$
|
8.7
|
|
|
$
|
42.8
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Cumulative
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Environmental capital needs
|
|
$
|
144.7
|
|
|
$
|
141.9
|
|
|
$
|
16.0
|
|
|
$
|
27.5
|
|
|
$
|
52.7
|
|
|
$
|
382.8
|
|
Sustaining capital needs
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
27.5
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
|
|
|
106.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
168.4
|
|
|
|
169.4
|
|
|
|
34.4
|
|
|
|
44.1
|
|
|
|
72.6
|
|
|
|
488.9
|
|
Major scheduled turnaround expenses
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
73.0
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.9
|
|
|
|
135.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total estimated non-discretionary
spending
|
|
$
|
175.0
|
|
|
$
|
242.4
|
|
|
$
|
36.9
|
|
|
$
|
44.1
|
|
|
$
|
125.5
|
|
|
$
|
623.9
|
|
We undertake discretionary capital spending based on the
expected return on incremental capital employed. Discretionary
capital projects generally involve an expansion of existing
capacity, improvement in product yields,
and/or a
reduction in direct operating expenses. As of March 31,
2007, we had committed approximately $45 million towards
discretionary capital spending in 2007.
124
The Partnership is also considering a $40 million
fertilizer plant expansion, which we estimate could increase the
nitrogen fertilizer plants capacity to upgrade ammonia
into premium priced UAN by 50% to approximately 1,000,000 tons
per year. This project would also improve the cost structure of
the nitrogen fertilizer business by eliminating the need for
rail shipments of ammonia, thereby avoiding anticipated cost
increases in such transport.
Cash
Flows
Comparability of cash flows from operating activities for the
years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 has been
impacted by the Initial Acquisition and the Subsequent
Acquisition. See Factors Affecting Comparability.
Therefore, we have presented our discussion of cash flows from
operations by comparing (1) the three months ended
March 31, 2007 and 2006, (2) the year ended
December 31, 2006 with the 174 days ended
September 23, 2005 and the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005, (3) the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005, the 174 days ended
September 23, 2005, the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and the 62 days ended March 2,
2004 and (4) the year ended December 31, 2003, the
62 days ended March 2, 2004, and the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004.
In addition to the cash flows discussed below, following this
offering we will initially be entitled to all cash distributed
by the Partnership. However, the amount of cash flows from the
Partnership that we will receive in the future may be limited by
a number of factors. The Partnership may enter into its own
credit facility or other contracts that limit its ability to
make distributions to us. Additionally, in the future Fertilizer
GP will receive a greater allocation of distributions as more
cash becomes available for distribution, and consequently we
will receive a smaller percentage of quarterly distributions
over time. Our rights to distributions may also be adversely
affected if the Partnership issues equity in the future. See
Risk Factors Risks Related to the Limited
Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our Interest in
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business Our rights to
receive distributions from the Partnership may be limited over
time and Risk Factors Risks Related to
the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our
Interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business The
Partnership may not have sufficient available cash to enable it
to make the quarterly distributions to us following
establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and
expenses.
Operating
Activities
Comparison of
the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 and the Three Months
Ended March 31, 2006.
Net cash flows from operating activities for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 was $47.6 million. The positive
cash flow from operating activities generated over this period
was primarily driven by favorable changes in trade working
capital and other working capital, partially offset by
unfavorable changes in other assets and liabilities over the
period. For purposes of this cash flow discussion, we define
trade working capital as accounts receivable, inventory and
accounts payable. Other working capital is defined as all other
current assets and liabilities except trade working capital. Net
income for the period was not indicative of the operating
margins for the period. This is the result of the accounting
treatment of our derivatives in general and more specifically,
the Cash Flow Swap. See Consolidated Results
of Operations Three months Ended March 31, 2007
Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2006. We
have determined that the Cash Flow Swap does not qualify as a
hedge for hedge accounting purposes under
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities. Therefore, the net loss for the
three months ended March 31, 2007 included both the
realized losses and the unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap.
Since the Cash Flow Swap had a significant term remaining as of
March 31, 2007 (approximately three years and three months)
and the NYMEX crack spread that is the basis for the underlying
swaps had increased, the unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap
significantly decreased our Net Income over this period. The
impact of these unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap is
apparent in the
125
$129.3 million increase in the payable to swap
counterparty. Adding to our operating cash flow for the three
months ended March 31, 2007 was a $68.2 million source
of cash related to a decrease in trade working capital. For the
three months ended March 31, 2007, accounts receivable
decreased approximately $44.6 million while inventory
increased $23.0 million and accounts payable increased
$46.5 million. The change in trade working capital was
primarily driven by the impact of the refinery turnaround that
began in February 2007. The primary uses of cash during the
period include a $0.7 million increase in prepaid expenses
and other current assets and a $41.3 million use of cash
for deferred income taxes primarily the result of the unrealized
loss on the Cash Flow Swap.
Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the three
months ended March 31, 2006 was $8.0 million. The
positive cash flow from operating activities during this period
was primarily the result of strong operating earnings and
favorable changes in other working capital during the period
partially offset by unfavorable changes in trade working capital
and other assets and liabilities. Net income for the period was
not indicative of the operating margins for the period. This was
the result of the accounting treatment of our derivatives in
general and more specifically, the Cash Flow Swap. See
Consolidated Results of Operations
Three months Ended March 31, 2007 Compared to Three Months
Ended March 31, 2006. We have determined that the
Cash Flow Swap does not qualify as a hedge for hedge accounting
purposes under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Therefore,
the net income for the three months ended March 31, 2006
included both the realized gain and the unrealized losses on the
Cash Flow Swap. Since the Cash Flow Swap had a significant term
remaining as of March 31, 2006 (approximately four years
and three months) and the NYMEX crack spread that is the basis
for the underlying swaps had increased during the period, the
unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap decreased our Net Income
over this period. The impact of these unrealized gains on the
Cash Flow Swap is apparent in the $3.4 million increase in
the payable to swap counterparty. Trade working capital resulted
in a use of cash of $24.7 million in cash during the three
months ended March 31, 2006 as the decrease in accounts
receivable was more than offset by increases in inventory and a
decrease in accounts payable.
Comparison of
Year Ended December 31, 2006 Compared to the 174 Days Ended
June 23, 2005 and the 233 Days Ended December 31,
2005.
Comparability of cash flows from operating activities for the
year ended December 31, 2006 and the year ended
December 31, 2005 has been impacted by the Initial
Acquisition and the Subsequent Acquisition. See
Factors Affecting Comparability. For
instance, completion of the Subsequent Acquisition by Successor
required a mark up of purchased inventory to fair market value
at the closing of the transaction on June 24, 2005. This
had the effect of reducing overall cash flow for Successor as it
capitalized that portion of the purchase price of the assets
into cost of product sold. Therefore, the discussion of cash
flows from operations has been broken down into three separate
periods: the year ended December 31, 2006, the
174 days ended June 23, 2005 and the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005.
Net cash flows from operating activities for the year ended
December 31, 2006 was $186.6 million. The positive
cash flow from operating activities generated over this period
was primarily driven by our strong operating environment and
favorable changes in other assets and liabilities, partially
offset by unfavorable changes in trade working capital and other
working capital over the period. For purposes of this cash flow
discussion, we define trade working capital as accounts
receivable, inventory and accounts payable. Other working
capital is defined as all other current assets and liabilities
except trade working capital. Net income for the period was not
indicative of the operating margins for the period. This is the
result of the accounting treatment of our derivatives in general
and more specifically, the Cash Flow Swap. See
Consolidated Results of Operations
Year Ended December 31, 2006 Compared to 174 Days Ended
June 23, 2005 and 233 Days Ended December 31,
2005. We have determined that the Cash Flow Swap does not
qualify as a hedge for hedge accounting purposes under
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities. Therefore, the net income for the
year ended December 31, 2006 included
126
both the realized losses and the unrealized gains on the Cash
Flow Swap. Since the Cash Flow Swap had a significant term
remaining as of December 31, 2006 (approximately three
years and six months) and the NYMEX crack spread that is the
basis for the underlying swaps had declined, the unrealized
gains on the Cash Flow Swap significantly increased our net
income over this period. The impact of these unrealized gains on
the Cash Flow Swap is apparent in the $147.0 million
decrease in the payable to swap counterparty. Reducing our
operating cash flow for the year ended December 31, 2006
was a $0.3 million use of cash related to an increase in
trade working capital. For the year ended December 31,
2006, accounts receivable decreased approximately
$1.9 million while inventory increased $7.2 million
and accounts payable increased $5.0 million. Other primary
uses of cash during the period include a $5.4 million
increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets and a
$37.0 million reduction in accrued income taxes. Offsetting
these uses of cash was an $86.8 million increase in
deferred income taxes primarily the result of the unrealized
gain on the Cash Flow Swap and a $15.3 million increase in
other current liabilities.
Net cash flows from operating activities for the 174 days
ended June 23, 2005 was $12.7 million. The positive
cash flow generated over this period was primarily driven by
income of $52.4 million, offset by a $54.3 million
increase in trade working capital. During this period, accounts
receivable and inventory increased $11.3 million and
$59.0 million, respectively. These uses of cash were
primarily the result of our expansion into the rack marketing
business, which offered increased accounts receivable credit
terms relative to bulk refined product sales, an increase in
product sales prices and an increase in overall inventory levels.
Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 was
$82.5 million. The positive cash flow from operating
activities generated over this period was primarily the result
of strong operating earnings during the period partially offset
by the expensing of a $25.0 million option entered into by
Successor for the purpose of hedging certain levels of refined
product margins and the accounting treatment of our derivatives
in general and more specifically, the Cash Flow Swap. At the
closing of the Subsequent Acquisition, we determined that this
option was not economical and we allowed the option to expire
worthless and thus resulted in the expensing of the associated
premium. See Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosures About Market Risk Commodity Price
Risk and Consolidated Results of
Operations Year Ended December 31, 2006
Compared to 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005 and 233 Days Ended
December 31, 2005. We have determined that the Cash
Flow Swap does not qualify as a hedge for hedge accounting
purposes under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Therefore,
the net income for the year ended December 31, 2005
included the unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap. Since the
Cash Flow Swap became effective July 1, 2005 and had an
original term of approximately five years and the NYMEX crack
spread that is the basis for the underlying swaps had improved
since the trade date of the Cash Flow Swap on June 16,
2005, the unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap significantly
reduced our net income over this period. The impact of these
unrealized losses on all derivatives, including the Cash Flow
Swap, is apparent in the $256.7 million increase in the
payable to swap counterparty. Additionally and as a result of
the closing of the Subsequent Acquisition, Successor marked up
the value of purchased inventory to fair market value at the
closing of the transaction on June 24, 2005. This had the
effect of reducing overall cash flow for Successor as it
capitalized that portion of the purchase price of the assets
into cost of product sold. The total impact of this for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 was
$14.3 million. Trade working capital provided
$8.0 million in cash during the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 as an increase in accounts receivable was
more than offset by decreases in inventory and an increase in
accounts payable. Offsetting the sources of cash from operating
activities highlighted above was a $98.4 million use of
cash related to deferred income taxes and a $4.7 million
use of cash related to other long-term assets.
127
Comparison of
the 233 Days Ended December 31, 2005, the
174 Days Ended June 23, 2005, the 304 Days Ended
December 31, 2004 and the 62 Days Ended March 2,
2004.
Comparability of cash flows from operating activities for the
year ended December 31, 2005 to the year ended
December 31, 2004 has been impacted by the Initial
Acquisition and the Subsequent Acquisition. See
Factors Affecting Comparability.
Immediate Predecessor did not assume the accounts receivable or
the accounts payable of Farmland. As a result, Farmland
collected and made payments on these accounts after
March 3, 2004 and these transactions are not included on
our consolidated statements of cash flows. In addition,
Coffeyville Acquisition LLCs acquisition of the
subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC required a mark
up of purchased inventory to fair market value at the closing of
the Initial Acquisition on June 24, 2005. This had the
effect of reducing overall cash flow for Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC as it capitalized that portion of the purchase price of the
assets into cost of product sold. Therefore, the discussion of
cash flows from operations has been broken down into four
separate periods: the 233 days ended December 31,
2005, the 174 days ended June 23, 2005, the
304 days ended December 31, 2004 and the 62 days
ended March 2, 2004.
Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 was
$82.5 million. The positive cash flow from operating
activities generated over this period was primarily driven by
our strong operating environment and favorable changes in other
working capital over the period. For purposes of this cash flow
discussion, we define trade working capital as accounts
receivable, inventory and accounts payable. Other working
capital is defined as all other current assets and liabilities
except trade working capital. The net income for the period was
not indicative of the excellent operating margins for the
period. This is the result of the accounting treatment of our
derivatives in general and more specifically, the Cash Flow
Swap. See Consolidated Results of
Operations 233 Days Ended December 31, 2005 and
the 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005 Compared to the 304 Days
Ended December 31, 2004 and the 62 Days Ended March 2,
2004. We have determined that the Cash Flow Swap does not
qualify as a hedge for hedge accounting purposes under
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities. Therefore, the net income for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 included both the
realized and the unrealized losses on the Cash Flow Swap. Since
the Cash Flow Swap had a significant term remaining as of
December 31, 2005 (approximately four and one-half years)
and the NYMEX crack spread that is the basis for the underlying
swaps had improved substantially, the unrealized losses on the
Cash Flow Swap significantly reduced our Net Income over this
period. The impact of these unrealized losses on all
derivatives, including the Cash Flow Swap, is apparent in the
$256.7 million unrealized loss in the period related to the
increase in the payable to swap counterparty. Contributing to
the sources of cash for operating activities during the period
was a decrease of trade working capital of $8.0 million and
an increase in both deferred revenue and other current
liabilities of $10.0 million and $10.5 million,
respectively. Primary uses of cash during the period were
related to increases in prepaid expenses and other current
assets of $6.5 million due to increases in insurance and
other prepaids and an increase in deferred income taxes
associated with purchase price accounting for the transaction of
$98.4 million.
Net cash flows for operating activities for the 174 days
ended June 23, 2005 was $12.7 million. The positive
cash flow generated over this period was primarily driven by
income of $52.4 million, offset by a $54.3 million
increase in trade working capital. During this period, accounts
receivable and inventory increased $11.3 million and
$59.0 million, respectively. These uses of cash were
primarily the result of our expansion into the rack marketing
business, which offered increased accounts receivable credit
terms relative to bulk refined product sales, an increase in
product sales prices and an increase in overall inventory levels.
Net cash flow from operating activities for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 was $89.8 million. The primary
driver for the positive cash flow from operations over this
period was cash earnings and favorable changes in trade working
capital. During this period, we experienced favorable market
conditions in our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer
business. Changes in trade working capital produced cash flow of
approximately $27.6 million during this period. For the
304 days
128
ended December 31, 2004, we experienced a
$20.1 million decrease in inventory due to an effort to
reduce inventory carrying levels and a $31.1 million
increase in accounts payable due to the extension of credit
terms by several crude oil vendors and a large electricity
vendor. These positive cash flows from operations were partially
offset by an increase in accounts receivable of
$23.6 million as Immediate Predecessor assumed ownership of
the business from Farmland. In addition, changes in other
working capital generated approximately $8.7 million in
cash during the period. This was primarily the result of
increases in other current liabilities by $13.0 million as
a result of accruals for personnel, taxes other than income
taxes, leases, freight and professional services, offset by
reductions in certain prepaid expenses and other current assets.
Net cash from operating activities for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004 was $53.2 million. The positive cash
flow generated over this period was primarily driven by cash
earnings and favorable changes in other working capital of
$34.4 million. With respect to other working capital,
$25.7 million in cash resulted from reductions in prepaid
expenses and other current assets due to the reduction in
prepaid crude oil required by Farmland due to the Initial
Acquisition by Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC and
$8.3 million of deferred revenue resulting primarily from
prepaid fertilizer contract activity of the nitrogen fertilizer
operations. The $6.5 million of cash flows generated from
trade working capital was mainly the result of a
$19.6 million decrease in accounts receivable due to the
collection of a large petroleum account, which had been past due.
Comparison of
the Year Ended December 31, 2003, the 62 Days Ended
March 2, 2004 and the 304 Days Ended December 31,
2004.
Comparability of cash flows from operating activities for the
year ended December 31, 2004 to 2003 has been impacted by
the closing of the Initial Acquisition on March 3, 2004. We
did not assume the accounts receivable or the accounts payable
of Farmland. As a result, Farmland collected and made payments
on these accounts after March 3, 2004 and these
transactions are not included on our consolidated statements of
cash flows. Therefore, this discussion of the cash flow from
operations has been separated into three periods: the year ended
December 31, 2003, the 62 days ended March 2,
2004 and the 304 days ended December 31, 2004.
Net cash flow from operating activities for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 was $89.8 million. The primary
driver for the positive cash flow from operations over this
period was cash earnings and favorable changes in trade working
capital. For purposes of this cash flow discussion, we define
trade working capital as accounts receivable, inventory and
accounts payable. Other working capital is defined as all other
current assets and liabilities except trade working capital.
During this period, we experienced favorable market conditions
in our petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business.
Changes in trade working capital produced cash flow of
approximately $27.6 million during this period. For the
304 days ended December 31, 2004, we experienced a
$20.1 million decrease in inventory due to an effort to
reduce inventory carrying levels and a $31.1 million
increase in accounts payable due to the extension of credit
terms by several crude oil vendors and a large electricity
vendor. These positive cash flows from operations were partially
offset by an increase in accounts receivable of
$23.6 million as Immediate Predecessor assumed ownership of
the business from Farmland. In addition, changes in other
working capital generated approximately $8.7 million in
cash during the period. This was primarily the result of
increases in other current liabilities by $13.0 million as
a result of accruals for personnel, taxes other than income
taxes, leases, freight and professional services, offset by
reductions in certain prepaid expenses and other current assets.
Net cash flow from operating activities for the 62 days
ended March 2, 2004 was $53.2 million. The positive
cash flow generated over this period was primarily driven by
cash earnings and favorable changes in other working capital of
$34.4 million. With respect to other working capital,
$25.7 million in cash resulted from reductions in prepaid
expenses and other current assets due to the reduction in
prepaid crude oil required by Farmland due to the Initial
Acquisition by Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC and
$8.3 million of deferred revenue resulting primarily from
prepaid fertilizer contract activity of the nitrogen fertilizer
operations. The $6.5 million of cash flows generated from
trade working capital
129
was mainly the result of a $19.6 million decrease in
accounts receivable due to the collection of a large petroleum
account, which had been past due.
Net cash flow from operating activities for the year ended
December 31, 2003 was $20.3 million. The positive cash
flow from operations over this period was directly attributable
to cash earnings offset by unfavorable changes in trade and
other working capital. The positive cash earnings were the
result of an improvement in the environment for both our
petroleum business and the nitrogen fertilizer business versus
the prior period. The $6.6 million cash outflow resulting
from changes in trade working capital was primarily attributable
to a $25.3 million increase in accounts receivable due to
the delinquency of a large petroleum customer. This increase in
accounts receivable was partially offset by a reduction in
inventory by $10.4 million and an $8.3 million
increase in accounts payable. The increase in other working
capital of $21.8 million was primarily driven by a
$23.8 million increase in prepaid expenses and other
current assets directly attributable to the necessity for
Farmland to prepay its crude oil supply during its bankruptcy.
Investing
Activities
Comparison of
the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 and the Three Months
Ended March 31, 2006.
Net cash used in investing activities for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 was $111.4 million compared to
$29.3 million for the three months ended March 31,
2006. The increase in investing activities for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 as compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2006 was the result of increased capital
expenditures associated with various capital projects in
progress in our Petroleum business.
Year Ended
December 31, 2006 Compared to the 174 Days Ended
June 23, 2005 and the 233 Days Ended December 31,
2005.
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2006 was $240.2 million compared to
$12.3 million for the 174 days ended June 23,
2005 and $730.3 million for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005. Investing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2006 was the result of a capital spending
increase associated with Tier II fuel compliance and other
capital expenditures. Investing activities for the combined
period ended December 31, 2005 included $685.1 million
related to the Subsequent Acquisition. The other primary use of
cash for investing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2005 was approximately $57.4 million in
capital expenditures.
233 Days Ended
December 31, 2005 and the 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005
Compared to the 304 Days Ended December 31, 2004 and the 62
Days Ended March 2, 2004.
Net cash used in investing activities was $730.3 million
for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005 and
$12.3 million for the 174 days ended June 23,
2005 as compared to $130.8 million for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 and $0 for the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004. For the combined years ended
December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, net cash used
in investing activities was $742.6 million as compared to
$130.8 million. Both periods included acquisition costs
associated with successive owners of the assets. Investing
activities for the year ended December 31, 2005 included
the $685.1 million related to the Subsequent Acquisition.
Investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2004
included the $116.6 million acquisition of our assets by
Immediate Predecessor from Original Predecessor on March 3,
2004. The other primary use of cash for investing activities was
$57.4 million for capital expenditures in 2005 as compared
to $14.2 million for 2004. This increase in capital
expenditures was primarily the result of a capital spending
increase associated with Tier II fuel compliance and other
capital expenditures.
130
304 Days Ended
December 31, 2004 and the 62 Days Ended March 2, 2004
Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2003.
Net cash used in investing activities for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 was $130.8 million and $0 for
the 62 days ended March 2, 2004 as compared to
$0.8 million in 2003. This difference in the combined
periods for the year ended December 31, 2004 and the year
ended December 31, 2003 of $130.0 million is directly
attributable to an increase in capital expenditures and the
acquisition of the Farmland assets during the comparable
periods. Throughout its bankruptcy, Farmland maintained capital
expenditures for its petroleum and nitrogen assets at a minimum.
Financing
Activities
Comparison of
the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 and the Three Months
Ended March 31, 2006.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the three months
ended March 31, 2007 was $29.5 million as compared to
net cash provided by financing activities of $9.6 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2006. The primary
sources of cash for the three months ended March 31, 2007
were obtained through borrowings under the revolving credit
facility. (see Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt). For the three months ended
March 31, 2006, the primary source of cash was the result
of $10.0 million of delayed draw term loans specifically
generated to fund a portion of two discretionary capital
expenditures at our Petroleum operations. During the three
months ended March 31, 2006, we also paid $0.6 million
of scheduled principal payments.
Year Ended
December 31, 2006 Compared to the 174 Days Ended
June 23, 2005 and the 233 Days Ended December 31,
2005.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2006 was $30.8 million as compared
to net cash used by financing activities for the 174 days
ended June 23, 2005 of $52.4 million and net cash
provided by financing activities of $712.5 million for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005. The primary sources
of cash for the year ended December 31, 2006 were obtained
through a refinancing of the Successors first and second
lien credit facilities into a new long term debt Credit Facility
of $1.075 billion, of which $775.0 million was
outstanding as of December 31, 2006 (see
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Debt). The $775.0 million term loan under the Credit
Facility was used to repay approximately $527.7 million in
first and second lien debt outstanding, fund $5.5 million
in prepayment penalties associated with the second lien credit
facility and fund a $250.0 million cash distribution to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. Other sources of cash included
$20.0 million of additional equity contributions into
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, which was subsequently contributed
to our operating subsidiaries, and $30.0 million of
additional delayed draw term loans issued under the first lien
credit facility. These sources of cash were specifically
generated to fund a portion of two discretionary capital
expenditures at our petroleum operations. During this period, we
also paid $1.7 million of scheduled principal payments on
the first lien term loans.
For the combined period ended December 31, 2005, net cash
provided by financing activities was $660.0 million. The
primary sources of cash for the combined periods ended
December 31, 2005 related to the funding of
Successors acquisition of the assets on June 24, 2005
in the form of $500.0 million in long-term debt and
$227.7 million of equity. Additional equity of
$10.0 million was contributed into Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC subsequent to the aforementioned acquisition, which was
subsequently contributed to our operating subsidiaries, in order
to fund a portion of two discretionary capital expenditures at
our refining operations. Additional sources of funds during the
year ended December 31, 2005 were obtained through the
borrowing of $0.2 million in revolving loan proceeds, net
of $69.6 million of repayments. Offsetting these sources of
cash from financing activities during the year ended
December 31, 2005 were $24.6 million in deferred
financing costs associated with the first and second lien debt
commitments raised by Successor in connection with the
Subsequent Acquisition (see Liquidity and
Capital Resources Debt) and a
$52.2 million cash distribution to Immediate Predecessor
prior to the Subsequent Acquisition.
131
233 Days Ended
December 31, 2005 and the 174 Days Ended June 23, 2005
Compared to the 304 Days Ended December 31, 2004 and the 62
Days Ended March 2, 2004.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005 was $712.5 million and net
cash used by financing activities for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005 was $52.4 million. Net cash provided by
financing activities for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 was $93.6 million and net cash used
by financing activities was $53.2 million. For the combined
periods ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004,
net cash used in financing activities was $660.0 million
and $40.4 million, respectively. The primary sources of
cash for the combined periods of 2005 related to the funding of
Successors acquisition of the assets on June 24, 2005
in the form of $500.0 million in long-term debt and
$227.7 million of equity. Additional equity of
$10.0 million was contributed into Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC subsequent to the aforementioned acquisition, which was
subsequently contributed to our operating subsidiaries, in order
to fund a portion of two discretionary capital expenditures at
our refining operations. Additional sources of funds during the
year ended December 31, 2005 were obtained through the
borrowing of $0.2 million in revolving loan proceeds, net
of $69.6 million of repayments. Offsetting these sources of
cash from financing activities during the year ended
December 31, 2005 were $24.7 million in deferred
financing costs associated with the first and second lien debt
commitments raised by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in connection
with the Subsequent Acquisition (see Liquidity
and Capital Resources Debt) and a
$52.2 million cash distribution to the owners of
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC prior to the Subsequent
Acquisition.
The uses of cash for financing activities for the combined
periods ended December 31, 2004 related primarily to the
prepayment of the $23.0 million term loan, a
$100.0 million cash distribution to the holders of the
preferred and common units issued by Coffeyville Group Holdings,
LLC, $1.2 million repayment of a capital lease obligation,
$16.3 million in financing costs and $53.2 million in
net divisional equity distribution to Farmland. We used cash
from operations, a $63.3 million equity contribution
related to the Initial Acquisition and a new term loan for
$150.0 million completed on May 10, 2004 to finance
the aforementioned cash outflows in 2004.
304 Days Ended
December 31, 2004 and the 62 Days Ended March 2, 2004
Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2003.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 was $93.6 million and net cash
used by financing activities was $53.2 million for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. For the combined period
ended December 31, 2004, net cash provided by financing
activities in 2004 was $40.4 million. The uses of cash for
financing activities for the combined period ended
December 31, 2004 related primarily to the prepayment of
the $23.0 million term loan, a $100.0 million cash
distribution to the holders of the preferred and common units
issued by Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC, $1.2 million
repayment of a capital lease obligation, $16.3 million in
financing costs and $53.2 million in net divisional equity
distribution to Farmland. We used cash from operations, a
$63.3 million equity contribution related to the Initial
Acquisition and a new term loan for $150.0 million
completed on May 10, 2004 to finance the aforementioned
cash outflows in 2004. In 2003, we used $19.5 million in
cash to fund a net divisional equity distribution.
Prior to the Initial Acquisition, our petroleum business and the
nitrogen fertilizer business were organized as divisions within
Farmland. As such, these divisions did not have a discreet legal
structure from Farmland and the cash flows from these operations
were collected and disbursed under Farmlands centralized
approach to cash management and the financing of its operations.
The net divisional equity distribution characterized on the
accompanying financial statements represents the net cash
generated by these divisions and funded to Farmland to finance
its overall operations.
Capital and
Commercial Commitments
In addition to long-term debt, we are required to make payments
relating to various types of obligations. The following table
summarizes our minimum payments as of March 31, 2007
relating to long-term debt, operating leases, unconditional
purchase obligations and other specified capital and
132
commercial commitments for the nine months ending
December 31, 2007, the four-year period following
December 31, 2007 and thereafter.
Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our
indebtedness, to fund planned capital expenditures and to
satisfy our other capital and commercial commitments will depend
on our ability to generate cash flow in the future. This, to a
certain extent, is subject to refining spreads, fertilizer
margins, receipt of distributions from the Partnership and
general economic financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory
and other factors that are beyond our control. Based on our
current level of operations, we believe our cash flow from
operations, available cash and available borrowings under our
revolving loan facility and the proceeds we receive from this
offering will be adequate to meet our future liquidity needs for
at least the next twelve months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Contractual
Obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt(1)
|
|
$
|
775.0
|
|
|
$
|
5.8
|
|
|
$
|
7.7
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
$
|
7.5
|
|
|
$
|
7.4
|
|
|
$
|
739.0
|
|
Operating leases(2)
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
Unconditional purchase
obligations(3)
|
|
|
241.1
|
|
|
|
19.0
|
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|
|
18.3
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
|
|
|
146.0
|
|
Environmental liabilities(4)
|
|
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
Funded letter of credit fees(5)
|
|
|
15.9
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest payments(6)
|
|
|
407.5
|
|
|
|
49.2
|
|
|
|
64.9
|
|
|
|
64.1
|
|
|
|
63.4
|
|
|
|
62.8
|
|
|
|
103.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,461.2
|
|
|
$
|
81.3
|
|
|
$
|
103.1
|
|
|
$
|
101.1
|
|
|
$
|
93.8
|
|
|
$
|
87.8
|
|
|
$
|
994.1
|
|
Other Commercial
Commitments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standby letters of credit(7)
|
|
$
|
6.4
|
|
|
$
|
6.4
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Long-term debt amortization is based on the contractual terms of
our Credit Facility. We may be required to amend our Credit
Facility in connection with an offering by the Partnership. See
Description of Our Indebtedness and the Cash Flow
Swap. |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
The nitrogen fertilizer business leases various facilities and
equipment, primarily railcars, under non-cancelable operating
leases for various periods. |
(3) |
|
The amount includes (1) commitments under several
agreements in our petroleum operations related to pipeline
usage, petroleum products storage and petroleum transportation
and (2) commitments under an electric supply agreement with
the City of Coffeyville. |
(4) |
|
Environmental liabilities represents our estimated payments
required by federal
and/or state
environmental agencies related to closure of hazardous waste
management units at our sites in Coffeyville and Phillipsburg,
Kansas. We also have other environmental liabilities which are
not contractual obligations but which would be necessary for our
continued operations. See Business
Environmental Matters. |
(5) |
|
This amount represents the total of all fees related to the
funded letter of credit issued under our Credit Facility. The
funded letter of credit is utilized as credit support for the
Cash Flow Swap. See Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Commodity
Price Risk. |
|
|
|
(6) |
|
Interest payments are based on interest rates in effect at
March 31, 2007 and assume contractual amortization payments. |
|
|
|
(7) |
|
Standby letters of credit include our obligations under
$3.2 million of letters of credit issued in connection with
environmental liabilities and $3.2 million in letters of
credit to secure transportation expenses related to the
Transportation Services Agreement with CCPS Transportation, LLC. |
133
Our business may not generate sufficient cash flow from
operations, and future borrowings may not be available to us
under our revolving credit facility in an amount sufficient to
enable us to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity
needs. We may seek to sell additional assets to fund our
liquidity needs but may not be able to do so. We may also need
to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before
maturity. We may not be able to refinance any of our
indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards
In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or
FASB, issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory Costs, which
clarifies the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility
expense, freight, handling costs, and spoilage. Under
SFAS 151, such items will be recognized as current-period
charges. In addition, SFAS 151 requires that allocation of
fixed production overheads to the costs of conversion be based
on the normal capacity of the production facilities. We adopted
SFAS 151 effective January 1, 2006. There was no
impact on our financial position or results of operations as a
result of adopting this standard.
The Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF, reached a consensus on
Issue No.
04-13,
Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the Same
Counterparty, and the FASB ratified it on September 28,
2005. This Issue addresses accounting matters that arise when
one company both sells inventory to and buys inventory from
another company in the same line of business, specifically, when
it is appropriate to measure purchases and sales of inventory at
fair value and record them in cost of sales and revenues, and
when they should be recorded as an exchange measured at the book
value of the item sold. This Issue is to be applied to new
arrangements entered into in reporting periods beginning after
March 15, 2006. There was no significant impact on our
financial position or results of operations as a result of
adoption of this Issue.
In June 2006, the FASB ratified its consensus on EITF Issue
No. 06-3,
How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to
Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income
Statement. EITF 06-3 includes any tax assessed by a
governmental authority that is directly imposed on a
revenue-producing transaction between a seller and a customer
and may include sales, use, value added, and some excise taxes.
These taxes should be presented on either a gross or net basis,
and if reported on a gross basis, a company should disclose
amounts on those taxes in interim and annual financial
statements for each period for which an income statement is
presented. The guidance in EITF 06-3 is effective for all
periods beginning after December 15, 2006 and is not
expected to significantly affect our financial position or
results of operations.
In June 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertain Tax Positions an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109. FIN 48
clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes
recognized in an enterprises financial statements in
accordance with FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes, by prescribing a recognition threshold and
measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition
and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken
in a tax return. If a tax position is more likely than not to be
sustained upon examination, then an enterprise would be required
to recognize in its financial statements the largest amount of
benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon
ultimate settlement. FIN No. 48 also provides guidance
on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties,
accounting in interim periods, disclosures and transition. The
application of FIN No. 48 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2006 and is not expected
to have a material impact on our financial position or results
of operations.
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, which replaces
APB Opinion No. 20, Accounting Changes and
SFAS No. 3, Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim
Financial Statements. SFAS 154 retained accounting
guidance related to changes in estimates, changes in a reporting
entity and error corrections. However, changes in accounting
principles must be accounted for retrospectively by modifying
the financial statements of prior periods
134
unless it is impracticable to do so. SFAS 154 is effective
for accounting changes made in fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS 154 did not
have a material impact on our financial position or results of
operations.
The SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin, or SAB,
No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year
Misstatements, When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year
Financial Statements, on September 13, 2006.
SAB No. 108 was issued to address diversity in
practice in quantifying financial statement misstatements and
the potential under current practice for the build-up of
improper amounts on the balance sheet. The effects of applying
the guidance issued in SAB No. 108 are to be reflected
in annual financial statements covering the first fiscal year
ending after November 15, 2006. The initial adoption of
SAB No. 108 in 2006 did not have an impact on our
financial position or results of operations.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements, which establishes a framework
for measuring fair value in GAAP and expands disclosures about
fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 states that fair
value is the price that would be received to sell the
asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price), not the
price that would be paid to acquire the asset or received to
assume the liability (an entry price). The statement is
effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods
within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the
effect that this statement will have on our financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position, or FSP,
No. AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance
Activities, that disallowed the
accrue-in-advance
method for planned major maintenance activities. Our scheduled
turnaround activities are considered planned major maintenance
activities. Since we do not use the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for our turnaround activities, this FSP has
no impact on our financial statements.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
(SFAS 159). Under this standard, an entity is required
to provide additional information that will assist investors and
other users of financial information to more easily understand
the effect of the companys choice to use fair value on its
earnings. Further, the entity is required to display the fair
value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has
chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. This
standard does not eliminate the disclosure requirements about
fair value measurements included in SFAS 157 and
SFAS No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of
Financial Instruments. SFAS 159 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007, and early adoption
is permitted as of January 1, 2007, provided that the
entity makes that choice in the first quarter of 2007 and also
elects to apply the provisions of SFAS 157. We are
currently evaluating the potential impact that SFAS 159
will have on our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows.
Off-Balance Sheet
Arrangements
We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as
such term is defined within the rules and regulations of the SEC.
Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
The risk inherent in our market risk sensitive instruments and
positions is the potential loss from adverse changes in
commodity prices and interest rates. None of our market risk
sensitive instruments are held for trading.
135
Commodity
Price Risk
Our petroleum business, as a manufacturer of refined petroleum
products, and the nitrogen fertilizer business, as a
manufacturer of nitrogen fertilizer products, all of which are
commodities, have exposure to market pricing for products sold
in the future. In order to realize value from our processing
capacity, a positive spread between the cost of raw materials
and the value of finished products must be achieved (i.e., gross
margin or crack spread). The physical commodities that comprise
our raw materials and finished goods are typically bought and
sold at a spot or index price that can be highly variable.
We use a crude oil purchasing intermediary which allows us to
take title and price of our crude oil at the refinery, as
opposed to the crude origination point, reducing our risk
associated with volatile commodity prices by shortening the
commodity conversion cycle time. The commodity conversion cycle
time refers to the time elapsed between raw material acquisition
and the sale of finished goods. In addition, we seek to reduce
the variability of commodity price exposure by engaging in
hedging strategies and transactions that will serve to protect
gross margins as forecasted in the annual operating plan.
Accordingly, we use financial derivatives to economically hedge
future cash flows (i.e., gross margin or crack spreads) and
product inventories. With regard to our hedging activities, we
may enter into, or have entered into, derivative instruments
which serve to:
|
|
|
|
|
lock in or fix a percentage of the anticipated or planned gross
margin in future periods when the derivative market offers
commodity spreads that generate positive cash flows; and
|
|
|
|
hedge the value of inventories in excess of minimum required
inventories.
|
Further, we intend to engage only in risk mitigating activities
directly related to our business.
Basis Risk. The effectiveness of our
derivative strategies is dependent upon the correlation of the
price index utilized for the hedging activity and the cash or
spot price of the physical commodity for which price risk is
being mitigated. Basis risk is a term we use to define that
relationship. Basis risk can exist due to several factors
including time or location differences between the derivative
instrument and the underlying physical commodity. Our selection
of the appropriate index to utilize in a hedging strategy is a
prime consideration in our basis risk exposure.
Examples of our basis risk exposure are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Time Basis In entering
over-the-counter
swap agreements, the settlement price of the swap is typically
the average price of the underlying commodity for a designated
calendar period. This settlement price is based on the
assumption that the underling physical commodity will price
ratably over the swap period. If the commodity does not move
ratably over the periods then weighted average physical prices
will be weighted differently than the swap price as the result
of timing.
|
|
|
|
Location Basis In hedging NYMEX crack spreads, we
experience location basis as the settlement of NYMEX refined
products (related more to New York Harbor cash markets) which
may be different than the prices of refined products in our
Group 3 pricing area.
|
Price and Basis Risk Management
Activities. Our most prevalent risk
management activity is to sell forward the crack spread when
opportunities exist to lock in a margin sufficient to meet our
cash obligations or our operating plan. Selling forward
derivative contracts for which the underlying commodity is the
crack spread enables us to lock in a margin on the spread
between the price of crude oil and price of refined products.
The commodity derivative contracts are either exchange-traded
contracts in the form of futures contracts or
over-the-counter
contracts in the form of commodity price swaps.
In the event our inventories exceed our target base level of
inventories, we may enter into commodity derivative contracts to
manage our price exposure to our inventory positions that are in
excess of our base level. Excess inventories are typically the
result of plant operations such as a
136
turnaround or other plant maintenance. The commodity derivative
contracts are either exchange-traded contracts in the form of
futures contracts or
over-the-counter
contracts in the form of commodity price swaps.
To reduce the basis risk between the price of products for Group
3 and that of the NYMEX associated with selling forward
derivative contracts for NYMEX crack spreads, we may enter into
basis swap positions to lock the price difference. If the
difference between the price of products on the NYMEX and Group
3 (or some other price benchmark as we may deem appropriate) is
different than the value contracted in the swap, then we will
receive from or owe to the counterparty the difference on each
unit of product contracted in the swap, thereby completing the
locking of our margin. An example of our use of a basis swap is
in the winter heating oil season. The risk associated with not
hedging the basis when using NYMEX forward contracts to fix
future margins is if the crack spread increases based on prices
traded on NYMEX while Group 3 pricing remains flat or decreases
then we would be in a position to lose money on the derivative
position while not earning an offsetting additional margin on
the physical position based on the Group 3 pricing.
On March 31, 2007, we had the following open commodity
derivative contracts whose unrealized gains and losses are
included in gain (loss) on derivatives in the consolidated
statements of operations:
|
|
|
|
|
Successors Petroleum Segment holds commodity derivative
contracts in the form of three swap agreements for the period
from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 with J. Aron, a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and a related party
of ours. The swap agreements were originally executed on
June 16, 2005 in conjunction with the Subsequent
Acquisition of Immediate Predecessor and required under the
terms of our long-term debt agreements. These agreements were
subsequently assigned from Coffeyville Acquisition LLC to
Coffeyville Resources, LLC on June 24, 2005. The total
notional quantities on the date of execution were
100,911,000 barrels of crude oil; 2,348,802,750 gallons of
unleaded gasoline and 1,889,459,250 gallons of heating oil;
pursuant to these swaps, we receive a fixed price with respect
to the heating oil and the unleaded gasoline while we pay a
fixed price with respect to crude oil. In June 2006, a
subsequent swap was entered into with J. Aron to effectively
reduce our unleaded notional quantity and increase our heating
oil notional quantity by 229,671,750 gallons over the period
July 2, 2007 to June 30, 2010. Additionally, several
other swaps were entered into with J. Aron to adjust effective
net notional amounts of the aggregate position to better align
with actual production volumes. The swap agreements were
executed at the prevailing market rate at the time of execution
and management believed the swap agreements would provide an
economic hedge on future transactions. At March 31, 2007
the net notional open amounts under these swap agreements were
61,278,500 barrels of crude oil, 1,278,973,500 gallons
of heating oil and 1,294,723,500 gallons of unleaded
gasoline. The purpose of these contracts is to economically
hedge 30,451,750 barrels of heating oil crack spreads, the
price spread between crude oil and heating oil, and
30,826,750 barrels of unleaded gas crack spreads, the price
spread between crude oil and unleaded gasoline. These open
contracts had a total unrealized net loss at March 31, 2007
of approximately $228.8 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successors Petroleum Segment also holds various NYMEX
positions through UBS Securities LLC. At
March 31, 2007, we were short 818 crude contracts,
76 heating oil contracts and 170 unleaded contracts,
reflecting an unrealized loss of $4.6 million on that date.
|
As of March 31, 2007, a $1.00 change in quoted futures
price for the crack spreads described in the first bullet point
would result in a $61.3 million change to the fair value of
the derivative commodity position and the same change in net
income.
137
Interest Rate
Risk
As of March 31, 2007, all of our $775.0 million of
outstanding term debt was at floating rates. An increase of 1.0%
in the LIBOR rate would result in an increase in our interest
expense of approximately $7.9 million per year.
As of March 31, 2007, all of our $29.5 million of
outstanding revolving debt was at floating rates based on prime.
If this amount remained outstanding for an entire year, an
increase of 1.0% in the prime rate would result in an increase
in our interest expense of approximately $0.3 million per
year.
In an effort to mitigate the interest rate risk highlighted
above and as required under our
then-existing
first and second lien credit agreements, we entered into several
interest rate swap agreements in 2005. These swap agreements
were entered into with counterparties that we believe to be
creditworthy. Under the swap agreements, we pay fixed rates and
receive floating rates based on the three-month LIBOR rates,
with payments calculated on the notional amounts set for in the
table below. The interest rate swaps are settled quarterly and
marked to market at each reporting date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective
|
|
|
Termination
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
Notional Amount
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
$325.0 million
|
|
|
3/31/07
|
|
|
|
6/29/07
|
|
|
|
4.038%
|
|
$325.0 million
|
|
|
6/29/07
|
|
|
|
3/30/08
|
|
|
|
4.195%
|
|
$250.0 million
|
|
|
3/31/08
|
|
|
|
3/30/09
|
|
|
|
4.195%
|
|
$180.0 million
|
|
|
3/31/09
|
|
|
|
3/30/10
|
|
|
|
4.195%
|
|
$110.0 million
|
|
|
3/31/10
|
|
|
|
6/29/10
|
|
|
|
4.195%
|
|
We have determined that these interest rate swaps do not qualify
as hedges for hedge accounting purposes. Therefore, changes in
the fair value of these interest rate swaps are included in
income in the period of change. Net realized and unrealized
gains or losses are reflected in the gain (loss) for derivative
activities at the end of each period. For the year ended
December 31, 2006, we had $3.7 million of realized and
unrealized gains on these interest rate swaps and for the three
months ended March 31, 2007, we had $0.6 million of
realized and unrealized losses.
138
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Oil Refining Industry
Oil refining is the process of separating the wide spectrum of
hydrocarbons present in crude oil, and in certain processes,
modifying the constituent molecular structures, for the purpose
of converting them into marketable finished, or refined,
petroleum products optimized for specific end uses. Refining is
primarily a margin-based business where both the feedstocks (the
petroleum products such as crude oil or natural gas liquids that
are processed and blended into refined products) and the refined
finished products are commodities. It is important for a
refinery to maintain high throughput rates (the volume per day
processed through the refinery) and capacity utilization given
the substantial fixed component in the total operating costs.
There are also material variable costs associated with the fuel
and by-product components that become increasingly expensive as
crude prices increase. The refiners goal is to achieve
highest profitability by maximizing the yields of high value
finished products and by minimizing feedstock and operating
costs.
According to the Energy Information Administration, or the EIA,
as of January 1, 2006, there were 142 oil refineries
operating in the United States, with the 15 smallest each having
a capacity of 11,000 bpd or less, and the 10 largest having
capacities ranging from 306,000 to 562,500 bpd. Refiners
typically are structured as part of a fully or partially
integrated oil company, or as an independent entity, such as our
Company.
Refining
Margins
A variety of so called crack spread indicators are
used to track the profitability of the refining industry. Among
those of most relevance to our refinery are (1) the gas
crack spread, (2) the heat crack spread, and (3) the
2-1-1 crack
spread. The gas crack spread is the simple difference in per
barrel value between reformulated gasoline (gasoline the
compounds or properties of which meet the requirements of the
reformulated gasoline regulations) in New York Harbor as traded
on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, and the NYMEX
prompt price of West Texas Intermediate, or WTI, crude oil on
any given day. This provides a measure of the profitability when
producing gasoline. The heat crack spread is the similar measure
of the price of Number 2 heating oil in New York Harbor as
traded on the NYMEX, relative to the value of WTI crude which
provides a measure of the profitability of producing diesel and
heating oil. The
2-1-1 crack
spread is a composite spread that assumes for simplification and
comparability purposes that for every two barrels of WTI
consumed, a refinery produces one barrel of gasoline and one
barrel of heating oil; the spread is based on the NYMEX price
and delivery of gasoline and heating oil in New York Harbor. The
2-1-1 crack spread provides a measure of the general
profitability of a medium high complexity refinery on the day
that the spread is computed. The ability of a crack spread to
measure profitability is affected by the absolute crude price.
Our refinery uses a consumed
2-1-1 crack
spread to measure its specific daily performance in the market.
The consumed 2-1-1 crack spread assumes the same relative
production of gasoline and heating oil from crude, so like the
NYMEX based
2-1-1 crack
spread, it has an inherent inaccuracy because the refinery does
not produce exactly two barrels of high valued products for each
two barrels of crude oil, and the relative proportions of
gasoline to heating oil will vary somewhat from the 1:1
relationship. However, the consumed
2-1-1 crack
spread is an economically more accurate measure of performance
than the NYMEX based
2-1-1 crack
spread since the crude price used represents the price of our
actual charged crude slate and is based on the actual sale
values in our marketing region, rather than on New York Harbor
NYMEX numbers.
Average 2-1-1
crack spreads vary from region to region depending on the supply
and demand balances of crude oils and refined products and can
vary seasonally and from year to year reflecting more
macroeconomic factors.
Although refining margins, the difference between the per barrel
prices for refined products and the cost of crude oil, can be
volatile during short term periods of time due to seasonality of
demand,
139
refinery outages, extreme weather conditions and fluctuations
in levels of refined product held in storage, longer-term
averages have steadily increased over the last 10 years as
a result of the improving fundamentals for the refining
industry. For example, the NYMEX based
2-1-1 crack
spread averaged $3.88 per barrel from 1994 through 1998
compared to $9.07 per barrel from 2003 to March 31,
2007. The following chart shows a rolling average of the NYMEX
based 2-1-1 crack spread from 1994 through 2006:
Source: Platts
Refining
Market Trends
The supply and demand fundamentals of the domestic refining
industry have improved since the 1990s and are expected to
remain favorable as the growth in demand for refined products
continues to exceed increases in refining capacity. Over the
next two decades, the EIA projects that U.S. demand for refined
products will grow at an average of 1.5% per year compared
to total domestic refining capacity growth of only 1.3% per
year. Approximately 83.3% of the projected demand growth is
expected to come from the increased consumption of light refined
products (including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and liquefied
petroleum gas), which are more difficult and costly to produce
than heavy refined products (including asphalt and carbon black
oil).
High capital costs, historical excess capacity and environmental
regulatory requirements have limited the construction of new
refineries in the United States over the past 30 years.
According to the EIA, domestic refining capacity decreased
approximately 8% between January 1981 and January 2006 from
18.6 million bpd to 17.1 million bpd, as more than 175
generally small and unsophisticated refineries that were unable
to process heavy crude into a marketable product mix have been
shut down, and no new major refinery has been built in the
United States. The implementation of the federal Tier II
low sulfur fuel regulations is expected to further reduce
existing refining capacity.
In order to meet the increasing demands of the market,
U.S. refineries have pursued efficiency measures to improve
existing production levels. These efficiency measures and other
initiatives, generally known as capacity creep, have raised
productive capacity of existing refineries by approximately
1% per year since 1993. According to the EIA, between 1981
and 2004, refinery utilization increased from 69% to 93%. Over
the next 20 years, the EIA projects that utilization will
remain high relative to historic levels, ranging from 92% to 95%
of design capacity.
140
Source: EIA
The price discounts available to refiners of heavy sour crude
oil have widened as many refiners have turned to sweeter and
lighter crude oils to meet lower sulfur fuel specifications,
which has resulted in increasing the surplus of sour and heavy
crude oils. As the global economy has improved, worldwide crude
oil demand has increased, and OPEC and other producers have
tended to incrementally produce more of the sour or heavier
crude oil varieties. We believe that the combination of
increasing worldwide supplies of lower cost sour and heavy crude
oils and increasing demand for sweet and light crude oils will
provide a cost advantage to refineries with configurations that
are able to process sour crude oils.
We expect refined products that meet new and evolving fuel
specifications will account for an increasing share of total
fuel demand, which will benefit refiners who are able to
efficiently produce these fuels. As part of the Clean Air Act,
major metropolitan areas in the United States with air pollution
problems must require the sale and use of reformulated gasoline
meeting certain environmental standards in their jurisdictions.
Boutique fuels, such as low vapor pressure Kansas City gasoline,
enable refineries capable of producing such refined products to
achieve higher margins.
Due to the ongoing supply and demand imbalance, the United
States continues to be a net refined products importer. Imports,
largely from northwest Europe and Asia, accounted for over 13%
of total U.S. consumption in 2004. The level of imports
generally increases during periods when refined product prices
in the United States are materially higher than in Europe and
Asia.
Based on the strong fundamentals for the global refining
industry, capital investments for refinery expansions and new
refineries in international markets have increased during the
recent year. However, the competitive threat faced by domestic
refiners is limited by U.S. fuel specifications and
increasing foreign demand for refined products, particularly for
light transportation fuels.
Certain regional markets in the United States, such as the
Coffeyville supply area, do not have the necessary refining
capacity to produce a sufficient amount of refined products to
meet area demand and therefore rely on pipelines and other modes
of transportation for incremental supply from other regions of
the United States and globally. The shortage of refining
capacity is a factor that results in local refiners serving
these markets earning generally higher margins on their product
sales than those who have to transport their products to this
region over long distances.
141
Notwithstanding the trends described above, the refining
industry is cyclical and volatile and has undergone downturns in
the past. See Risk Factors.
Refinery
Locations
A refinerys location can have an important impact on its
refining margins because location can influence access to
feedstocks and efficient distribution. There are five regions in
the United States, the Petroleum Administration for Defense
Districts (PADDs), that have historically experienced varying
levels of refining profitability due to regional market
conditions. Refiners located in the U.S. Gulf Coast region
operate in a highly competitive market due to the fact that this
region (PADD III) accounts for approximately 37% of
the total number of U.S. refineries and approximately 48%
of the countrys refining capacity. PADD I represents the
East Coast, PADD IV the Rocky Mountains and PADD V is the West
Coast.
Coffeyville operates in the Midwest (PADD II) region
of the US. In 2006, demand for gasoline and distillates
(primarily diesel fuels, kerosene and jet fuel) exceeded
refining production in the Coffeyville supply area by
approximately 22%, which created a need to import a significant
portion of the regions requirement for petroleum products
from the U.S. Gulf Coast and other regions. The deficit of
local refining capacity benefits local refined product pricing
and could generally lead to higher margins for local refiners
such as our company.
Nitrogen Fertilizer Industry
Plant
Nutrition and Nitrogen Fertilizers
Commercially produced fertilizers give plants the primary
nutrients needed in a form they can readily absorb and use.
Nitrogen is an essential element for plant growth. Absorbed by
plants in larger amounts than other nutrients, nitrogen makes
plants green and healthy and is the nutrient most responsible
for increasing yields in crop plants. Although plants will
absorb nitrogen from organic matter and soil materials, this is
usually not sufficient to satisfy the demands of crop plants.
The
142
supply of nutrients must, accordingly, be supplemented with
fertilizers to meet the requirements of crops during periods of
plant growth, to replenish nutrients removed from the soil
through crop harvesting and to provide those nutrients that are
not already available in appropriate amounts in the soil. The
two most important sources of nutrients are manufactured or
mineral fertilizers and organic manures. Farmers determine the
types, quantities and proportions of fertilizer to apply to
their fields depending on, among other factors, the crop, soil
and weather conditions, regional farming practices, and
fertilizer and crop prices.
Nitrogen, which typically accounts for approximately 60% of
worldwide fertilizer consumption in any planting season, is an
essential element for most organic compounds in plants as it
promotes protein formation and is a major component of
chlorophyll, which helps to promote green healthy growth and
high yields. There are no substitutes for nitrogen fertilizers
in the cultivation of high-yield crops such as corn, which on
average requires 100-160 pounds of nitrogen for each acre of
plantings. The four principal nitrogen based fertilizer products
are:
Ammonia. Ammonia is used in limited
quantities as a direct application fertilizer, and is primarily
used as a building block for other nitrogen products, including
intermediate products for industrial applications and finished
fertilizer products. Ammonia, consisting of 82% nitrogen, is
stored either as a refrigerated liquid at minus 27 degrees, or
under pressure if not refrigerated. It is gaseous at ambient
temperatures and is injected into the soil as a gas. The direct
application of ammonia requires farmers to make a considerable
investment in pressurized storage tanks and injection machinery,
and can take place only under a narrow range of ambient
conditions.
Urea. Urea is formed by reacting
ammonia with carbon dioxide, or
CO2,
at high pressure. From the warm urea liquid produced in the
first, wet stage of the process, the finished product is mostly
produced as a coated, granular solid containing 46% nitrogen and
suitable for use in bulk fertilizer blends containing the other
two principal fertilizer nutrients, phosphate and potash. We do
not produce merchant urea.
Ammonium Nitrate. Ammonium nitrate is
another dry, granular form of nitrogen based fertilizer. It is
produced by converting ammonia to nitric acid in the presence of
a platinum catalyst reaction, then further reacting the nitric
acid with additional volumes of ammonia to form ammonium
nitrate. We do not produce this product.
Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solution
(UAN). Urea can be combined with ammonium
nitrate solution to make liquid nitrogen fertilizer (urea
ammonium nitrate or UAN). These solutions contain 32% nitrogen
and are easy to store and transport and provide the farmer with
the most flexibility in tailoring fertilizer, pesticide and
fungicide applications.
In 2006, we produced approximately 369,300 tons of ammonia, of
which approximately two-thirds was upgraded into approximately
633,100 tons of UAN.
Ammonia
Production Technology Advantages of Coke
Gasification
Ammonia is produced by reacting gaseous nitrogen with hydrogen
at high pressure and temperature in the presence of a catalyst.
Traditionally, nearly all hydrogen produced for the manufacture
of nitrogen based fertilizers is produced by reforming natural
gas at a high temperature and pressure in the presence of water
and a catalyst. This process consumes a significant amount of
natural gas and is believed to become unprofitable as the
natural gas input costs increase.
Alternatively, hydrogen for ammonia can also be produced by
gasifying pet coke. Pet coke is a
coal-like
substance that is produced during the refining process. The coke
gasification process, which the nitrogen fertilizer business
commercially employs at its fertilizer plant, the only such
plant in North America, takes advantage of the large cost
differential between pet coke and natural gas in current
markets. The plants coke gasification process allows it to
use less than 1% of the natural gas relative to other nitrogen
based fertilizer facilities that are heavily dependent upon
natural gas and are thus heavily impacted by natural gas price
swings. The nitrogen fertilizer business also benefits from the
ready
143
availability of pet coke supply from our refinery plant. Pet
coke is a refinery by-product which if not used in the
fertilizer plant would otherwise be sold as fuel, generating
less value to the company.
Fertilizer
Consumption Trends
Global demand for fertilizers typically grows at predictable
rates and tends to correspond to growth in grain production.
Global fertilizer demand is driven in the long-term primarily by
population growth, increases in disposable income and associated
improvements in diet. Short-term demand depends on world
economic growth rates and factors creating temporary imbalances
in supply and demand. These factors include weather patterns,
the level of world grain stocks relative to consumption,
agricultural commodity prices, energy prices, crop mix,
fertilizer application rates, farm income and temporary
disruptions in fertilizer trade from government intervention,
such as changes in the buying patterns of large countries like
China or India. According to the International Fertilizer
Industry Association, or IFA, from 1960 to 2005, global
fertilizer demand has grown 3.7% annually and global nitrogen
demand has grown at a faster rate of 4.8% annually. According to
the IFA, during that 45-year period, North American fertilizer
demand has grown 2.4% annually with North American nitrogen
demand growing at a faster rate of 3.3% annually.
In 2000, the FAO projected an increase in major world crop
production from 1995/97 to 2030 of approximately 76%. The annual
growth rate for fertilizer consumption through 2030 is projected
by the FAO to be between 0.7% and 1.3% per year. This
forecast assumes a slowdown in the growth of the worlds
population and crop production, and an improvement in fertilizer
use efficiency.
The United States Department of Agriculture recently forecast a
10 million acre increase in 2007 planted corn acres over
similar plantings in 2006, the majority of which is expected to
be generated on vacant land or through displacement of soybean
crops. The net effect of these additional plantings is expected
to increase demand for nitrogen fertilizers by 700,000 tons per
year. This equates to an annual increase of 2.2 million
tons of UAN, or approximately three times our total annual UAN
production.
The Farm Belt
Nitrogen Market
All of the nitrogen fertilizer business product shipments
target freight advantaged destinations located in the U.S. farm
belt. The farm belt refers to the states of Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. Because shipping
ammonia requires refrigerated or pressured containers and UAN is
more than 65% water, transportation cost is substantial for
ammonia and UAN producers. As a result, locally based fertilizer
producers, such as the nitrogen fertilizer business, enjoy a
distribution cost advantage over U.S. Gulf Coast ammonia
and UAN importers. Southern Plains ammonia and Corn Belt UAN 32
prices averaged $272/ton and $157/ton, respectively, for the
2002 through 2005 period, based on data provided by Blue Johnson
& Associates. The volumes of ammonia and UAN sold into
certain farm belt markets are set forth in the table below:
Recent United
States Ammonia and UAN Demand in Selected Mid-continent
Areas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia
|
|
|
UAN 32
|
|
State
|
|
Quantity
|
|
|
Quantity
|
|
|
|
(thousand tons per year)
|
|
|
Texas
|
|
|
2,300
|
|
|
|
850
|
|
Oklahoma
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
225
|
|
Kansas
|
|
|
370
|
|
|
|
670
|
|
Missouri
|
|
|
325
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
Iowa
|
|
|
690
|
|
|
|
865
|
|
Nebraska
|
|
|
335
|
|
|
|
1,100
|
|
Minnesota
|
|
|
335
|
|
|
|
195
|
|
Source: Blue Johnson & Associates Inc.
144
Fertilizer
Pricing Trends
The nitrogen fertilizer industry is cyclical and relatively
volatile, reflecting the commodity nature of ammonia and the
major finished fertilizer products (e.g., urea). Although
domestic
industry-wide
sales volumes of nitrogen based fertilizers vary little from one
fertilizer season to the next due to the need to apply nitrogen
every year to maintain crop yields, in the normal course of
business industry participants are exposed to fluctuations in
supply and demand, which can have significant effects on prices
across all participants commodity business areas and
products and, in turn, their operating results and
profitability. Changes in supply can result from capacity
additions or reductions and from changes in inventory levels.
Demand for fertilizer products is dependent on demand for crop
nutrients by the global agricultural industry, which, in turn,
depends on, among other things, weather conditions in particular
geographical regions. Periods of high demand, high capacity
utilization and increasing operating margins tend to result in
new plant investment, higher crop pricing and increased
production until supply exceeds demand, followed by periods of
declining prices and declining capacity utilization, until the
cycle is repeated. Due to dependence of the prevalent nitrogen
fertilizer technology on natural gas, the marginal cost and
pricing of fertilizer products also tend to exhibit positive
correlation with the price of natural gas.
The historical average annual U.S. Corn Belt ammonia prices as
well as natural gas and crude oil prices are detailed in the
table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas
|
|
|
WTI
|
|
|
Ammonia
|
|
Year
|
|
($/million btu)
|
|
|
($/bbl)
|
|
|
($/ton)
|
|
|
1990
|
|
|
1.78
|
|
|
|
24.53
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
1991
|
|
|
1.53
|
|
|
|
21.55
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
1992
|
|
|
1.73
|
|
|
|
20.57
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
1993
|
|
|
2.11
|
|
|
|
18.43
|
|
|
|
139
|
|
1994
|
|
|
1.94
|
|
|
|
17.16
|
|
|
|
197
|
|
1995
|
|
|
1.69
|
|
|
|
18.38
|
|
|
|
238
|
|
1996
|
|
|
2.50
|
|
|
|
22.01
|
|
|
|
217
|
|
1997
|
|
|
2.48
|
|
|
|
20.59
|
|
|
|
220
|
|
1998
|
|
|
2.16
|
|
|
|
14.43
|
|
|
|
162
|
|
1999
|
|
|
2.32
|
|
|
|
19.26
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
2000
|
|
|
4.32
|
|
|
|
30.28
|
|
|
|
208
|
|
2001
|
|
|
4.06
|
|
|
|
25.92
|
|
|
|
262
|
|
2002
|
|
|
3.39
|
|
|
|
26.19
|
|
|
|
191
|
|
2003
|
|
|
5.49
|
|
|
|
31.03
|
|
|
|
292
|
|
2004
|
|
|
5.90
|
|
|
|
41.47
|
|
|
|
326
|
|
2005
|
|
|
8.92
|
|
|
|
56.58
|
|
|
|
394
|
|
2006
|
|
|
6.73
|
|
|
|
66.09
|
|
|
|
379
|
|
2007 (through March 31)
|
|
|
7.19
|
|
|
|
58.10
|
|
|
|
424
|
|
Source: Bloomberg (natural gas and WTI) and Blue
Johnson & Associates, Inc. (ammonia)
145
BUSINESS
We are an independent refiner and marketer of high value
transportation fuels and, through a limited partnership in which
we will initially own all of the interests (other than the
managing general partner interest and associated IDRs), a
producer of ammonia and UAN fertilizers. We are one of only
seven petroleum refiners and marketers in the Coffeyville supply
area (Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa) and, at
current natural gas prices, the nitrogen fertilizer business is
the lowest cost producer and marketer of ammonia and UAN in
North America.
Our petroleum business includes a 108,000 bpd, complex full
coking sour crude refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas (with capacity
expected to reach approximately 115,000 bpd by the end of 2007).
In addition, our supporting businesses include (1) a crude
oil gathering system serving central Kansas and northern
Oklahoma, (2) storage and terminal facilities for asphalt
and refined fuels in Phillipsburg, Kansas, and (3) a rack
marketing division supplying product through tanker trucks
directly to customers located in close geographic proximity to
Coffeyville and Phillipsburg, and to customers at throughput
terminals on Magellan refined products distribution systems. In
addition to rack sales (sales which are made at terminals into
third party tanker trucks), we make bulk sales (sales through
third party pipelines) into the mid-continent markets via
Magellan and into Colorado and other destinations utilizing the
product pipeline networks owned by Magellan, Enterprise and
NuStar. Our refinery is situated approximately 100 miles
from Cushing, Oklahoma, one of the largest crude oil trading and
storage hubs in the United States, served by numerous pipelines
from locations including the U.S. Gulf Coast and Canada,
providing us with access to virtually any crude variety in the
world capable of being transported by pipeline.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is the only operation in North
America that utilizes a coke gasification process to produce
ammonia (based on data provided by Blue Johnson &
Associates). A majority of the ammonia produced by the
fertilizer plant is further upgraded to UAN fertilizer (a
solution of urea and ammonium nitrate in water used as a
fertilizer). By using pet coke (a coal-like substance that is
produced during the refining process) instead of natural gas as
raw material, at current natural gas prices the nitrogen
fertilizer business is the lowest cost producer of ammonia and
UAN in North America. Furthermore, on average, over 80% of the
pet coke utilized by the fertilizer plant is produced and
supplied to the fertilizer plant as a by-product of our
refinery. As such, the nitrogen fertilizer business benefits
from high natural gas prices, as fertilizer prices increase with
natural gas prices, without a directly related change in cost
(because pet coke rather than more expensive natural gas is used
as a primary raw material).
We have two business segments: petroleum and nitrogen
fertilizer. For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004,
2005, 2006 and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2007,
we generated combined net sales of $1.7 billion,
$2.4 billion, $3.0 billion and $2.8 billion,
respectively, and operating income of $111.2 million,
$270.8 million, $281.6 million and
$162.2 million, respectively. Our petroleum business
generated $1.6 billion, $2.3 billion,
$2.9 billion and $2.6 billion of our combined net
sales, respectively, over these periods, with the nitrogen
fertilizer business generating substantially all of the
remainder. In addition, during these periods, our petroleum
business contributed $84.8 million, $199.7 million,
$245.6 million and $140.5 million of our combined
operating income, respectively, with the nitrogen fertilizer
business contributing substantially all of the remainder.
Significant Milestones Since the Change of Control in June
2005
Following the acquisition by certain affiliates of the Goldman
Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds in June 2005, a new senior
management team led by John J. Lipinski, our Chief Executive
Officer, was formed that combined selected members of existing
management with experienced new members. Our new senior
management team has executed several key strategic initiatives
that we believe have significantly enhanced our competitive
position and improved our financial and operational performance.
146
Increased Refinery Throughput and
Yields. Managements focus on crude
slate optimization (the process of determining the most economic
crude oils to be refined), reliability, technical support and
operational excellence coupled with prudent expenditures on
equipment has significantly improved the operating metrics of
the refinery. The refinerys crude throughput rate (the
volume per day processed through the refinery) has increased
from an average of less than 90,000 bpd to an average of
greater than 102,000 bpd in the second quarter of 2006, with
peak daily rates in excess of 108,000 bpd of crude. Crude
throughputs averaged 94,500 bpd for 2006, an improvement of over
3,400 bpd over 2005. Recent operational improvements at the
refinery have also allowed us to produce higher volumes of
favorably priced distillates (primarily No. 1 diesel fuel
and kerosene), premium gasoline and boutique gasoline grades.
Diversified Crude Feedstock Variety. We
have expanded the variety of crude grades processed in any given
month from a limited few to over a dozen, including onshore and
offshore domestic grades, various Canadian sours, heavy sours
and sweet synthetics, and a variety of South American and West
African imported grades. This has improved our crude purchase
cost discount to WTI from $3.08 per barrel in 2005 to $4.58
per barrel in 2006.
Expanded Direct Rack Sales. We have
significantly expanded and intend to continue to expand rack
marketing of refined products (petroleum products such as
gasoline and diesel fuel) directly to customers rather than
origin bulk sales. Today, we sell over 23% of our produced
transportation fuels throughout the Coffeyville supply area
within the mid-continent, at enhanced margins, through our
proprietary terminals and at Magellans throughput
terminals. With the expanded rack sales program, we improved our
net income for 2006 compared to 2005.
Significant Plant Improvement and Capacity Expansion
Projects. Management has identified and
developed several significant capital projects since June 2005
primarily aimed at (1) expanding refinery and nitrogen
fertilizer plant capacity (throughput that the plants are
capable of sustaining on a daily basis), (2) enhancing
operating reliability and flexibility, (3) complying with
more stringent environmental, health and safety standards, and
(4) improving our ability to process heavier sour crude
feedstock varieties (petroleum products that are processed and
blended into refined products). We completed most of these
capital projects by April 2007 and expect to complete the
remainder prior to the end of 2007. The estimated total cost of
these programs is $520 million, the majority of which has
already been spent and the remainder of which will be spent by
the end of 2007.
The following major projects under this program were completed
in 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
Construction of a new 23,000 bpd high pressure diesel
hydrotreater and associated new sulfur recovery unit, which will
allow the facility to meet the EPA Tier II Ultra Low Sulfur
Diesel federal regulations; and
|
|
|
|
Expansion of one of the two gasification units within the
fertilizer complex, which is expected to increase ammonia
production by over 6,500 tons per year.
|
The following major projects under this program, substantially
all of which are completed with the remainder expected to be
completed prior to the end of 2007, are intended to increase
refinery processing capacity to up to approximately 115,000 bpd,
increase gasoline production and improve our liquid volume yield:
|
|
|
|
|
Refinery-wide capacity expansion by increasing throughput of the
existing fluid catalytic cracking unit (the unit that converts
gas oil from the crude unit or coker unit into liquified
petroleum gas, distillates and gasoline blendstocks), the
delayed coker (the unit that processes heavy feedstock and
produces lighter products and pet coke), and other major process
units; and
|
|
|
|
Construction of a new grass roots 24,000 bpd continuous
catalytic reformer to be completed by the end of 2007.
|
Once completed, these projects are intended to significantly
enhance the profitability of the refinery in environments of
high crack spreads and allow the refinery to operate more
profitably at
147
lower crack spreads than is currently possible. We intend to
finance these capital projects with cash from our operations and
occasional borrowings from our revolving credit facility. See
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and
Capital Resources Debt and Description
of Our Indebtedness and the Cash Flow Swap.
Our Competitive
Strengths
Regional Advantage and Strategic Asset
Location. Our refinery is one of only seven
refineries located in the Coffeyville supply area within the
mid-continent region, where demand for refined products exceeded
refining production by approximately 22% in 2006. We estimate
that this favorable supply/demand imbalance combined with our
lower pipeline transportation cost as compared to the
U.S. Gulf Coast refiners has allowed us to generate
refining margins, as measured by the
2-1-1 crack
spread, that have exceeded U.S. Gulf Coast refining margins
by approximately $1.63 per barrel on average for the last
four years. The 2-1-1 crack spread is a general industry
standard that approximates the per barrel refining margin
resulting from processing two barrels of crude oil to produce
one barrel of gasoline and one barrel of diesel fuel.
In addition, the nitrogen fertilizer business is geographically
advantaged to supply products to markets in Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Texas without incurring
intermediate transfer, storage, barge or pipeline freight
charges. Because the nitrogen fertilizer business does not incur
these costs, this geographic advantage provides it with a
distribution cost benefit over U.S. Gulf Coast ammonia and
UAN importers, assuming in each case freight rates and pipeline
tariffs for U.S. Gulf Coast importers as recently in effect.
Access to and Ability to Process Multiple Crude
Oils. Since June 2005 we have significantly
expanded the variety of crude grades processed in any given
month and have reduced our acquisition cost of crude relative to
WTI by approximately $1.50 per barrel in 2006 compared to
2005. While our proximity to the Cushing crude oil trading hub
minimizes the likelihood of an interruption to our supply, we
intend to further diversify our sources of crude oil. Among
other initiatives in this regard, we have secured shipper rights
on the newly built Spearhead pipeline, owned by CCPS
Transportation, LLC (which is ultimately owned by Enbridge),
which connects Chicago to the Cushing hub and provides us with
an ability to secure incremental oil supplies from Canada. We
also own and operate a crude gathering system located in
northern Oklahoma and central Kansas, which allows us to acquire
quality crudes at a discount to WTI.
High Quality, Modern Asset Base with Solid Track
Record. We operate a complex full coking sour
crude refinery. Complexity is a measure of a refinerys
ability to process lower quality crude in an economic manner;
greater complexity makes a refinery more profitable. Our
refinerys complexity allows us to optimize the yields (the
percentage of refined product that is produced from crude and
other feedstocks) of higher value transportation fuels (gasoline
and distillate), which currently account for approximately 94%
of our liquid production output. From 1995 through
April 30, 2007, we have invested approximately
$586 million to modernize our oil refinery and to meet more
stringent U.S. environmental, health and safety
requirements. As a result, we have achieved significant
increases in our refinery crude throughput rate from an average
of less than 90,000 bpd prior to June 2005 to over
102,000 bpd in the second quarter of 2006 and over 94,500
bpd for 2006 with peak daily rates in excess of
108,000 bpd. In addition, we have substantially completed
our scheduled 2007 refinery turnaround and expect that plant
capacity will reach approximately 115,000 bpd by the end of
2007. Managements consistent focus on reliability and
safety earned us the NPRA Gold Award for safety in 2005. The
fertilizer plant, completed in 2000, is the newest fertilizer
facility in North America, utilizes less than 1% of the natural
gas relative to natural
gas-based
fertilizer producers and, since 2003, has demonstrated a
consistent record of operating near full capacity. (The
percentage of natural gas used compared to the fertilizer
plants competitors was calculated using the nitrogen
fertilizer business own internal data regarding its own
natural gas usage and industry data from Blue Johnson regarding
typical natural gas use by other ammonia
148
manufacturers.) The fertilizer plant underwent a scheduled
turnaround (a periodically required procedure to refurbish and
maintain the facility that involves the shutdown and inspection
of major processing units) in 2006, and the plants spare
gasifier was recently expanded to increase its production
capacity.
Near Term Internal Expansion
Opportunities. Since June 2005, we have
identified and developed several significant capital
improvements primarily aimed at (1) expanding refinery
capacity, (2) enhancing operating reliability and
flexibility, (3) complying with more stringent
environmental, health and safety standards and
(4) improving our ability to process heavy sour crude
feedstock varieties. With the completion of approximately
$520 million of significant capital improvements, we expect
to significantly enhance the profitability of our refinery
during periods of high crack spreads while enabling the refinery
to operate more profitably at lower crack spreads than is
currently possible.
Unique Coke Gasification Fertilizer
Plant. The nitrogen fertilizer plant is the
only one of its kind in North America utilizing a coke
gasification process to produce ammonia. The coke gasification
process allows the plant to produce ammonia at a lower cost than
natural gas-based fertilizer plants because it uses
significantly less natural gas then its competitors. We estimate
that the facilitys production cost advantage over
U.S. Gulf Coast ammonia producers is sustainable at natural
gas prices as low as $2.50 per million Btu. This cost
advantage has been more pronounced in todays environment
of high natural gas prices, as the reported Henry Hub natural
gas price has fluctuated between approximately $4.20 and
$15.00 per million Btu since the end of 2003. The nitrogen
fertilizer business has a secure raw material supply with an
average of more than 80% of the pet coke required by the
fertilizer plant historically supplied by our refinery. After
this offering, we will continue to supply pet coke to the
nitrogen fertilizer business pursuant to a 20-year intercompany
agreement. The sustaining capital requirements for this business
are low relative to earnings and are expected to range between
$3 million and $5 million per year as compared to
$36.8 million of operating income in the nitrogen
fertilizer segment for the year ended December 31, 2006.
The nitrogen fertilizer business is also considering a
$40 million fertilizer plant expansion, which we estimate
could increase the nitrogen fertilizer plants capacity to
upgrade ammonia into premium priced UAN by 50% to approximately
1,000,000 tons per year.
Experienced Management Team. In
conjunction with the acquisition of our business by Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC in June 2005, a new senior management team was
formed that combined selected members of existing management
with experienced new members. Our senior management team
averages over 27 years of refining and fertilizer industry
experience and, in coordination with our broader management
team, has increased our operating income and stockholder value
since the acquisition of Coffeyville Resources. Mr. John J.
Lipinski, our Chief Executive Officer, has 35 years of
experience in the refining and chemicals industries, and prior
to joining us in connection with the acquisition of Coffeyville
Resources in June 2005, was in charge of a 550,000 bpd
refining system and a multi-plant fertilizer system.
Mr. Stanley A. Riemann, our Chief Operating Officer, has
over 32 years of experience, and prior to joining us in
March 2004, was in charge of one of the largest fertilizer
manufacturing systems in the United States. Mr. James T.
Rens, our Chief Financial Officer, has over 15 years
experience in the energy and fertilizer industries, and prior to
joining us in March 2004, was the chief financial officer of two
fertilizer manufacturing companies.
Our Business
Strategy
The primary business objectives for our refinery business are to
increase value for our stockholders and to maintain our position
as an independent refiner and marketer of refined fuels in our
markets by maximizing the throughput and efficiency of our
petroleum refining assets. In addition, managements
business objectives on behalf of the Partnership are to increase
value for our stockholders and maximize the production and
efficiency of the nitrogen fertilizer facilities. We intend to
accomplish these objectives through the following strategies:
Pursuing organic expansion
opportunities. We continually evaluate
opportunities to expand our existing asset base and consider
capital projects that accentuate our core competitiveness in
149
petroleum refining. In our petroleum business, we are currently
engaged in a refinery-wide capacity expansion project that is
expected to increase our operating refinery throughput to up to
approximately 115,000 barrels per day by the end of 2007.
We are also evaluating projects that will improve our ability to
process heavy crude oil feedstocks and to increase our overall
operating flexibility with respect to crude oil slates. In
addition, management also continually evaluates capital projects
that are intended to accentuate the Partnerships
competitiveness in nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing.
Increasing the profitability of our existing
assets. We strive to improve our operating
efficiency and to reduce our costs by controlling our cost
structure. We intend to make investments to improve the
efficiency of our operations and pursue cost saving initiatives.
Currently, we are in the process of completing the construction
of a new grass roots continuous catalytic reformer to be
completed by the end of 2007. This project is expected to
increase the profitability of our petroleum business through
increased refined product yields and the elimination of
scheduled downtime associated with the reformer that is being
replaced. In addition, this project is intended to reduce the
dependence of our refinery on hydrogen supplied by the
fertilizer facility, thereby allowing the fertilizer business to
generate higher margins by increasing its capacity to produce
ammonia and UAN rather than hydrogen.
Seeking both strategic and accretive
acquisitions. We intend to consider both
strategic and accretive acquisitions within the energy industry.
We will seek acquisition opportunities in our existing areas of
operation that have the potential for operational efficiencies.
We may also examine opportunities in the energy industry outside
of our existing areas of operation and in new geographic
regions. In addition, working on behalf of the Partnership,
management also intends to pursue strategic and accretive
acquisitions within the fertilizer industry, including
opportunities in different geographic regions. We have no
agreements or understandings with respect to any acquisitions at
the present time.
Pursuing opportunities to maximize the value of the
nitrogen fertilizer limited partnership. Our
management, acting on behalf of the Partnership, will
continually evaluate opportunities that are intended to enable
the Partnership to grow its distributable cash flow.
Managements strategies specifically related to the growth
opportunities of the Partnership include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuing opportunities to expand UAN production and other
efficiency-based projects. The nitrogen
fertilizer business is pursuing a project that is expected to
increase UAN production through the addition of a nitric acid
plant, as a result of which the UAN manufacturing facility would
substantially consume all of our net ammonia production. The UAN
expansion is expected to be completed in 2010 and would result
in an approximate 400,000 ton increase in annual UAN production.
We believe that this expansion would help to improve our margins
as UAN is a higher margin product as compared to ammonia. In
addition, the nitrogen fertilizer business is expected to pursue
several efficiency-based capital projects in order to reduce
overall operating costs, or incrementally increase ammonia
production for the nitrogen fertilizer business.
|
|
|
|
Leveraging the Partnerships relationship with our
petroleum business. We expect that over time, as
our petroleum business grows, it will need incremental pipeline
transportation and storage infrastructure services. The
Partnership will be well-situated to meet these needs due to its
historic relationship with and proximity to our petroleum
facilities, combined with managements knowledge and
expertise in hydrocarbon storage and related disciplines. The
Partnership may seek to acquire new assets (including pipeline
assets and storage facilities) in order to service this
potential new source of revenue from our petroleum business.
|
|
|
|
Acquiring assets from the petroleum
business. The Partnership may seek to purchase
specific assets from our petroleum business and enter into
agreements with the refinery for crude oil transportation, crude
oil storage and refined fuels terminalling services. Examples of
assets under consideration include our crude gathering pipeline
operations in Kansas and
|
150
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma, the refined fuels terminal operations in Phillipsburg,
Kansas and our real estate in Cushing, Oklahoma purchased for
the future construction of crude oil storage tanks. We have no
agreements or understandings with respect to any such
acquisitions or agreements at the present time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuing opportunities in
CO2
sequestration. The nitrogen fertilizer business
is currently evaluating a development plan to either sell the
currently vented 850,000 tons per year of high purity
anthropogenic
CO2
produced by the nitrogen fertilizer facilities into the enhanced
oil recovery market or to pursue an economic means of
geologically sequestering the
CO2.
This project is currently in development, but is expected to
result in economic benefits including the direct sale of
CO2
and the sale of verified emission credits on the open market
should the credits accrete value in the future due to the
implementation of mandatory emission caps for
CO2.
|
|
|
|
Constructing a third gasification unit in the nitrogen
fertilizer plant. The nitrogen fertilizer
business intends to pursue the feasibility of the construction
and operation of an additional gasification unit to produce a
synthesis gas from petroleum coke. It is expected that the
addition of a third gasification unit and an additional ammonia
and UAN manufacturing facility to the nitrogen fertilizer
operations could result, on a long-term basis, in an approximate
1.0 million ton per year increase in UAN production. This
project is in its earliest stages of review and is still subject
to numerous levels of internal analysis.
|
Our
History
Our business was founded in 1906 by The National Refining
Company, which at the time was the largest independent oil
refiner in the United States. In 1944 the Coffeyville refinery
was purchased by the Cooperative Refinery Association, a
subsidiary of a parent company that in 1966 renamed itself
Farmland Industries, Inc. Our refinery assets and the nitrogen
fertilizer plant were operated as a small component of Farmland
Industries, Inc., an agricultural cooperative, until
March 3, 2004. Farmland filed for bankruptcy protection on
May 31, 2002.
Coffeyville Resources, LLC, a subsidiary of Coffeyville Group
Holdings, LLC, won the bankruptcy court auction for
Farmlands petroleum business and a nitrogen fertilizer
plant and completed the purchase of these assets on
March 3, 2004. On October 8, 2004, Coffeyville Group
Holdings, LLC, through two of its wholly owned subsidiaries,
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc., acquired an interest in Judith
Leiber business, a designer handbag business, through an
investment in CLJV Holdings, LLC (CLJV), a joint venture with
The Leiber Group, Inc., whose majority stockholder was also the
majority stockholder of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC. On
June 23, 2005, the entire interest in the Judith Leiber
business held by CLJV was returned to The Leiber Group, Inc. in
exchange for all of its ownership interest in CLJV, resulting in
a complete separation of the Immediate Predecessor and the
Judith Leiber business.
On June 24, 2005, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement
dated May 15, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, which was
formed in Delaware on May 13, 2005, acquired all of the
subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC. With the
exception of crude oil, heating oil and gasoline option
agreements entered into with J. Aron as of May 16, 2005,
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC had no operations from its inception
until the acquisition on June 24, 2005.
Prior to this offering, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC directly or
indirectly owned all of our subsidiaries. We were formed in
Delaware in September 2006 as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to the consummation of this offering, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC will redeem all of its outstanding common units
held by the Goldman Sachs Funds, who will receive the same
number of common units in Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, a
newly formed limited liability company to which Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC will transfer half of its interests in each of
|
151
|
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc., Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. and CVR Energy. In addition, half of
the common units and half of the profits interests in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC held by our executive officers will
be redeemed in exchange for an equal number and type of limited
liability interests in Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
Following these redemptions, the Kelso Funds will own
substantially all of the common units of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC, the Goldman Sachs Funds will own substantially all of the
common units of Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and our
executive officers will own an equal number and type of
interests in both Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC. Each of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC will own 50% of each of
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizers and CVR Energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following the redemptions by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, we
will merge a newly formed direct subsidiary of ours with
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing and merge a separate
newly formed direct subsidiary of ours with Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizers which will make Coffeyville Refining &
Marketing and Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers direct wholly
owned subsidiaries of ours. These transactions will result in a
structure with CVR Energy below Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and above its two operating
subsidiaries, so that CVR Energy will become the parent of the
two operating subsidiaries. CVR Energy has not commenced
operations and has no assets or liabilities. In addition, there
are no contingent liabilities and commitments attributable to
CVR Energy. The mergers of the two operating subsidiaries with
subsidiaries of CVR Energy provide a tax free means to put an
appropriate organizational structure in place to go public and
give the Company the flexibility to simplify its structure in a
tax efficient manner in the future if necessary.
|
|
|
|
In addition, we will transfer our nitrogen fertilizer business
into a newly formed limited partnership and we will sell all of
the interests of the managing general partner of this
partnership to an entity owned by our controlling stockholders
and senior management at fair market value on the date of the
transfer.
|
We refer to these pre-IPO reorganization transactions in the
prospectus as the Transactions.
Petroleum
Business
Asset
Description
We operate one of the seven refineries located in the
Coffeyville supply area (Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska
and Iowa). The Companys complex cracking and coking oil
refinery has the capacity to produce 108,000 bpd which
accounts for approximately 14% of the regions output and
employs techniques such as hydro processing, isomerization,
alkylation and reforming in the production process. As part of
our comprehensive capital expenditure program, we expect to
increase the refinery capacity to up to approximately
115,000 bpd in 2007. The facility is situated on
approximately 440 acres in southeast Kansas, approximately
100 miles from the Cushing, Oklahoma crude oil trading and
storage hub.
The Coffeyville refinery is a complex facility. Complexity is a
measure of a refinerys ability to process lower quality
crude in an economic manner. It is also a measure of a
refinerys ability to convert lower cost, more abundant
heavier and sour crudes into greater volumes of higher valued
refined products such as gasoline, thereby providing a
competitive advantage over less complex refineries. At the time
of the Subsequent Acquisition we had a modified Solomon
complexity score of approximately 10.0. Modified Solomon
complexity is a standard industry measure of a
refinerys ability to process less-expensive feedstock,
such as heavier and higher-sulfur content crude oils, into
value-added products. Modified Solomon complexity is the
weighted average of the Solomon complexity factors for each
operating unit multiplied by the throughput of each refinery
unit, divided by the crude capacity of the refinery. Due to the
refinerys complexity, higher value products such as
gasoline and diesel represent approximately an 88% product yield
on a total throughput basis. Other
152
products include slurry, light cycle oil, vacuum tower bottom,
or VTB, reformer feeds, gas oil, pet coke and sulfur. All of our
pet coke by-product is consumed by the adjacent nitrogen
fertilizer business, which enables the fertilizer plant to be
cost effective, because pet coke is utilized in lieu of higher
priced natural gas. Following completion of our present capital
expenditure program we expect the Solomon complexity score to
rise from 10.0 to 11.2.
The refinery consists of two crude units and two vacuum units. A
vacuum unit is a secondary unit which processes crude oil by
separating product from the crude unit according to boiling
point under high heat and low pressure to recover various
hydrocarbons. The availability of more than one crude and vacuum
unit creates redundancy in the refinery system and enables us to
continue to run the refinery even if one of these units were to
shut down for scheduled or unscheduled plant maintenance and
upgrades. However, the maximum combined capacity of the crude
units is limited by the overall downstream capacity of the
vacuum units and other units.
Our petroleum business also includes the following auxiliary
operating assets:
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Gathering System. We own and
operate a 25,000 bpd crude oil gathering system comprised
of over 300 miles of feeder and trunk pipelines, 40 trucks
and associated storage facilities for gathering light, sweet
Kansas and Oklahoma crude oils purchased from independent crude
producers. We have also leased a section of a pipeline from
Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. that will allow us to gather
additional volumes of attractively priced quality crudes.
|
|
|
|
Phillipsburg Terminal. We own storage
and terminalling facilities for asphalt and refined fuels at
Phillipsburg, Kansas. Our asphalt storage and terminalling
facilities are used to receive, store and redeliver asphalt for
another oil company for a fee pursuant to an asphalt services
agreement.
|
Feedstocks
Supply
Our refinery has the capability to process a blend of heavy sour
as well as light sweet crudes. Currently, our refinery processes
crude from a broad array of sources, approximately two-thirds
domestic and one-third foreign. We purchase foreign crudes from
Latin America, South America, West Africa, the North Sea and
Canada. We purchase domestic crudes that meet pipeline
specifications from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and offshore
deepwater Gulf of Mexico production. Given our refinerys
ability to process a wide variety of crudes and ready access to
multiple sources of crude, we have never curtailed production
due to lack of crude access. Other feedstocks (petroleum
products that are processed and blended into refined products)
include natural gasoline, various grades of butanes, vacuum gas
oil, vacuum tower bottom, or VTB, and others which are sourced
from the Conway/Group 140 storage facility or regional refinery
suppliers. Below is a summary of our historical feedstock inputs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(in barrels)
|
|
|
Crude oil
|
|
|
27,172,830
|
|
|
|
31,207,718
|
|
|
|
33,227,971
|
|
|
|
33,250,518
|
|
|
|
34,501,288
|
|
|
|
7,674,797
|
|
|
|
4,254,030
|
|
Natural gasoline
|
|
|
1,093,629
|
|
|
|
483,362
|
|
|
|
317,874
|
|
|
|
455,587
|
|
|
|
373,667
|
|
|
|
150,581
|
|
|
|
37,152
|
|
Normal butane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
530,575
|
|
|
|
467,176
|
|
|
|
483,131
|
|
|
|
163,116
|
|
|
|
124,956
|
|
Isobutane
|
|
|
1,037,855
|
|
|
|
1,627,989
|
|
|
|
1,615,898
|
|
|
|
1,398,694
|
|
|
|
1,460,893
|
|
|
|
305,916
|
|
|
|
112,975
|
|
Alky feed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,636
|
|
|
|
170,542
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,117
|
|
Gas oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155,344
|
|
|
|
425,319
|
|
|
|
79,200
|
|
|
|
51,211
|
|
Vacuum tower bottom
|
|
|
98,371
|
|
|
|
109,974
|
|
|
|
105,981
|
|
|
|
99,362
|
|
|
|
30,717
|
|
|
|
14,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Inputs
|
|
|
29,402,685
|
|
|
|
33,429,043
|
|
|
|
35,798,299
|
|
|
|
35,895,317
|
|
|
|
37,445,557
|
|
|
|
8,388,534
|
|
|
|
4,588,441
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude is supplied to our refinery through our wholly owned
gathering system and by pipeline.
153
Our crude gathering system was expanded in 2006 and now supplies
in excess of 22,000 bpd of crude to the refinery
(approximately 20% of total supply). We leased a pipeline in
2006 from Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. that will serve as
part of our pipeline system and will allow for further buying of
attractively priced locally produced crudes. Locally produced
crudes are delivered to the refinery at a discount to WTI and
are of similar quality to WTI. These lighter sweet crudes allow
us to blend higher percentages of low cost crudes such as heavy
sour Canadian while maintaining our target medium sour blend
with an API gravity of 28-32 degrees and 1-1.2% sulfur.
Crude oils sourced outside of our proprietary gathering system
are first delivered by common carrier pipelines (primarily
Seaway) into various terminals in Cushing, Oklahoma, where they
are blended and then delivered to Caney, Kansas via a pipeline
owned by Plains All American L.P. Crudes are delivered to our
refinery from Caney, Kansas via a 145,000 bpd proprietary
pipeline system, which we own. We also maintain capacity on the
Spearhead Pipeline owned ultimately by Enbridge from Canada. As
part of our crude supply optimization efforts, we lease
approximately 1,550,000 barrels of crude oil storage in
Cushing, and recently purchased 65 acres of land and contracted
to purchase an additional 120 acres of land in the heart of
the Cushing crude storage district, which we expect will provide
us a storage expansion option should the addition of crude
storage be required in the future.
The following table sets forth the feedstock pipelines used by
the oil refinery as of March 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nominal
|
Pipeline
|
|
Capacity (bpd)
|
|
Seaway Pipeline (TEPPCO) from
U.S. Gulf Coast to Cushing, Oklahoma
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
Spearhead (CCPS/Enbridge) from
Griffith (Chicago) to Cushing, Oklahoma
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
Coffeyville Crude Oil Pipeline
System from Caney, Kansas to Oil Refinery
|
|
|
145,000
|
|
Coffeyville Crude Oil Gathering
and Trucking System
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
Natural Gas Liquid (NGL)
Connection from/to Conway, Kansas through MAPCO and ONEOK
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
Plains-Cushing to Caney, Kansas
|
|
|
97,000
|
|
Sun Logistics Pipeline from
U.S.G.C. to Cushing, Oklahoma
|
|
|
120,000
|
|
We purchase most of our crude oil requirements outside of our
proprietary gathering system under a credit intermediation
agreement with J. Aron. The credit intermediation agreement
helps us reduce our inventory position and mitigate crude
pricing risk. Once we identify cargos of crude oil and pricing
terms that meet our requirements, we notify J. Aron which then
provides, for a fee, credit, transportation and other logistical
services for delivery of the crude to the crude oil tank farm.
Generally, we select crude oil approximately 30 to 45 days
in advance of the time the related refined products are to be
marketed, except for Canadian and West African crude purchases
which require an additional 30 days of lead time due to
transit considerations.
Transportation
Fuels
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline. Gasoline typically accounts
for approximately 47% of our refinerys production. Our oil
refinery produces various grades of gasoline, ranging from 84
sub-octane regular unleaded to 91 octane premium unleaded and
uses a computerized component blending system to optimize
gasoline blending.
|
|
|
|
Distillates. Distillates typically
account for approximately 41% of the refinerys production.
The majority of the diesel fuel we produce is ultra low-sulfur.
|
154
The following table summarizes our historical oil refinery
yields:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(in barrels)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regular unleaded
|
|
|
14,071,304
|
|
|
|
16,531,362
|
|
|
|
16,703,566
|
|
|
|
16,154,172
|
|
|
|
16,836,946
|
|
|
|
4,161,177
|
|
|
|
2,087,559
|
|
Premium unleaded
|
|
|
306,334
|
|
|
|
298,789
|
|
|
|
220,908
|
|
|
|
261,467
|
|
|
|
479,211
|
|
|
|
20,094
|
|
|
|
27,379
|
|
Sub-octane unleaded
|
|
|
754,264
|
|
|
|
773,831
|
|
|
|
797,416
|
|
|
|
109,774
|
|
|
|
294,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gasoline
|
|
|
15,131,902
|
|
|
|
17,603,982
|
|
|
|
17,721,890
|
|
|
|
16,525,413
|
|
|
|
17,610,513
|
|
|
|
4,181,271
|
|
|
|
2,114,939
|
|
Distillate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerosene
|
|
|
26,085
|
|
|
|
25,149
|
|
|
|
23,256
|
|
|
|
32,302
|
|
|
|
22,195
|
|
|
|
4,220
|
|
|
|
16,689
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. 1 distillate
|
|
|
124,741
|
|
|
|
342,363
|
|
|
|
99,832
|
|
|
|
261,048
|
|
|
|
319,920
|
|
|
|
(2,625
|
)
|
|
|
30,925
|
|
No. 2 low sulfur distillate
|
|
|
6,526,883
|
|
|
|
7,899,132
|
|
|
|
8,896,701
|
|
|
|
9,129,518
|
|
|
|
11,583,942
|
|
|
|
2,459,226
|
|
|
|
1,813,100
|
|
No. 2 high sulfur distillate
|
|
|
2,268,116
|
|
|
|
3,017,785
|
|
|
|
3,500,351
|
|
|
|
3,916,658
|
|
|
|
3,441,683
|
|
|
|
1,039,822
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
1,923,370
|
|
|
|
1,258,279
|
|
|
|
1,425,897
|
|
|
|
1,259,308
|
|
|
|
26,113
|
|
|
|
23,565
|
|
|
|
117,156
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total distillate
|
|
|
10,869,195
|
|
|
|
12,542,708
|
|
|
|
13,946,037
|
|
|
|
14,598,834
|
|
|
|
15,393,853
|
|
|
|
3,524,208
|
|
|
|
1,977,870
|
|
Liquid by-products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL (propane, butane)
|
|
|
583,095
|
|
|
|
734,737
|
|
|
|
1,137,645
|
|
|
|
696,637
|
|
|
|
705,869
|
|
|
|
153,527
|
|
|
|
80,373
|
|
Slurry
|
|
|
445,784
|
|
|
|
532,236
|
|
|
|
500,692
|
|
|
|
562,657
|
|
|
|
706,332
|
|
|
|
173,665
|
|
|
|
73,869
|
|
Light cycle oil sales
|
|
|
84,146
|
|
|
|
42,571
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VTB sales
|
|
|
8,212
|
|
|
|
26,438
|
|
|
|
150,700
|
|
|
|
134,899
|
|
|
|
74,979
|
|
|
|
25,654
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reformer feed sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,906
|
|
|
|
230,785
|
|
|
|
357,411
|
|
|
|
7,330
|
|
|
|
25,841
|
|
Gas oil sales
|
|
|
84,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,274
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liquid by-products
|
|
|
1,205,910
|
|
|
|
1,335,982
|
|
|
|
1,868,943
|
|
|
|
1,691,252
|
|
|
|
1,844,591
|
|
|
|
360,176
|
|
|
|
180,082
|
|
Solid by-products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
2,068,031
|
|
|
|
1,956,619
|
|
|
|
2,384,414
|
|
|
|
2,439,297
|
|
|
|
2,491,867
|
|
|
|
639,611
|
|
|
|
270,564
|
|
Sulfur
|
|
|
74,226
|
|
|
|
131,137
|
|
|
|
88,744
|
|
|
|
100,035
|
|
|
|
94,117
|
|
|
|
23,280
|
|
|
|
13,129
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total solid by-products
|
|
|
2,142,257
|
|
|
|
2,087,756
|
|
|
|
2,473,158
|
|
|
|
2,539,332
|
|
|
|
2,585,984
|
|
|
|
662,891
|
|
|
|
283,693
|
|
NGL production
|
|
|
52,682
|
|
|
|
(8,539
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
548,883
|
|
|
|
519,986
|
|
|
|
33,514
|
|
|
|
(1,044
|
)
|
In process change
|
|
|
114,945
|
|
|
|
(120,122
|
)
|
|
|
(12,369
|
)
|
|
|
265,280
|
|
|
|
(243,553
|
)
|
|
|
(243,543
|
)
|
|
|
74,543
|
|
Produced fuel
|
|
|
1,268,388
|
|
|
|
1,489,030
|
|
|
|
1,636,665
|
|
|
|
1,557,689
|
|
|
|
1,719,345
|
|
|
|
342,320
|
|
|
|
202,046
|
|
Processing loss (gain)
|
|
|
(1,382,594
|
)
|
|
|
(1,501,754
|
)
|
|
|
(1,836,025
|
)
|
|
|
(1,831,366
|
)
|
|
|
(1,985,162
|
)
|
|
|
(472,303
|
)
|
|
|
(243,688
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total yields
|
|
|
29,402,685
|
|
|
|
33,429,043
|
|
|
|
35,798,299
|
|
|
|
35,895,317
|
|
|
|
37,445,557
|
|
|
|
8,388,534
|
|
|
|
4,588,441
|
|
Our oil refinerys long-term capacity utilization (ratio of
total refinery throughput to the refinerys rated capacity)
has steadily improved over the years. To further enhance
capacity utilization, our operations management initiatives and
capital expenditures program are focused on improving crude
slate flexibility, increasing inbound NGL pipeline capacity and
optimizing use of raw materials and in-process feedstock.
The following table summarizes storage capacity at the oil
refinery as of March 31, 2007 which we believe is
sufficient for our current needs:
|
|
|
|
|
Product
|
|
Capacity (barrels)
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
767,000
|
|
Distillates
|
|
|
1,068,000
|
|
Intermediates
|
|
|
1,004,000
|
|
Crude oil(1)
|
|
|
2,594,000
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Crude oil storage consists of 674,000 barrels of refinery
storage capacity, 520,000 barrels of field storage capacity
and 1,400,000 barrels of leased storage at Cushing, Oklahoma. |
155
Distribution
Pipelines and Product Terminals
We focus our marketing efforts on the midwestern states of
Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa for the sale of
our petroleum products because of their relative proximity to
our oil refinery and their pipeline access. Since the Subsequent
Acquisition, we have significantly expanded our rack sales
directly to the customers as opposed to origin bulk sales. Rack
sales are sales which are made using tanker trucks via either a
proprietary or third party terminal facility designed for truck
loading. In contrast, bulk sales are sales made through
pipelines. Currently, approximately 23% of the refinerys
products are sold through the rack system directly to retail and
wholesale customers while the remaining 77% is sold through
pipelines via bulk spot and term contracts.
We are able to distribute gasoline, diesel fuel, and natural gas
liquids produced at the refinery either into the Magellan or
Enterprise pipeline and further on through Valero and other
Magellan systems or via the trucking system. The
Magellan #2 and #3 pipelines are connected directly to
the refinery and transport products to Kansas City and other
northern cities. The Valero and Magellan (Mountain) pipelines
are accessible via the Enterprise outbound line or through the
Magellan system at El Dorado, Kansas. Our modern three-bay,
bottom-loading fuels loading rack has been in service since July
1998 with a maximum delivery capability of 225 trucks per day or
40,000 bpd of finished gasoline and diesel fuels. We own
and operate refined fuels and asphalt storage and terminalling
facilities in Phillipsburg, Kansas. Our asphalt storage and
terminalling facilities are used to receive, store and redeliver
asphalt for another oil company for a fee pursuant to an asphalt
services agreement. Our refined fuels truck terminal includes
two loading locations with a capacity of approximately 95 trucks
per day.
Below is a detailed summary of our product distribution
pipelines and their capacities:
|
|
|
|
|
Pipeline
|
|
Capacity (bpd)
|
|
Magellan Pipeline #3-8
Line (from Coffeyville to northern cities via Caney, Kansas)
|
|
|
32,000
|
|
Magellan Pipeline #2-10
Line (from Coffeyville to northern cities via Barnsdall,
Oklahoma)
|
|
|
81,000
|
|
Enterprise Pipeline (provides
accessibility to Magellan (Mountain) and Valero systems at El
Dorado, Kansas)
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
Truck Loading Rack Delivery System
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
156
The following map depicts part of the Magellan pipeline, which
the oil refinery uses for the majority of its distribution.
Source: Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Business
The nitrogen fertilizer business operates the only nitrogen
fertilizer plant in North America that utilizes a coke
gasification process to generate hydrogen feedstock that is
further converted to ammonia for the production of nitrogen
fertilizers. The nitrogen fertilizer business is also
considering a fertilizer plant expansion, which we estimate
could increase the facilitys capacity to upgrade ammonia
into premium priced UAN by 50% to approximately 1,000,000 tons
per year.
The facility uses a gasification process licensed from an
affiliate of The General Electric Company, or General Electric,
to convert pet coke to high purity hydrogen for subsequent
conversion to ammonia. It uses between 950 to 1,050 tons per day
of pet coke from the refinery and another 250 to 300 tons per
day from unaffiliated, third-party sources such as other
Midwestern refineries or pet coke brokers and converts it all to
approximately 1,200 tons per day of ammonia. The fertilizer
plant has demonstrated consistent levels of production at levels
close to full capacity and has the following advantages compared
to competing natural gas-based facilities:
Significantly Lower Cost Position. The
coke gasification process allows the nitrogen fertilizer
business to use less than 1% of the natural gas relative to
other nitrogen based fertilizer facilities that are heavily
dependent upon natural gas and are thus heavily impacted by
natural gas price swings. Because the plant uses pet coke, the
nitrogen fertilizer business has a significant cost advantage
over other North American natural gas-based fertilizer
producers. The adjacent refinery supplies on average more than
80% of the plants raw material.
Strategic Location with Transportation
Advantage. The nitrogen fertilizer business
believes that selling products to customers in close proximity
to the UAN plant and reducing transportation costs are keys to
maintaining its profitability. Due to the plants favorable
location relative to end users and high product demand relative
to production volume all of the product shipments are targeted
to freight advantaged destinations located in the U.S. farm
belt. The available ammonia production at the nitrogen
fertilizer plant is small and easily sold into truck and rail
delivery points. The products leave
157
the plant either in trucks for direct shipment to customers or
in railcars for principally Union Pacific Railroad destinations.
The nitrogen fertilizer business does not incur any intermediate
transfer, storage, barge freight or pipeline freight charges.
Consequently, because these costs are not incurred, we estimate
that the plant enjoys a distribution cost advantage over
U.S. Gulf Coast ammonia and UAN importers, assuming in each
case freight rates and pipeline tariffs for U.S. Gulf Coast
importers as recently in effect.
High and Increasing Capacity
Utilization. Capacity utilization has
increased steadily over the past few years of operation. The
gasifier on-stream factor (a measure of how long the gasifier
has been operational over a period) was 98.1% and 92.5% for 2005
and 2006, respectively. We expect that efficiency of the plant
will continue to improve with operator training, replacement of
unreliable equipment, and reduced dependence on contract
maintenance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasifier on-stream(1)
|
|
|
78.6%
|
|
|
|
90.1%
|
|
|
|
92.4%
|
|
|
|
98.1%
|
|
|
|
92.5%
|
|
|
|
98.6%
|
|
|
|
91.8%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ammonia capacity utilization(2)
|
|
|
66.0%
|
|
|
|
83.6%
|
|
|
|
76.8%
|
|
|
|
102.9%
|
|
|
|
92.0%
|
|
|
|
103.8%
|
|
|
|
87.0%
|
|
|
|
|
|
UAN capacity utilization(3)
|
|
|
79.4%
|
|
|
|
93.3%
|
|
|
|
97.0%
|
|
|
|
121.2%
|
|
|
|
115.6%
|
|
|
|
118.8%
|
|
|
|
122.7%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
On-stream factor is the total number of hours operated divided
by the total number of hours in the reporting period. |
|
(2) |
|
Based on nameplate capacity of 1,100 tons per day. |
|
(3) |
|
Based on nameplate capacity of 1,500 tons per day. |
Raw Material
Supply
The nitrogen fertilizer facilitys primary input is pet
coke, of which more than 80% on average is supplied by our
adjacent oil refinery at market prices. Historically the
nitrogen fertilizer business has obtained a small amount of pet
coke from third parties such as other Midwestern refineries or
pet coke brokers at spot prices. We believe that optimization of
the use of our oil refinerys coker should reduce the need
for purchasing pet coke from third parties. In connection with
the transfer of the nitrogen fertilizer business to the
Partnership, we will enter into a 20-year coke supply agreement
with the Partnership under which we will sell pet coke to the
nitrogen fertilizer facility. If necessary, the gasifier can
also operate on low grade coal, which provides an additional raw
material source. There are significant supplies of low grade
coal within a 60 mile radius of the plant.
The BOC Group owns, operates, and maintains the air separation
plant that provides contract volumes of oxygen, nitrogen, and
compressed dry air to the gasifier for a monthly fee. The
nitrogen fertilizer business provides and pays for all utilities
required for operation of the air separation plant. The air
separation plant has not experienced any long-term operating
problems. The nitrogen fertilizer plant is covered for business
interruption insurance for up to $25 million in case of any
interruption in the supply of oxygen from The BOC Group from a
covered peril. The agreement with The BOC Group expires in 2020.
The agreement also provides that if our requirements for liquid
or gaseous oxygen, liquid or gaseous nitrogen or clean dry air
exceed specified instantaneous flow rates by at least 10%, we
can solicit bids from The BOC Group and third parties to supply
our incremental product needs. We are required to provide notice
to The BOC Group of the approximate quantity of excess product
that we will need and the approximate date by which we will need
it; we and The BOC Group will then jointly develop a request for
proposal for soliciting bids from third parties and The BOC
Group. The bidding procedures may be limited under specified
circumstances.
158
The nitrogen fertilizer business imports
start-up
steam for the fertilizer plant from our adjacent oil refinery,
and then exports steam back to the oil refinery once all units
are in service. Monthly charges and credits are booked with
steam valued at the gas price for the month. In connection with
the transfer of the nitrogen fertilizer business to the
Partnership, we will enter into a feedstock and shared services
agreement with the Partnership which will regulate among other
things the import and export of start-up steam between the
refinery and the fertilizer plant.
Production
Process
The nitrogen fertilizer plant was built in 2000 with a pair of
gasifiers to provide reliability. Following a turnaround
completed in the second quarter of 2006, the plant is capable of
processing approximately 1,300 tons per day of pet coke from the
oil refinery and third-party sources and converting it into
approximately 1,200 tons per day of ammonia. It uses a
gasification process licensed from General Electric to convert
the pet coke to high purity hydrogen for subsequent conversion
to ammonia. A majority of the ammonia is converted to
approximately 2,075 tons per day of UAN. Typically 0.41 tons of
ammonia are required to produce one ton of UAN.
Pet coke is first ground and blended with water and a fluxant (a
mixture of fly ash and sand) to form a slurry that is then
pumped into the partial oxidation gasifier. The slurry is then
contacted with oxygen from an air separation unit, or ASU.
Partial oxidation reactions take place and the synthesis gas, or
syngas, consisting predominantly of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide, is formed. The mineral residue from the slurry is a
molten slag (a glasslike substance containing the metal
impurities originally present in coke) and flows along with the
syngas into a quench chamber. The syngas and slag are rapidly
cooled and the syngas is separated from the slag.
Slag becomes a by-product of the process. The syngas is scrubbed
and saturated with moisture. The syngas next flows through a
shift unit where the carbon monoxide in the syngas is reacted
with the moisture to form hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The heat
from this reaction generates saturated steam. This steam is
combined with steam produced in the ammonia unit and the excess
steam not consumed by the process is sent to the adjacent oil
refinery.
After additional heat recovery, the high-pressure syngas is
cooled and processed in the acid gas removal, or AGR, unit. The
syngas is then fed to a pressure swing absorption, or PSA, unit,
where the remaining impurities are extracted. The PSA unit
reduces residual carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels to
trace levels, and the moisture-free, high-purity hydrogen is
sent directly to the ammonia synthesis loop.
The hydrogen is reacted with nitrogen from the ASU in the
ammonia unit to form the ammonia product. A portion of the
ammonia is converted to UAN.
The following is an illustrative Nitrogen Fertilizer Plant
Process Flow Chart:
159
Critical equipment is set up on routine maintenance schedules
using the nitrogen fertilizer business own maintenance
technicians. Pursuant to a Technical Services Agreement with
General Electric, which licensed the gasification technology,
General Electric experts provide technical advice and
technological updates from their ongoing research as well as
other licensees operating experiences.
The coke gasification process is licensed from General Electric
Company pursuant to a license agreement that will be fully paid
up as of June 1, 2007. The license grants the nitrogen
fertilizer business perpetual rights to use the coke
gasification process on specified terms and conditions. The
license is important because it allows the nitrogen fertilizer
facility to operate at a low cost compared to facilities which
rely on natural gas.
Distribution
The primary geographic markets for the fertilizer products are
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Texas. Ammonia
products are marketed to industrial and agricultural customers
and UAN products are marketed to agricultural customers. The
direct application agricultural demand from the nitrogen
fertilizer plant occurs in three main use periods. The summer
wheat pre-plant occurs in August and September. The fall
pre-plant occurs in late October and November. The highest level
of ammonia demand is traditionally observed in the spring
pre-plant period, from March through May. There are also small
fill volumes that move in the off-season to fill the available
storage at the dealer level.
Ammonia and UAN are distributed by truck or by railcar. If
delivered by truck, products are sold on a
freight-on-board
basis, and freight is normally arranged by the customer. The
nitrogen fertilizer business also owns and leases a fleet of
railcars. It also negotiates with distributors that have their
own leased railcars to utilize these assets to deliver products.
The business owns all of the truck and rail loading equipment at
the facility. It operates two truck loading and eight rail
loading racks for each of ammonia and UAN.
Sales and
Marketing
Petroleum
Business
We focus our marketing efforts on the Midwestern states of
Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa and frequently
Colorado, as economics dictate, for the sale of our petroleum
products because of their relative proximity to our refinery and
their pipeline access. Our refinery produces approximately
88,000 bpd of gasoline and distillates, which we estimate
was approximately 10% of the demand for gasoline and distillates
in our target market area in 2006.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Business
The primary geographic markets for the fertilizer products are
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Texas. The
nitrogen fertilizer business markets the ammonia products to
industrial and agricultural customers and the UAN products to
agricultural customers. The direct application agricultural
demand from the nitrogen fertilizer plant occurs in three main
use periods. The summer wheat pre-plant occurs in August and
September. The fall pre-plant occurs in late October and in
November. The highest level of ammonia demand is traditionally
in the spring pre-plant period, from March through May. There
are also small fill volumes that move in the off-season to fill
the available storage at the dealer level.
The nitrogen fertilizer business markets agricultural products
to destinations that produce the best margins for the business.
These markets are primarily located on the Union Pacific
railroad or destinations which can be supplied by truck. By
securing this business directly, the nitrogen fertilizer
business reduces its dependence on distributors serving the same
customer base, which enables it to capture a larger margin and
allows it to better control its product distribution. Most of
the agricultural sales are made on a competitive spot basis. The
nitrogen fertilizer business also offers products on a prepay
basis for in-season demand. The heavy in-season demand periods
are spring and fall in the corn belt and summer in the wheat
belt. The corn belt is the primary corn producing region of the
160
United States, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. The wheat
belt is the primary wheat producing region of the United States,
which includes Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Texas. Some of the industrial sales are spot sales, but most are
on annual or multiyear contracts. Industrial demand for ammonia
provides consistent sales and allows the nitrogen fertilizer
business to better manage inventory control and generate
consistent cash flow.
Customers
Petroleum
Business
Customers for our petroleum products include other refiners,
convenience store companies, railroads and farm cooperatives. We
have bulk term contracts in place with most of these customers,
which typically extend from a few months to one year in length.
Our shipments to these customers are typically in the 10,000 to
60,000 barrel range (420,000 to 2,520,000 gallons) and are
delivered by pipeline. We enter into these types of contracts in
order to lock in a committed volume at market prices to ensure
an outlet for our refinery production. For the year ended
December 31, 2005, CHS Inc., SemFuel LP, QuikTrip
Corporation and GROWMARK, Inc. accounted for 16.2%, 15.9%, 15.8%
and 10.8%, respectively, of our petroleum business sales and for
the year ended December 31, 2006, they accounted for 2.0%,
10.0%, 15.5% and 10.0%, respectively. For the three months ended
March 31, 2007, they accounted for 3.5%, 4.1%, 8.9% and
6.0%, respectively, of our petroleum business sales. We sell
bulk products based on industry market related indexes such as
Platts or NYMEX related Group Market (Midwest) prices.
In addition to bulk sales, we have implemented an aggressive
rack marketing initiative. Utilizing the Magellan pipeline
system we are able to reach customers such as QuikTrip,
Caseys, Murphy, Hy-Vee, Pilot Travel Centers, Flying J
Truck Stops, Krause-Gentel (Kum and Go) and others. Our longer
term, target customers include industrial and commercial end
users, railroads, and farm cooperatives that buy in truckload
quantities. Truck terminal sales are at daily posted prices
which are influenced by competitor pricing and spot market
factors. Rack prices are typically higher than bulk prices.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Business
The nitrogen fertilizer business sells ammonia to agricultural
and industrial customers. It sells approximately 80% of the
ammonia it produces to agricultural customers, such as farmers
in the mid-continent area between North Texas and Canada, and
approximately 20% to industrial customers. Agricultural
customers include distributors such as MFA, United Suppliers,
Inc., Brandt Consolidated Inc., Interchem, GROWMARK, Inc., Mid
West Fertilizer Inc., DeBruce Grain, Inc., and Agriliance, LLC.
Industrial customers include Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. and Truth
Chemical. The nitrogen fertilizer business sells UAN products to
retailers and distributors. For the year ended December 31,
2005 and the year ended December 31, 2006 and for the three
months ended March 31, 2007, the top five ammonia customers
in the aggregate represented 55.2%, 51.9% and 70.3% of the
businesss ammonia sales, respectively, and the top five
UAN customers in the aggregate represented 43.1%, 30.0% and
43.5% of the businesss UAN sales, respectively. During the
year ended December 31, 2005, Brandt Consolidated Inc. and
MFA accounted for 23.3% and 13.6% of the businesss ammonia
sales, respectively, and Agriliance and ConAgra Fertilizer
accounted for 14.7% and 12.7% of its UAN sales, respectively.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, Brandt
Consolidated Inc. and MFA accounted for 22.2% and 13.1% of the
businesss ammonia sales, respectively, and Agriliance and
ConAgra Fertilizer accounted for 6.3% and 8.4% of its UAN sales,
respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2007,
Brandt Consolidated Inc. and MFA accounted for 23.1% and 18.9%
of the businesss ammonia sales, respectively and
Agriliance and ConAgra Fertilizer accounted for 2.2% and 22.9%
of its UAN sales, respectively.
161
Competition
We have experienced and expect to continue to meet significant
levels of competition from current and potential competitors,
many of whom have significantly greater financial and other
resources. See Risk Factors Risks Related to
Our Petroleum Business We face significant
competition, both within and outside of our industry.
Competitors who produce their own supply of feedstocks, have
extensive retail outlets, make alternative fuels or have greater
financial resources than we do may have a competitive advantage
over us and Risk Factors Risks
Related to The Nitrogen Fertilizer
Business Fertilizer products are global
commodities, and the nitrogen fertilizer business faces intense
competition from other nitrogen fertilizer producers.
Petroleum
Business
Our oil refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas ranks third in
processing capacity and fifth in refinery complexity, among the
seven mid-continent fuels refineries. The following table
presents certain information about us and the six other major
mid-continent fuel oil refineries with which we compete:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Capacity
|
|
Solomon
|
|
|
|
|
(barrels per
|
|
Complexity
|
Company
|
|
Location
|
|
calendar day)
|
|
Index
|
|
ConocoPhillips
|
|
|
Ponca City, OK
|
|
|
|
187,000
|
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
Frontier Oil
|
|
|
El Dorado, KS
|
|
|
|
110,000
|
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
CVR Energy
|
|
|
Coffeyville, KS
|
|
|
|
108,000
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
Valero
|
|
|
Ardmore, OK
|
|
|
|
88,000
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
NCRA
|
|
|
McPherson, KS
|
|
|
|
82,200
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
Gary Williams Energy
|
|
|
Wynnewood, OK
|
|
|
|
52,500
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
Sinclair
|
|
|
Tulsa, OK
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-continent Total:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
677,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Oil and Gas Journal. A Sunoco refinery located
in Tulsa, Oklahoma was excluded from this table because it is
not a stand-alone fuels refinery. The Solomon Complexity Index
of each of these facilities has been calculated based on data
from the Oil and Gas Journal together with Company estimates and
assumptions.
We compete with our competitors primarily on the basis of price,
reliability of supply, availability of multiple grades of
products and location. The principal competitive factors
affecting our refining operations are costs of crude oil and
other feedstock costs, refinery complexity (a measure of a
refinerys ability to convert lower cost heavy and sour
crudes into greater volumes of higher valued refined products
such as gasoline), refinery efficiency, refinery product mix and
product distribution and transportation costs. The location of
our refinery provides us with a reliable supply of crude oil and
a transportation cost advantage over our competitors.
Our competitors include trading companies such as SemFuel, L.P.,
Western Petroleum, Center Oil, Tauber Oil Company, Morgan
Stanley and others. In addition to competing refineries located
in the mid-continent United States, our oil refinery also
competes with other refineries located outside the region that
are linked to the mid-continent market through an extensive
product pipeline system. These competitors include refineries
located near the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Texas Panhandle
region.
Our refinery competition also includes branded, integrated and
independent oil refining companies such as BP, Shell,
ConocoPhillips, Valero, Sunoco and Citgo, whose strengths
include their size and access to capital. Their branded stations
give them a stable outlet for refinery production although the
branded strategy requires more working capital and a much more
expensive marketing organization.
162
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Business
Competition in the nitrogen fertilizer industry is dominated by
price considerations. However, during the spring and fall
application seasons, farming activities intensify and delivery
capacity is a significant competitive factor. The nitrogen
fertilizer plant maintains a large fleet of rail cars and
seasonally adjusts inventory to enhance its manufacturing and
distribution operations.
Domestic competition, mainly from regional cooperatives and
integrated multinational fertilizer companies, is intense due to
customers sophisticated buying tendencies and production
strategies that focus on cost and service. Also, foreign
competition exists from producers of fertilizer products
manufactured in countries with lower cost natural gas supplies.
In certain cases, foreign producers of fertilizer who export to
the United States may be subsidized by their respective
governments. The nitrogen fertilizer business major
competitors include Koch Nitrogen, Terra and CF Industries,
among others.
The nitrogen fertilizer plants main competition in ammonia
marketing are Kochs plants at Beatrice, Nebraska, Dodge
City, Kansas and Enid, Oklahoma, as well as Terras plants
in Verdigris and Woodward, Oklahoma and Port Neal, Iowa.
Based on Blue Johnson data regarding total U.S. demand for UAN
and ammonia, we estimate that the nitrogen fertilizer
plants UAN production in 2005 represented approximately
5.5% of the total U.S. demand and that the net ammonia
produced and marketed at Coffeyville represents less than 1% of
the total U.S. demand.
Seasonality
Petroleum
Business
Our petroleum business experiences seasonal effects as demand
for gasoline products is generally higher during the summer
months than during the winter months due to seasonal increases
in highway traffic and road construction work. Demand for diesel
fuel during the winter months also decreases due to agricultural
work declines during the winter months. As a result, our results
of operations for the first and fourth calendar quarters are
generally lower than for those for the second and third calendar
quarters. In addition, unseasonably cool weather in the summer
months and/or unseasonably warm weather in the winter months in
the markets in which we sell our petroleum products can reduce
demand for gasoline and diesel fuel.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Business
A significant portion of nitrogen fertilizer product sales
consists of sales of agricultural commodity products, exposing
the business to seasonal fluctuations in demand for nitrogen
fertilizer products in the agricultural industry. As a result,
the nitrogen fertilizer business typically generates greater net
sales and operating income in the spring. In addition, the
demand for fertilizers is affected by the aggregate crop
planting decisions and fertilizer application rate decisions of
individual farmers who make planting decisions based largely on
the prospective profitability of a harvest. The specific
varieties and amounts of fertilizer they apply depend on factors
like crop prices, their current liquidity, soil conditions,
weather patterns and the types of crops planted.
Environmental Matters
The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are subject to
extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local laws
and regulations relating to the protection of the environment.
These laws, their underlying regulatory requirements and the
enforcement thereof impact our petroleum business and operations
and the nitrogen fertilizer business by imposing:
|
|
|
|
|
restrictions on operations
and/or the
need to install enhanced or additional controls;
|
163
|
|
|
|
|
the need to obtain and comply with permits and authorizations;
|
|
|
|
liability for the investigation and remediation of contaminated
soil and groundwater at current and former facilities and
off-site waste disposal locations; and
|
|
|
|
specifications for the products marketed by our petroleum
business and the nitrogen fertilizer business, primarily
gasoline, diesel fuel, UAN and ammonia.
|
The petroleum refining industry is subject to frequent public
and governmental scrutiny of its environmental compliance. As a
result, the laws and regulations to which we are subject are
often evolving and many of them have become more stringent or
become subject to more stringent interpretation or enforcement
by federal and state agencies. The ultimate impact of complying
with existing laws and regulations is not always clearly known
or determinable due in part to the fact that our operations may
change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws
such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or the RCRA,
and the Clean Air Act have not yet been finalized, are under
governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These
regulations and other new air and water quality standards and
stricter fuel regulations could result in increased capital,
operating and compliance costs.
The principal environmental risks associated with our petroleum
operations and the nitrogen fertilizer business are air
emissions, releases of hazardous substances into the
environment, and the treatment and discharge of wastewater. The
legislative and regulatory programs that affect these areas are
outlined below.
The Clean Air
Act
The Clean Air Act and its underlying regulations as well as the
corresponding state laws and regulations that regulate emissions
of pollutants into the air affect our petroleum operations and
the nitrogen fertilizer business both directly and indirectly.
Direct impacts may occur through Clean Air Act permitting
requirements
and/or
emission control requirements relating to specific air
pollutants. The Clean Air Act indirectly affects our petroleum
operations and the nitrogen fertilizer business by extensively
regulating the air emissions of sulfur dioxide, or
SO2,
volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides and other compounds
including those emitted by mobile sources, which are direct or
indirect users of our products.
The Clean Air Act imposes stringent limits on air emissions,
establishes a federally mandated permit program and authorizes
civil and criminal sanctions and injunctions for any failure to
comply. The Clean Air Act also establishes National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, or NAAQS, that states must attain. If a state
cannot attain the NAAQS (i.e., is in nonattainment), the state
will be required to reduce air emissions to bring the state into
attainment. A geographic areas attainment status is based
on the severity of air pollution. A change in the attainment
status in the area where our facilities are located could
necessitate the installation of additional controls. At the
current time, all areas where our petroleum business and the
nitrogen fertilizer business operate in are classified as
attainment for NAAQS.
There have been numerous other recently promulgated National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, NESHAP or MACT,
including, but not limited to, the Organic Liquid Distribution
MACT, the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP, Gasoline Distribution
Facilities MACT, Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines MACT,
Asphalt Processing MACT, Commercial and Institutional Boilers
and Process Heaters standards. Some or all of these MACT
standards or future promulgations of MACT standards may require
the installation of controls or changes to our petroleum
operations or the nitrogen fertilizer facilities in order to
comply. If new controls or changes to operations are needed, the
costs could be significant. These new requirements, other
requirements of the Clean Air Act, or other presently existing
or future environmental regulations could cause us to expend
substantial amounts to comply
and/or
permit our refinery to produce products that meet applicable
requirements.
164
Air Emissions. The regulation of air
emissions under the Clean Air Act requires us to obtain various
operating permits and to incur capital expenditures for the
installation of certain air pollution control devices at our
refinery. Various regulations specific to, or that directly
impact, our industry have been implemented, including
regulations that seek to reduce emissions from refineries
flare systems, sulfur plants, large heaters and boilers,
fugitive emission sources and wastewater treatment systems. Some
of the applicable programs are the Benzene Waste Operations
NESHAP, New Source Performance Standards, New Source Review, and
Leak Detection and Repair. We have incurred, and expect to
continue to incur, substantial capital expenditures to maintain
compliance with these and other air emission regulations.
In March 2004, we entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA and
the KDHE to resolve air compliance concerns raised by the EPA
and KDHE related to Farmlands prior operation of our oil
refinery. Under the Consent Decree, we agreed to install
controls on certain process equipment and make certain
operational changes at our refinery. As a result of our
agreement to install certain controls and implement certain
operational changes, the EPA and KDHE agreed not to impose civil
penalties, and provided a release from liability for
Farmlands alleged noncompliance with the issues addressed
by the Consent Decree. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, in the
short term, we have increased the use of catalyst additives to
the fluid catalytic cracking unit at the facility to reduce
emissions of
SO2.
We will begin adding catalyst to reduce oxides of nitrogen, or
NOx, in 2007. In the long term, we will install controls to
minimize both
SO2
and NOx emissions, which under terms of the Consent Decree
require that final controls be in place by January 1, 2011.
In addition, pursuant to the Consent Decree, we assumed certain
cleanup obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the
Phillipsburg terminal. We agreed to retrofit certain heaters at
the refinery with Ultra Low NOx burners. All heater retrofits
have been performed and we are currently verifying that the
heaters meet the Ultra Low NOx standards required by the Consent
Decree. The Ultra Low NOx heater technology is in widespread use
throughout the industry. There are other permitting, monitoring,
record-keeping and reporting requirements associated with the
Consent Decree. The overall cost of complying with the Consent
Decree is expected to be approximately $41 million, of
which approximately $35 million is expected to be capital
expenditures and which does not include the cleanup obligations.
No penalties are expected to be imposed as a result of the
Consent Decree.
The EPA recently embarked on a Petroleum Refining Initiative
alleging industry-wide noncompliance with four
marquee issues: New Source Review, flaring, leak
detection and repair, and Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. The
Petroleum Refining Initiative has resulted in many refiners
entering into consent decrees imposing civil penalties and
requiring substantial expenditures for additional or enhanced
pollution control. At this time, we do not know how, if at all,
the Petroleum Refining Initiative will affect us as our current
Consent Decree covers some, but not all, of the
marquee issues.
Fertilizer Plant Audit. The nitrogen
fertilizer business conducted an air permitting compliance audit
of its fertilizer plant pursuant to agreements with EPA and KDHE
immediately after Immediate Predecessor acquired the fertilizer
plant in 2004. The audit revealed that the fertilizer plant was
not properly permitted under the Clean Air Act and its
implementing regulations and corresponding Kansas environmental
statutes and regulations. As a result, the fertilizer plant
performed air modeling to demonstrate that the current emissions
from the facility are in compliance with federal and state air
quality standards, and that the air pollution controls that are
in place are the controls that are required to be in place. In
the event that the EPA or KDHE determines that additional
controls are required, the nitrogen fertilizer business may
incur significant expenditures to comply. The completion of this
process requires that the nitrogen fertilizer business submit a
new permit application, which it has done. The nitrogen
fertilizer business is now awaiting the final permit approval
from KDHE at which time it will file a Title V air
operating permit application that will include the relevant
terms and conditions of the new air permit.
Air Permitting. The petroleum refinery
is a major source of air emissions under the
Title V permitting program of the federal Clean Air Act. A
final Class I (major source) operating permit was
165
issued for our oil refinery in August 2006. We are currently in
the process of amending the Title V permit to include the
recently approved expansion project permit and the continuous
catalytic reformer permit.
The fertilizer plant has agreed to file a new Title V
operating air permit application because the voluntary
fertilizer plant audit (described in more detail above) revealed
that the fertilizer plant should be permitted as a major
source of certain air pollutants. In the meantime, the
fertilizer plant is operating under the Clean Air Acts
application shield (which protects permittees from
enforcement while an operating permit is being issued as long as
the permittee complies with the permit conditions contained in
the permit application), the current construction permits, other
KDHE approvals and the protections of the federal and state
audit policies. Once the current air permit application is
approved, the nitrogen fertilizer business will file the final
Title V permit application that will contain all terms and
conditions imposed under the new permit and any other permits
and/or
approvals in place. We do not anticipate significant cost or
difficulty in obtaining these permits. However, in the event
that the EPA or KDHE determines that additional controls are
required, the nitrogen fertilizer business may incur significant
expenditures to comply.
We believe that we hold all material air permits required to
operate the Phillipsburg Terminal and our crude oil
transportation companys facilities.
Release
Reporting
The release of hazardous substances or extremely hazardous
substances into the environment is subject to release reporting
of threshold quantities under federal and state environmental
laws. Our petroleum operations and the nitrogen fertilizer
business periodically experience releases of hazardous
substances and extremely hazardous substances that could cause
our petroleum business and/or the nitrogen fertilizer business
to become the subject of a government enforcement action or
third-party claims. We and the nitrogen fertilizer business
report such releases promptly to federal and state environmental
agencies.
Prior to the acquisition of the nitrogen fertilizer plant by
Immediate Predecessor in 2004 and during the period the plant
was owned by Immediate Predecessor, the facility experienced
heat exchanger equipment deterioration at an unanticipated rate,
resulting in upset/malfunction air releases of ammonia into the
environment. The equipment was replaced in August 2004 with a
new metallurgy design that also experienced an unanticipated
deterioration rate. The new equipment was subsequently replaced
in 2005 by a redesigned exchanger with upgraded metallurgy,
which has operated without additional ammonia emissions. Other
critical exchanger metallurgy was upgraded during the
facilitys most recent July 2006 turnaround. We have
reported the excess emissions of ammonia to EPA and KDHE as part
of an air permitting audit of the facility. Additional
equipment, repairs to existing equipment, changes to current
operations, government enforcement or third-party claims could
result in significant expenditures and liability.
Fuel
Regulations
Tier II, Low Sulfur Fuels. The EPA
interprets the Clean Air Act to authorize the EPA to require
modifications in the formulation of the refined transportation
fuel products we manufacture in order to limit the emissions
associated with their final use. The EPA believes such limits
are necessary to protect new automobile emission control systems
that may be inhibited by sulfur in the fuel. For example, in
February 2000, EPA promulgated the Tier II Motor Vehicle
Emission Standards Final Rule for all passenger vehicles,
establishing standards for sulfur content in gasoline. These
regulations mandate that the sulfur content of gasoline at any
refinery shall not exceed 30 ppm during any calendar year
beginning January 1, 2006. Such compliant gasoline is
referred to as Ultra Low Sulfur Gasoline, or ULSG. Phase-in of
these requirements began during 2004. In addition, in January
2001, EPA promulgated its on-road diesel regulations, which
required a 97% reduction in the sulfur content of diesel sold
for highway use by June 1, 2006, with full compliance by
January 1, 2010. EPA adopted
166
a rule for off-road diesel in May 2004. The off-road diesel
regulations will generally require a 97% reduction in the sulfur
content of diesel sold for off-road use by June 1, 2010.
Such compliant diesel is referred to as Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel,
or ULSD. We believe that our production of ULSG and ULSD will
make us eligible for significant tax benefits in 2007 and 2008.
Modifications will be required at our refinery as a result of
the Tier II gasoline and low sulfur diesel standards. In
February 2004 EPA granted us approval under a hardship
waiver that would defer meeting final low sulfur
Tier II gasoline standards until January 1, 2011 in
exchange for our meeting low sulfur highway diesel requirements
by January 1, 2007. We are currently in the startup phase
of our Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Hydrodesulfurization unit, which
utilizes technology with widespread use throughout the industry.
Compliance with the Tier II gasoline and on-road diesel
standards required us to spend approximately $133 million
during 2006 and we estimate that compliance will require us to
spend approximately $116 million during 2007 and
approximately $46 million between 2008 and 2010.
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). The
EPA previously required gasoline to contain a specified amount
of oxygen in certain regions that exceed the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for either ozone or carbon monoxide. This
oxygen requirement had been satisfied by adding to gasoline one
of many oxygen-containing materials including, among others,
methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. As a result of growing
public concern regarding possible groundwater contamination
resulting from the use of MTBE as a source of required oxygen in
gasoline, MTBE has been banned for use as a gasoline additive.
Neither we nor, to the best of our knowledge, the Successor, the
Immediate Predecessor or Farmland used MTBE in our petroleum
products. We cannot make any assurance as to whether MTBE was
added to our petroleum products after those products left our
facilities or whether MTBE-containing products were distributed
through our pipelines.
The Clean
Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act of 1972 affects our petroleum
operations and the nitrogen fertilizer business by regulating
the treatment of wastewater and imposing restrictions on
effluent discharge into, or impacting, navigable water. Regular
monitoring, reporting requirements and performance standards are
preconditions for the issuance and renewal of permits governing
the discharge of pollutants into water. The petroleum and
nitrogen fertilizer businesses maintain numerous discharge
permits as required under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System program of the Clean Water Act and have
implemented internal programs to oversee our compliance efforts.
All of our facilities and the facilities of the nitrogen
fertilizer business are subject to Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures, or SPCC, requirements under the Clean Water
Act. The SPCC rules were modified in 2002 with the modifications
to go into effect in 2004. In 2004, certain requirements of the
rule were extended. Changes to our operations may be required to
comply with the modified SPCC rule.
In addition, we are regulated under the Oil Pollution Act. Among
other requirements, the Oil Pollution Act requires the owner or
operator of a tank vessel or facility to maintain an emergency
oil response plan to respond to releases of oil or hazardous
substances. We have developed and implemented such a plan for
each of our facilities covered by the Oil Pollution Act. Also,
in case of such releases, the Oil Pollution Act requires
responsible parties to pay the resulting removal costs and
damages, provides for substantial civil penalties, and
authorizes the imposition of criminal and civil sanctions for
violations. States where we have operations have laws similar to
the Oil Pollution Act.
Wastewater Management. We have a
wastewater treatment plant at our refinery permitted to handle
an average flow of 2.2 million gallons per day. The
facility uses a complete mix activated sludge, or CMAS, system
with three CMAS basins. The plant operates pursuant to a KDHE
permit. We are also implementing a comprehensive spill response
plan in accordance with the EPA rules and guidance.
167
Ongoing fuels terminal and asphalt plant operations at
Phillipsburg generate only limited wastewater flows (e.g.,
boiler blowdown, asphalt loading rack condensate, groundwater
treatment). These flows are handled in a wastewater treatment
plant that includes a primary clarifier, aerated secondary
clarifier, and a final clarifier to a lagoon system. The plant
operates pursuant to a KDHE Water Pollution Control Permit. To
control facility runoff, management implements a comprehensive
Spill Response Plan. Phillipsburg also has a timely and current
application on file with the KDHE for a separate storm water
control permit.
Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Our operations are subject to the RCRA requirements for the
generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.
When feasible, RCRA materials are recycled instead of being
disposed of
on-site or
off-site. RCRA establishes standards for the management of solid
and hazardous wastes. Besides governing current waste disposal
practices, RCRA also addresses the environmental effects of
certain past waste disposal operations, the recycling of wastes
and the regulation of underground storage tanks containing
regulated substances.
Waste Management. There are two closed
hazardous waste units at the refinery and eight other hazardous
waste units in the process of being closed pending state agency
approval. In addition, one closed interim status hazardous waste
landfarm located at the Phillipsburg terminal is under long-term
post closure care.
We have set aside approximately $3.2 million in financial
assurance for closure/post-closure care for hazardous waste
management units at the Phillipsburg terminal and the
Coffeyville refinery.
Impacts of Past Manufacturing. We are
subject to a 1994 EPA administrative order related to
investigation of possible past releases of hazardous materials
to the environment at the Coffeyville refinery. In accordance
with the order, we have documented existing soil and ground
water conditions, which require investigation or remediation
projects. The Phillipsburg terminal is subject to a 1996 EPA
administrative order related to investigation of possible past
releases of hazardous materials to the environment at the
Phillipsburg terminal, which operated as a refinery until 1991.
The Consent Decree that we signed with EPA and KDHE requires us
to complete all activities in accordance with federal and state
rules.
The anticipated remediation costs through 2011 were estimated,
as of March 31, 2007, to be as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total O&M
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Investigation
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Costs
|
|
|
Costs
|
|
Facility
|
|
Costs
|
|
|
Costs
|
|
|
Through 2011
|
|
|
Through 2011
|
|
|
Coffeyville Oil Refinery
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.6
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
Phillipsburg Terminal
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Costs
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.2
|
|
|
$
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These estimates are based on current information and could go up
or down as additional information becomes available through our
ongoing remediation and investigation activities. At this point,
we have estimated that, over ten years, we will spend between
$5.4 and $6.8 million to remedy impacts from past
manufacturing activity at the Coffeyville refinery and to
address existing soil and groundwater contamination at the
Phillipsburg terminal. It is possible that additional costs will
be required after this ten year period.
Environmental Insurance. We have
entered into several environmental insurance policies as part of
our overall risk management strategy. Our pollution legal
liability policy provides us with an aggregate limit of
$50.0 million subject to a $1.0 million self-insured
retention. This policy covers cleanup costs resulting from
pre-existing or new pollution conditions and bodily injury and
property
168
damage resulting from pollution conditions. It also includes a
$25.0 million business interruption sub-limit subject to a
ten day waiting period. We also have a financial assurance
policy that provides a $4.0 million limit per pollution
incident and an $8.0 million aggregate policy limit related
specifically to closed RCRA units at the Coffeyville refinery
and the Phillipsburg terminal. Each of these policies contains
substantial exclusions; as such, we cannot guarantee that we
will have coverage for all or any particular liabilities.
Financial Assurance. We were required
in the Consent Decree to establish $15 million in financial
assurance to cover the projected cleanup costs posed by the
Coffeyville and Phillipsburg facilities in the event our company
ceased to operate as a going concern. In accordance with the
Consent Decree, this financial assurance is currently provided
by a bond posted by Original Predecessor, Farmland. We will be
required to replace the financial assurance currently provided
by Farmland. We are currently negotiating with Farmland and the
EPA to replace the financial assurance. At this point, it is not
clear what the amount of financial assurance will be when
replaced. Although it may be significant, it is unlikely to be
more than $15 million. The form of this financial assurance
that will be required by EPA (cash, letter of credit, financial
test, etc.) has not been determined.
Environmental
Remediation
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, or CERCLA, RCRA, and related state laws, certain
persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances. These persons include the current owner or
operator of property where a release or threatened release
occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when
the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or
arranged for the disposal of, hazardous substances at a
contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict,
retroactive and joint and several, so that any responsible party
may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and
remediating the release of hazardous substances. The liability
of a party is determined by the cost of investigation and
remediation, the portion of the hazardous substance(s) the party
contributed, the number of solvent potentially responsible
parties, and other factors.
As is the case with all companies engaged in similar industries,
we face potential exposure from future claims and lawsuits
involving environmental matters. These matters include soil and
water contamination, personal injury and property damage
allegedly caused by hazardous substances which we, or
potentially Farmland, manufactured, handled, used, stored,
transported, spilled, released or disposed of. We cannot assure
you that we will not become involved in future proceedings
related to our release of hazardous or extremely hazardous
substances or that, if we were held responsible for damages in
any existing or future proceedings, such costs would be covered
by insurance or would not be material.
Safety and Health
Matters
We operate a comprehensive safety program, involving active
participation of employees at all levels of the organization. We
measure our success in this area primarily through the use of
injury frequency rates administered by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, or OSHA. In 2006, our oil refinery
experienced a 92% reduction in injury frequency rates and the
nitrogen fertilizer plant experienced a 24% reduction in such
rate as compared to the average of the previous three years. The
recordable injury rate reflects the number of recordable
incidents (injuries as defined by OSHA) per 200,000 hours
worked, and for the year ended December 31, 2006, we had a
recordable injury rate of 0.30 in our petroleum business and
4.90 in the nitrogen fertilizer business. In 2006, our refinery
achieved one year worked without a lost-time accident, which
based on available records, had never been achieved in the 100
year history of the facility. Despite our efforts to achieve
excellence in our safety and health performance, we cannot
assure you that there will not be accidents resulting in
injuries or even fatalities. We have implemented a new incident
investigation program that is intended to improve the safety for
our employees by identifying the root cause of accidents and
potential
169
accidents and by correcting conditions that could cause or
contribute to accidents or injuries. We routinely audit our
programs and consider improvements in our management systems.
Process Safety Management. We maintain
a Process Safety Management program. This program is designed to
address all facets associated with OSHA guidelines for
developing and maintaining a Process Safety Management program.
We will continue to audit our programs and consider improvements
in our management systems.
We have evaluated and continue to implement improvements at our
refinerys process units, underground process piping and
emergency isolation valves for control of process flows. We
currently estimate the costs for implementing any recommended
improvements to be between $7 and $9 million over a period
of four years. These improvements, if warranted, would be
intended to reduce the risk of releases, spills, discharges,
leaks, accidents, fires or other events and minimize the
potential effects thereof. We are currently completing the
addition of a new $27 million refinery flare system that
will replace atmospheric sumps in our refinery. We are also
assessing the potential impacts on building occupancy caused by
the location and design of our refinery and fertilizer plant
control rooms and operator shelters. We expect the costs to
upgrade or relocate these areas to be between $4 and
$6 million over two to five years. The current plan would
consolidate the refinery control boards and equipment into a
central control building that would also house operations and
technical personnel and would lead to improved communication and
efficiency for operation of the refinery.
Emergency Planning and Response. We
have an emergency response plan that describes the organization,
responsibilities and plans for responding to emergencies in the
facilities. This plan is communicated to local regulatory and
community groups. We have
on-site
warning siren systems and personal radios. We will continue to
audit our programs and consider improvements in our management
systems and equipment.
Community Advisory Panel (CAP). We
developed and continue to support ongoing discussions with the
community to share information about our operations and future
plans. Our CAP includes wide representation of residents,
business owners and local elected representatives for the city
and county.
Employees
As of March 31, 2007, 402 employees were employed in our
petroleum business, 109 were employed by the nitrogen fertilizer
business and 66 employees were employed at our offices in Sugar
Land, Texas and Kansas City, Kansas.
We entered into collective bargaining agreements which cover
approximately 39% of our employees (all of whom work in our
petroleum business) with the Metal Trades Union and the United
Steelworkers of America, which expire in March 2009. We believe
that our relationship with our employees is good.
Prior to the consummation of this offering, we will enter into a
management services agreement with the Partnership and the
managing general partner of the Partnership pursuant to which we
will provide certain management and other services to the
Partnership, the managing general partner of the Partnership,
and the Partnerships nitrogen fertilizer business. The
services we will provide under the agreement include the
following services, among others:
|
|
|
|
|
services by our employees in capacities equivalent to the
capacities of corporate executive officers, except that those
who serve in such capacities under the agreement shall serve the
Partnership on a shared, part-time basis only, unless we and the
Partnership agree otherwise;
|
|
|
|
|
|
administrative and professional services, including legal,
accounting services, human resources, insurance, tax, credit,
finance, government affairs and regulatory affairs;
|
|
|
|
|
|
managing the property of the Partnership and Coffeyville
Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, a subsidiary of the
Partnership, in the ordinary course of business;
|
170
|
|
|
|
|
recommending capital raising activities to the board of
directors of the managing general partner of the Partnership
including the issuance of debt or equity securities, the entry
into credit facilities and other capital market transactions;
|
|
|
|
|
|
managing or overseeing litigation and administrative or
regulatory proceedings, and establishing appropriate insurance
policies for the Partnership, and providing safety and
environmental advice;
|
recommending the payment of dividends or other
distributions on equity securities; and
|
|
|
|
|
managing or providing advice for other projects as may be agreed
by us and the managing general partner of the Partnership from
time to time.
|
It is expected that the employees who will manage the nitrogen
fertilizer business will remain at CVR Energy and their services
will be provided to the Partnership pursuant to the management
services agreement. As a result, certain of our employees may be
employed on a full-time or part-time basis to conduct the
day-to-day
business operations of the Partnership and the nitrogen
fertilizer business. However, personnel performing the actual
day-to-day business and operations of the Partnership at the
plant level will be employed directly by the Partnership and its
subsidiaries, which will bear all personnel costs for these
employees. For more information on this management services
agreement, see The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited
Partnership Other Intercompany Agreements.
Properties
Our executive offices are located at 2277 Plaza Drive in Sugar
Land, Texas. We lease approximately 22,000 square feet at
that location. Rent under the lease is currently approximately
$515,000 annually, plus operating expenses, increasing to
approximately $550,000 in 2009. The lease expires in 2011. The
following table contains certain information regarding our other
principal properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Acres
|
|
Own/Lease
|
|
Use
|
|
Coffeyville, KS
|
|
440
|
|
Own
|
|
Oil refinery, fertilizer plant and
office buildings
|
Phillipsburg, KS
|
|
200
|
|
Own
|
|
Terminal facility
|
Montgomery County, KS
(Coffeyville Station)
|
|
20
|
|
Own
|
|
Crude oil storage
|
Montgomery County, KS
(Broome Station)
|
|
20
|
|
Own
|
|
Crude oil storage
|
Bartlesville, OK
|
|
25
|
|
Own
|
|
Truck storage and
office buildings
|
Winfield, KS
|
|
5
|
|
Own
|
|
Truck storage
|
Cushing, OK
|
|
185
|
|
Own
|
|
Crude oil storage
|
Cowley County, KS
(Hooser Station)
|
|
80
|
|
Own
|
|
Crude oil storage
|
Holdrege, NE
|
|
7
|
|
Own
|
|
Crude oil storage
|
Stockton, KS
|
|
6
|
|
Own
|
|
Crude oil storage
|
Kansas City, KS
|
|
18,400 (square feet)
|
|
Lease
|
|
Office space
|
Rent under our lease for the Kansas City office space is
approximately $240,000 annually, plus a portion of operating
expenses and taxes, increasing to approximately $268,000 in
2008. The lease expires in 2009. We expect that our current
owned and leased facilities will be sufficient for our needs
over the next twelve months.
Prior to the consummation of this offering, we will transfer
ownership of certain parcels of land, including land that the
fertilizer plant is situated on, to the Partnership so that the
Partnership will be able to operate the fertilizer plant on its
own land. Additionally, we will enter into a new cross easement
agreement with the Partnership so that both we and the
Partnership will be able to access
171
and utilize each others land in certain circumstances in
order to operate our respective businesses in a manner to
provide flexibility for both parties to develop their respective
properties, without depriving either party of the benefits
associated with the continuous reasonable use of the other
parties property. For more information on this
cross-easement agreement, see The Nitrogen Fertilizer
Limited Partnership Other Intercompany
Agreements.
Legal
Proceedings
We are, and will continue to be, subject to litigation from time
to time in the ordinary course of our business, including
matters such as those described above under
Environmental Matters. We are not party
to any pending legal proceedings that we believe will have a
material impact on our business, and there are no existing legal
proceedings where we believe that the reasonably possible loss
or range of loss is material.
172
MANAGEMENT
Executive Officers and Directors
Prior to this offering, our business was operated by Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and its subsidiaries. In connection with the
offering, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC formed a wholly owned
subsidiary, CVR Energy, Inc., which will own all of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLCs subsidiaries and which will conduct our
business through its subsidiaries following this offering. The
following table sets forth the names, positions and ages (as of
March 31, 2007) of each person who has been an
executive officer or director of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
who will be an executive officer or director of CVR Energy upon
completion of this offering. We also indicate in the biographies
below which executive officers and directors of CVR Energy will
also hold similar positions with the managing general partner of
the Partnership. Senior management of CVR will manage the
Partnership pursuant to a management services agreement to be
entered into among us, the Partnership and the managing general
partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
James T. Rens
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary
|
Robert W. Haugen
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
Executive Vice President Refining
Operations
|
Wyatt E. Jernigan
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Executive Vice President Crude Oil
Acquisition and Petroleum Marketing
|
Kevan A. Vick
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
Executive Vice President, General
Manager Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
Christopher G. Swanberg
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
Vice President, Environmental,
Health and Safety
|
Wesley Clark
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
Director
|
Scott Lebovitz
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
Director
|
Regis B. Lippert
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
Director
|
George E. Matelich
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
Director
|
Stanley de J. Osborne
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
Director
|
Kenneth A. Pontarelli
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
Director
|
Mark Tomkins
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
Director
|
John J. Lipinski has served as our chief executive
officer and president and a member of our board of directors
since September 2006 and as chief executive officer and
president of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC since June 24,
2005. Mr. Lipinski also served as a director of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC from June 24, 2005 until immediately prior
to this offering. Mr. Lipinski will also become chairman of
our board of directors, the chief executive officer and a
director of the managing general partner of the Partnership and
the chief executive officer and president of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC
prior to the consummation of this offering. Mr. Lipinski
has 35 years of experience in the petroleum refining and
nitrogen fertilizer industries. He began his career with Texaco
Inc. In 1985, Mr. Lipinski joined The Coastal Corporation
eventually serving as Vice President of Refining with overall
responsibility for Coastal Corporations refining and
petrochemical operations. Upon the merger of Coastal with
El Paso Corporation in 2001, Mr. Lipinski was promoted
to Executive Vice President of Refining and Chemicals, where he
was responsible for all refining, petrochemical, nitrogen based
chemical processing, and lubricant operations, as well as the
corporate engineering and construction group. Mr. Lipinski
left El Paso in 2002 and became an independent management
consultant. In 2004, he became a Managing Director and Partner
of Prudentia Energy, an advisory
173
and management firm. Mr. Lipinski graduated from Stevens
Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Engineering
(Chemical) and received a Juris Doctor degree from Rutgers
University School of Law.
Stanley A. Riemann has served as chief operating
officer of our company and its predecessors since March 3,
2004 and chief operating officer of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
since June 24, 2005. Mr. Riemann will also become the
chief operating officer of the managing general partner of the
Partnership and chief operating officer of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC
prior to the consummation of this offering. Prior to joining our
company in March 2004, Mr. Riemann held various positions
associated with the Crop Production and Petroleum Energy
Division of Farmland Industries, Inc. over 29 years,
including, most recently, Executive Vice President of Farmland
Industries and President of Farmlands Energy and Crop
Nutrient Division. In this capacity, he was directly responsible
for managing the petroleum refining operation and all domestic
fertilizer operations, which included the Trinidad and Tobago
nitrogen fertilizer operations. His leadership also extended to
managing Farmlands interests in SF Phosphates in Rock
Springs, Wyoming and Farmland Hydro, L.P., a phosphate
production operation in Florida, and managing all company-wide
transportation assets and services. On May 31, 2002,
Farmland Industries, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. Mr. Riemann served as a board member and board
chairman on several industry organizations including Phosphate
Potash Institute, Florida Phosphate Council, and International
Fertilizer Association. He currently serves on the Board of The
Fertilizer Institute. Mr. Riemann received a bachelor of
science from the University of Nebraska and an MBA from
Rockhurst University.
James T. Rens has served as chief financial
officer of our company and its predecessors since March 3,
2004 and as chief financial officer and treasurer of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC since June 24, 2005. Mr. Rens will
also become the chief financial officer of the managing general
partner of the Partnership and chief financial officer of
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition III
LLC prior to the consummation of this offering. Before joining
our company, Mr. Rens was a consultant to the Original
Predecessors majority shareholder from November 2003
to March 2004, assistant controller at Koch Nitrogen
Company from June 2003, which was when Koch acquired the
majority of Farmlands nitrogen fertilizer business, to
November 2003 and Director of Finance of Farmlands Crop
Production and Petroleum Divisions from January 2002 to June
2003. From May 1999 to January 2002, Mr. Rens was
Controller and chief financial officer of Farmland Hydro L.P.
Mr. Rens has spent 15 years in various accounting and
financial positions associated with the fertilizer and energy
industry. Mr. Rens received a Bachelor of Science degree in
accounting from Central Missouri State University.
Edmund S. Gross has served as general counsel of
our company and its predecessors since July 2004 and as
secretary of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC since June 24,
2005. Mr. Gross will also become the general counsel of the
managing general partner of the Partnership and secretary of
Coffeyville II LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC prior to
the consummation of this offering. Prior to joining Coffeyville
Resources, Mr. Gross was Of Counsel at Stinson Morrison
Hecker LLP in Kansas City, Missouri from 2002 to 2004, was
Senior Corporate Counsel with Farmland Industries, Inc. from
1987 to 2002 and was an associate and later a partner at
Weeks,Thomas & Lysaught, a law firm in Kansas City, Kansas,
from 1980 to 1987. Mr. Gross received a Bachelor of Arts degree
in history from Tulane University, a Juris Doctor from the
University of Kansas and an MBA from the University of Kansas.
Robert W. Haugen joined our business on
June 24, 2005 and has served as executive vice president,
refining operations at our company since September 2006 and at
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC since April 2006. Mr. Haugen
brings 25 years of experience in the refining,
petrochemical and nitrogen fertilizer business to our company.
Prior to joining us, Mr. Haugen was a Managing Director and
Partner of Prudentia Energy, an advisory and management firm
focused on mid-stream/downstream energy sectors, from January
2004 to June 2005. On leave from Prudentia, he served as the
Senior Oil Consultant to the Iraqi Reconstruction Management
Office for the U.S. Department of State. Prior to joining
Prudentia Energy, Mr. Haugen served in numerous
engineering, operations, marketing and management positions at
the Howell Corporation and at the Coastal Corporation. Upon
174
the merger of Coastal and El Paso in 2001, Mr. Haugen
was named Vice President and General Manager for the Coastal
Corpus Christi Refinery, and later held the positions of Vice
President of Chemicals and Vice President of Engineering and
Construction. Mr. Haugen received a B.S. in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Texas.
Wyatt E. Jernigan has served as executive vice
president of crude oil acquisition and petroleum marketing at
our company since September 2006 and at Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC since June 24, 2005. Mr. Jernigan has
30 years of experience in the areas of crude oil and
petroleum products related to trading, marketing, logistics and
business development. Most recently, Mr. Jernigan was
Managing Director with Prudentia Energy, an advisory and
management firm focused on mid-stream/downstream energy sectors,
from January 2004 to June 2005. Most of his career was spent
with Coastal Corporation and El Paso, where he held several
positions in crude oil supply, petroleum marketing and asset
development, both domestic and international. Following the
merger between Coastal Corporation and El Paso in 2001,
Mr. Jernigan assumed the role of Managing Director for
Petroleum Markets Originations. Mr. Jernigan attended
Virginia Wesleyan College, majoring in Sociology, and has
training in petroleum fundamentals from the University of Texas.
Kevan A. Vick has served as executive vice
president, general manager nitrogen fertilizer at our company
since September 2006 and at Coffeyville Resources LLC since
March 3, 2004. Mr. Vick will also become an executive
vice president and general manager of the managing general
partner of the Partnership prior to the consummation of this
offering. He has served on the board of directors of Farmland
MissChem Limited in Trinidad and SF Phosphates. He has nearly
30 years of experience in the Farmland organization and is
one of the most highly respected executives in the nitrogen
fertilizer industry, known for both his technical expertise and
his in-depth knowledge of the commercial marketplace. Prior to
joining Coffeyville Resources LLC, he was general manager of
nitrogen manufacturing at Farmland from January 2001 to February
2004. Mr. Vick received a bachelor of science in chemical
engineering from the University of Kansas and is a licensed
professional engineer in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa.
Christopher G. Swanberg has served as vice
president environmental, health and safety at our company since
September 2006 and at Coffeyville Resources LLC since
June 24, 2005. He has served in numerous management
positions in the petroleum refining industry such as Manager,
Environmental Affairs for the refining and marketing division of
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), and Manager, Regulatory and
Legislative Affairs for Lyondell-Citgo Refining.
Mr. Swanbergs experience includes technical and
management assignments in project, facility and corporate staff
positions in all environmental, safety and health areas. Prior
to joining Coffeyville Resources, he was Vice President of Sage
Environmental Consulting, an environmental consulting firm
focused on petroleum refining and petrochemicals, from September
2002 to June 2005 and Senior HSE Advisor of Pilko &
Associates, LP from September 2000 to September 2002.
Mr. Swanberg received a B.S. in Environmental Engineering
Technology from Western Kentucky University and an MBA from the
University of Tulsa.
Wesley Clark has been a member of our board of
directors since September 2006. He also was a member of the
board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC from
September 20, 2005 until immediately prior to this
offering. Since March 2003 he has been the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a
business services and development firm based in Little Rock,
Arkansas. Mr. Clark also serves as senior advisor to GS
Capital Partners V Fund, L.P. From March 2001 to February 2003
he was a Managing Director of the Stephens Group Inc. From July
2000 to March 2001 he was a consultant for Stephens Group Inc.
Prior to that time, Mr. Clark served as the Supreme Allied
Commander of NATO and
Commander-in-Chief
for the United States European Command and as the Director of
the Pentagons Strategic Plans and Policy operation.
Mr. Clark retired from the United States Army as a
four-star general in July 2000 after 38 years in the
military and received many decorations and honors during his
military career. Mr. Clark is a graduate of the United
States Military Academy and studied as a Rhodes Scholar at the
Magdalen College at the University of Oxford. Mr. Clark is
a director of Argyle Security Acquisition Corp.
175
Scott Lebovitz has been a member of our board of
directors since September 2006. He also was a member of the
board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC from
June 24, 2005 until immediately prior to this offering.
Mr. Lebovitz will also become a director of the managing
general partner of the Partnership and of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC
prior to the consummation of this offering. Mr. Lebovitz is
a Vice President in the Merchant Banking Division of Goldman,
Sachs & Co. Mr. Lebovitz joined Goldman Sachs in
1997. He is a director of Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. He
received his B.S. in Commerce from the University of Virginia.
Regis B. Lippert has been a member of our board of
directors since June 2007. He is the founder, principal
shareholder and a director of INTERCAT, Inc., a specialty
chemicals company which primarily develops, manufactures,
markets and sells specialty catalysts used in petroleum
refining. Mr. Lippert serves as President and Chief
Executive Officer of INTERCAT, Inc. and its affiliate companies
and is a Managing Director of INTERCAT Europe B.V.
Mr. Lippert is also a director of Indo Cat Private Limited,
an Indian company which is part of a joint venture between
INTERCAT, Inc. and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Prior to
founding INTERCAT, Mr. Lippert served from 1981 to 1985 as
President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of
Katalistiks, Inc., a manufacturer of fluid cracking catalysts
which ultimately became a subsidiary of Union Carbide
Corporation. From 1979 to 1981, Mr. Lippert was an
Executive Vice President with Catalysts Recovery, Inc. In this
capacity he was responsible for developing the joint venture
which ultimately formed Katalistiks. From 1963 to 1979,
Mr. Lippert was employed by Engelhard Minerals and Chemical
Co., where he attained the position of Director of Sales and
Marketing/Catalysts. Mr. Lippert attended Carnegie-Mellon
University where he studied metallurgy. He is a member of the
National Petroleum Refiners Association, the American Petroleum
Institute and the American Chemical Society.
George E. Matelich has been a member of our board
of directors since September 2006 and a member of the board of
directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC since June 24,
2005. Mr. Matelich will also become a director of the
managing general partner of the Partnership and of Coffeyville
Acquisition III LLC prior to the consummation of this
offering. Mr. Matelich has been a Managing Director of
Kelso & Company since 1990. Mr. Matelich has been
affiliated with Kelso since 1985. Mr. Matelich is a
Certified Public Accountant and holds a Certificate in
Management Consulting. Mr. Matelich received a B.A. in
Business Administration from the University of Puget Sound and
an M.B.A. from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a
director of Global Geophysical Services, Inc. and Waste
Services, Inc. He is also a Trustee of the University of Puget
Sound and serves on the National Council of the American Prairie
Foundation.
Stanley de J. Osborne has been a member of our
board of directors since September 2006 and a member of the
board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC since
June 24, 2005. Mr. Osborne will also become a director
of the managing general partner of the Partnership and of
Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC prior to the consummation of
this offering. Mr. Osborne has been a Vice President of
Kelso & Company since 2004. Mr. Osborne has been
affiliated with Kelso since 1998. Prior to joining Kelso,
Mr. Osborne was an Associate at Summit Partners.
Previously, Mr. Osborne was an Associate in the Private
Equity Group and an Analyst in the Financial Institutions Group
at J.P. Morgan & Co. He received a B.A. in
Government from Dartmouth College. Mr. Osborne is a
director of Custom Building Products, Inc. and Traxys S.A.
Kenneth A. Pontarelli has been a member of our
board of directors since September 2006. He also was a member of
the board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC from
June 24, 2005 until immediately prior to this offering.
Mr. Pontarelli will also become a director of the managing
general partner of the Partnership and of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC prior to
the consummation of this offering. Mr. Pontarelli is a
managing director in the Merchant Banking Division of Goldman,
Sachs & Co. Mr. Pontarelli joined Goldman,
Sachs & Co. in 1992 and became a managing director in
2004. He is a director of Cobalt International Energy, L.P., an
oil and gas exploration and development company, Horizon Wind
Energy LLC, a developer, owner and operator of wind power
projects, NextMedia Group, Inc., a privately owned radio
broadcasting and outdoor advertising company, and Knight Holdco
LLC and Kinder Morgan, Inc., an energy transportation and
176
storage company. He received a B.A. from Syracuse University
and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.
Mark Tomkins has been a member of our board of
directors since January 2007. He also was a member of the board
of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC from January 2007
until immediately prior to this offering. Mr. Tomkins has
served as the senior financial officer at several large
companies during the past ten years. He was Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Innovene, a petroleum
refining and chemical polymers business and a subsidiary of
British Petroleum, from May 2005 to January 2006, when Innovene
was sold to a strategic buyer. From January 2001 to May 2005 he
was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Vulcan
Materials Company, a construction materials and chemicals
company, with responsibility for finance, treasury, tax,
internal audit, investor relations, strategic planning and
information technology. From August 1998 to January 2001
Mr. Tomkins was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Chemtura (formerly GreatLakes Chemical Corporation),
a specialty chemicals company. From July 1996 to August 1998 he
worked at Honeywell Corporation as Vice President of Finance and
Business Development for its polymers division and as Vice
President of Finance and Business Development for its electronic
materials division. From November 1990 to July 1996
Mr. Tomkins worked at Monsanto Company in various financial
and accounting positions, including Chief Financial Officer of
the growth enterprises division from January 1995 to July 1996.
Prior to joining Monsanto he worked at Cobra Corporation and as
an auditor in private practice. Mr. Tomkins received a B.S.
degree in business, with majors in Finance and Management, from
Eastern Illinois University and an MBA from Eastern Illinois
University.
Board of Directors
Our board of directors consists of seven members. The current
directors are included above. Our directors are elected annually
to serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders or until
their successors are duly elected and qualified.
Prior to the completion of this offering, our board will have an
audit committee, a compensation committee, a nominating and
corporate governance committee and a conflicts committee. Our
board of directors has determined that we are a controlled
company under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange,
and, as a result, will qualify for, and may rely on, exemptions
from certain corporate governance requirements of the New York
Stock Exchange. Pursuant to the controlled company
exception to the board of directors and committee composition
requirements, we will be exempt from the rules that require that
(a) our board of directors be comprised of a majority of
independent directors, (b) our compensation
committee be comprised solely of independent
directors and (c) our nominating and corporate governance
committee be comprised solely of independent
directors as defined under the rules of the New York Stock
Exchange. The controlled company exception does not
modify the independence requirements for the audit committee,
and we intend to comply with the audit committee requirements of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the New York Stock Exchange rules,
which require that our audit committee be composed of at least
one independent director at the closing of this offering, a
majority of independent directors within 90 days of this
offering and all independent directors within a year of this
offering.
Audit Committee. Our audit committee
will be comprised of Messrs. Mark Tomkins, Wesley Clark, and
Stanley de J. Osborne. Mr. Tomkins will be chairman of the audit
committee. Our board of directors has determined that
Mr. Tomkins qualifies as an audit committee financial
expert. The audit committees responsibilities will
be to review the accounting and auditing principles and
procedures of our company with a view to providing for the
safeguard of our assets and the reliability of our financial
records by assisting the board of directors in monitoring our
financial reporting process, accounting functions and internal
controls; to oversee the qualifications, independence,
appointment, retention, compensation and performance of our
independent registered public accounting firm; to recommend to
the board of directors the engagement of our independent
accountants; to review with the
177
independent accountants the plans and results of the auditing
engagement; and to oversee whistle-blowing
procedures and certain other compliance matters.
Compensation Committee. Our
compensation committee will be comprised of Messrs. George E.
Matelich, Kenneth Pontarelli, Wesley Clark, and Mark Tomkins.
Mr. George E. Matelich will be the chairman of the
compensation committee. The principal responsibilities of the
compensation committee will be to establish policies and
periodically determine matters involving executive compensation,
recommend changes in employee benefit programs, grant or
recommend the grant of stock options and stock awards and
provide counsel regarding key personnel selection. A
subcommittee of the compensation committee consisting of
Messrs. Clark and Tomkins will make stock and option awards
to the extent deemed necessary or advisable for regulatory
purposes. See Executive
Compensation Compensation Discussion and
Analysis.
Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee. Our nominating and corporate
governance committee will be comprised of Messrs. Scott
Lebovitz, Stanley de J. Osborne, John J. Lipinski
and Regis B. Lippert. Mr. Scott Lebovitz will be the chairman of
the nominating and corporate governance committee. The principal
duties of the nominating and corporate governance committee will
be to recommend to the board of directors proposed nominees for
election to the board of directors by the stockholders at annual
meetings and to develop and make recommendations to the board of
directors regarding corporate governance matters and practices.
Conflicts Committee. Our conflicts
committee initially will be comprised of Mr. Mark Tomkins.
The principal duties of the conflicts committee will be to
determine, in accordance with the conflicts of interests policy
adopted by our board of directors, if the resolution of a
conflict of interest with the Partnership, the
Partnerships general partners or their affiliates is fair
and reasonable to us.
Executive
Compensation
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
Overview
To date, the compensation committee of the board of directors of
Successor has overseen companywide compensation practices and
specifically reviewed, developed and administered executive
compensation programs, and made recommendations to the board of
directors of Successor on compensation matters.
Messrs. George E. Matelich, Kenneth Pontarelli and John J.
Lipinski served as members of this committee during 2006 and
prior to this offering. Prior to the completion of this
offering, our board of directors will establish a compensation
committee comprised of Messrs. George E. Matelich (as
chairperson), Kenneth Pontarelli, Wesley Clark and Mark Tomkins,
which will (except where otherwise noted) generally take over
the duties of the compensation committee of the board of
directors of Successor. For purposes of the Compensation
Discussion and Analysis, the board of directors and
the compensation committee refer to the board
of directors of the Successor and the compensation committee
thereof. We do not expect our overall compensation philosophy to
materially change as a result of the establishment of the new
compensation committee. The definitions of certain defined terms
used in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis (and in other
parts of the Executive Compensation section), including bonus
plan, bonus points, Phantom Unit Plan I, Phantom Unit
Plan II, phantom points, phantom service points, phantom
performance points, common units, profits interests, override
units, operating units and value units, among others, are
contained in the section of this prospectus entitled
Glossary of Selected Defined Terms.
The executive compensation philosophy of the compensation
committee is threefold:
|
|
|
|
|
To align the executive officers interest with that of the
stockholders and stakeholders, which provides long-term economic
benefits to the stockholders;
|
|
|
|
To provide competitive financial incentives in the form of
salary, bonuses, and benefits with the goal of retaining and
attracting talented and highly motivated executive
officers; and
|
178
|
|
|
|
|
To maintain a compensation program whereby the executive
officers, through exceptional performance and equity ownership,
will have the opportunity to realize economic rewards
commensurate with appropriate gains of other equity holders and
stake holders.
|
The compensation committee reviews and makes recommendations to
the board of directors regarding our overall compensation
strategy and policies, with the full board of directors having
the final authority on compensation matters. The board of
directors may from time to time delegate to the compensation
committee the authority to take actions on specific compensation
matters or with respect to compensation matters for certain
employees or officers. The compensation committee
(1) develops, approves and oversees policies relating to
compensation of our chief executive officer and other executive
officers, (2) discharges the boards responsibility
relating to the establishment, amendment, modification, or
termination of the Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit
Appreciation Plan (Plan I) (the Phantom Unit
Plan I) (and will discharge similar responsibilities
relating to the Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit
Appreciation Plan (Plan II) (the Phantom Unit
Plan II), which we intend to adopt prior to the
completion of this offering), health and welfare plans,
incentive plans, defined contribution plans (401(k) plans), and
any other benefit plan, program or arrangement which we sponsor
or maintain and (3) discharges the responsibilities of the
override unit committee of the board of directors.
Specifically, the compensation committee reviews and makes
recommendations to the board of directors regarding annual and
long-term performance goals and objectives for the chief
executive officer and our other senior executives; reviews and
makes recommendations to the board of directors regarding the
annual salary, bonus and other incentives and benefits, direct
and indirect, of the chief executive officer and our senior
executives; reviews and authorizes the company to enter into
employment, severance or other compensation agreements with the
chief executive officer and other senior executives; administers
the executive incentive plan, including the Phantom Unit Plan I
(and the Phantom Unit Plan II, when adopted); establishes
and periodically reviews perquisites and fringe benefits
policies; reviews annually the implementation of our
company-wide incentive bonus program known as the Variable
Compensation Plan (which is referred to as the Income Sharing
Plan beginning in 2007) and contributions to our 401(k)
plan; and performs such duties and responsibilities as may be
assigned by the board of directors to the compensation committee
under the terms of any executive compensation plan, incentive
compensation plan or equity-based plan and as may be assigned to
the compensation committee with respect to the issuance and
management of the override units in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and, after the consummation of the
transactions, Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
The compensation committee has regularly scheduled meetings
concurrent with the board of directors meetings and additionally
meets at other times as needed throughout the year. Frequently
issues are discussed via teleconferencing. The chief executive
officer, while a member of the compensation committee prior to
this offering, did not participate in the determination of his
own compensation, thereby avoiding any potential conflict of
interest. However, he actively provided and will continue to
provide guidance and recommendations to the committee regarding
the amount and form of the compensation of the other executive
officers and key employees. During 2006 and prior to this
offering, given that the compensation committee consisted of
senior representatives of the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso
Funds, as well as our chief executive officer, the board did not
change or reject decisions made by the compensation committee.
Compensation paid to executive officers is closely aligned with
our performance on both a short-term and long-term basis.
Compensation is structured competitively in order to attract,
motivate and retain executive officers and key employees and is
considered crucial to our long-term success and the long-term
enhancement of stockholder value. Compensation is structured to
ensure that the executive officers objectives and rewards
are directly correlated to our long-term objectives and the
executive officers interests are aligned with those of
stockholders. To this end, the compensation committee believes
that the most critical component of compensation is equity
compensation.
179
The following discusses in detail the foundation underlying and
the drivers of our executive compensation philosophy, and also
how the related decisions are made. Qualitative information
related to the most important factors utilized in the analysis
of these decisions is described.
Elements of
Compensation
The three primary components of the compensation program are
salary, an annual cash incentive bonus, and equity awards.
Executive officers are also provided with benefits that are
generally available to our salaried employees.
While these three components are related, we view them as
separate and analyze them as such. The compensation committee
believes that equity compensation is the primary motivator in
attracting and retaining executive officers. Salary and cash
incentive bonuses are viewed as secondary; however, the
compensation committee views a competitive level of salary and
cash bonus as critical to retaining talented individuals.
Base Salary
We fix the base salary of each of our executive officers at a
level we believe enables us to hire, motivate, and retain
individuals in a competitive environment and to reward
satisfactory individual and company performance. In determining
its recommendations for salary levels, the compensation
committee takes into account individual performance and peer
group pay. Management, through the chief executive officer,
provides the compensation committee with information gathered
through a detailed annual review of executive compensation
programs of other publicly and privately held companies in our
industry, which are similar to us in size and operations (among
other factors). In 2006, management reviewed and provided
information to the compensation committee regarding the salary,
bonus and other compensation amounts paid to named executive
officers in respect of 2005 for the following independent
refining companies, which we view as members of our peer group:
Frontier Oil Corporation, Giant Industries, Inc., Holly
Corporation, Western Refining Company and Tesoro Corporation. It
then averaged these peer group salary levels over a number of
years to develop a range of salaries of similarly situated
executives of these companies, and used this range as a factor
in determining base salary (and overall cash compensation) of
the named executive officers. Management also reviewed the
differences in levels of compensation among the named executive
officers of this peer group, and used these differences as a
factor in setting a different level of salary and overall
compensation for each of our named executive officers based on
their relative positions and levels of responsibility.
Each of the named executive officers has an employment agreement
which sets forth his base salary. Salaries are reviewed annually
by the compensation committee with periodic informal reviews
throughout the year. Adjustments, if any, are usually made on
January 1st of the year immediately following the
review. The compensation committee most recently reviewed the
level of cash salary and bonus for each of the executive
officers in November 2006 and noted certain changes of
responsibilities and promotions. Individual performance, the
practices of our peer group of companies and changes in an
executive officers status were considered, and each
measurement was given relatively equal weight. The committee
determined that no material changes needed to be made at that
time to the base salary levels of our executive officers unless
they either had a promotion or a significant change of duties.
The compensation committee accordingly recommended that the
board of directors adjust the salary of Mr. Haugen as
Mr. Haugens overall responsibilities increased
(although his title did not formally change) in 2006.
Mr. Haugen took over all refinery operations and continued
to maintain his other responsibilities including executive
management of engineering and construction during 2006.
Mr. Haugens base salary beginning in 2007 was
adjusted to $275,000.
180
Annual Bonus
We use information about industry practice in determining both
the level of bonus award and the ratio of salary to bonus
because we believe that maintaining a level of bonus and a ratio
of fixed salary (which is fixed and guaranteed) to bonus (which
may fluctuate) that is in line with those of our competitors is
an important factor in retaining the executives. The
compensation committee also desires that a significant portion
of our executive officers compensation package be at risk.
That is, a portion of the executive officers overall
compensation would not be guaranteed and would be determined
based on individual and company performance. Our program
provides for greater potential bonus awards as the authority and
responsibility of a position increases. The chief executive
officer has the greatest percentage of his compensation at risk
in the form of a discretionary bonus. For example, during 2006,
bonuses accounted for over 73% of total salary and bonus for the
chief executive officer. Based on our review of the ratios of
salary to bonus for the top paid officers in our peer group of
companies (listed above) for 2005, we determined that this 73%
ratio was in line with our competitors (the 2005 average of this
group was approximately 66%). Following the chief executive
officer, the other named executive officers have smaller
potential bonus payments but retain a significant percentage of
their compensation package at risk in the form of potential
discretionary bonuses. Bonuses may be paid in an amount equal to
the target percentage, less than the target percentage or
greater than the target percentage based on current year
performance as recommended by the compensation committee. The
performance determination takes into account overall operational
performance, financial performance, factors affecting the
business and the individuals personal performance. The
determination of whether the target bonus amount should be paid
is not based on specific metrics, but rather a general
assessment of how the business performed as compared to the
business plan developed for the year. Due to the nature of the
business, financial performance alone may not dictate or be a
fair indicator of the performance of the executive officers.
Conversely, financial performance may exceed all expectations,
but it could be due to outside forces in the industry rather
than true performance by an executive that exceeds expectations.
In order to take this mismatch into consideration and to assess
the executive officers performance on their own merits,
the compensation committee makes an assessment of the executive
officers performance separate from the actual financial
performance of the company, although such measurement is not
based on any specific metrics.
The compensation committee reviewed the individualized
performance and company performance as compared to expectations
for the year ended December 31, 2006. The compensation
committee decided that the cash incentive bonuses earned by the
executive officers for the year ended December 31, 2006
should equal their full target percentages, and such bonuses
were paid out during the first week of February 2007. Many
initiatives, such as better utilization of our crude gathering
system, improvements in crude purchasing and added emphasis on
safety enhancements, and other efficiency improvements by the
named executive officers drove the value of the business
significantly. The intent was that separate discretionary
bonuses would be awarded upon review of accomplishments. The
compensation committee provided certain additional bonuses in
December 2006 to the named executive officers separate and apart
from the bonus percentages set forth in the named executive
officers employment agreements. It was the decision of the
compensation committee that bonuses would be paid to partially
bridge the difference between the base salaries established for
the executive officers and the average compensation paid by
members of our peer group of companies.
Annual cash incentive bonuses for our named executive officers
are established as part of their respective individual
employment agreements. Each of these employment agreements
provides that the executive will receive an annual cash
performance bonus determined in the discretion of the board of
directors, with a target bonus amount specified as a percentage
of salary for that executive officer based on individualized
performance goals and company performance goals. In connection
with the review of peer company compensation practices described
above, in November 2006, the compensation committee determined
that the future target percentage for the performance-based
annual cash bonus for executive officers needed to be increased
due to their review of comparable
181
companies. As a result, it is not expected that the additional
discretionary bonuses that were awarded in December 2006 will
generally be awarded to the named executive officers in the
future.
Beginning in 2007, the named executive officers will no longer
participate in our company-wide Variable Compensation Plan
(renamed the Income Sharing Plan in 2007). The compensation
committee believes their targeted percentages for bonuses
beginning in 2007 are adequate and will be monitored and
maintained through their employment agreements; therefore, they
are no longer eligible to participate in the company-wide bonus
plan (Income Sharing Plan).
Equity
We use equity incentives to reward long-term performance. The
issuance of equity to executive officers is intended to generate
significant future value for each executive officer if the
companys performance is outstanding and the value of the
companys equity increases for all stockholders. The
compensation committee believes that this also promotes
long-term retention of the executive. The equity incentives were
negotiated to a large degree at the time of the acquisition in
June 2005 in order to bring the executive officers
compensation package in line with executives at similarly
situated companies.
The greatest share of total compensation to the chief executive
officer and other named executive officers (as well as selected
senior executives and key employees) is in the form of equity:
common units in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, stock of the
underlying subsidiaries, override units within Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC or phantom points at Coffeyville Resources, LLC.
The total number of such awards is detailed in this registration
statement and was approved by the board of directors. All
currently available override units and phantom points under the
existing plans have been awarded. The Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement provides the
methodology for payouts for this equity based compensation. The
Phantom Unit Plan I works in correlation with the
methodology established by the Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
Limited Liability Company Agreement for payouts. When adopted,
the Phantom Unit Plan II will work in correlation with the
methodology established by the Coffeyville Acquisition II
Limited Liability Company Agreement for payouts, and the rights
and obligations under the Phantom Unit Plan II will be
parallel to those of the Phantom Unit Plan I. Each named
executive officer contributed personal capital to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and owns a number of units proportionate to his
contribution. All issuances of override units and phantom points
made through December 31, 2006 were made at what the board
of directors determined to be their fair value on their
respective grant dates. As part of the Transactions, half of the
common units and override units in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
held by each named executive officer will be redeemed in
exchange for an equal number of common units and override units
in Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC so that, following the
consummation of the Transactions, each named executive officer
will hold equal numbers and types of limited liability interests
in both Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC. The common units and override units in
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC will have the same rights
and obligations as the common units and override units in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. Additionally, following the
consummation of the Transactions, each named executive officer
will hold the same number and type of phantom points under the
Phantom Unit Plan II as he currently holds under the
Phantom Unit Plan I. For a description of these plans,
please see Executives Interests in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit
Appreciation Plan (Plan I) and Coffeyville Resources, LLC
Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan II), below.
Additional phantom points were also awarded to each of the named
executive officers (Messrs. Lipinski, Riemann, Rens, Haugen
and Jernigan) in December 2006 pursuant to the Phantom Unit
Plan I. The Phantom Unit Plan I had an unallocated
pool of phantom points that were not initially issued. It was
the intent that this unallocated pool would remain until a
triggering event occurred. The triggering event for the issuance
of these phantom points was the filing of a registration
statement. The filing of the registration statement precipitated
the action of the compensation committee to review and determine
the allocation of the additional phantom points from the Phantom
Unit Plan I for
182
issuance. Additionally, there was a pool of override units that
had not been issued. It was also the intent, that upon a filing
of a registration statement, the unallocated override units in
the pool would be issued. The compensation committee recommended
the issuance of all remaining override units in the pool
available be issued to John J. Lipinski on December 28,
2006. The compensation committee made its decision and
recommendation to the board of directors to grant
Mr. Lipinski these additional units based on a number of
accomplishments achieved by him over the past 18 months
(and made the decision and recommendation without any input from
Mr. Lipinski). Mr. Lipinski has been and will continue
to be instrumental in positioning the company to become more
competitive and to increase the capacity of the refinery
operations through his negotiating and obtaining favorable crude
oil pricing, as well as in helping to gain access to capital in
order to expand overall operations of both segments of the
business. The increased value and growth of the business is
directly attributable to the actions and leadership that
Mr. Lipinski has provided for the overall executive
management group. Specific achievements include:
|
|
|
|
|
Significant operational improvement (in increased refinery
throughput and yield) for an asset that emerged from bankruptcy
just over 3 years ago, as described on page 2 of the
prospectus. Upon assuming leadership of our company,
Mr. Lipinski challenged existing management to optimize our
refinery operations by focusing on plant operating limits each
day. With 35 years of experience in the refining and
nitrogen fertilizer industries, Mr. Lipinski focused, and
led management to focus, on the details of
day-to-day
plant operations. Previously, the refinery had primarily
operated based on a predetermined monthly plan which resulted in
significant unused capacity. The result of this revised focus
was to immediately increase operating rates with essentially no
capital expenditures being incurred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initiation of refined fuels offsite rack marketing, as described
more fully on page 2 of this prospectus. Under
Mr. Lipinskis direction and leadership, we have built
our rack marketing sales sales of refined products
made at terminals into third party tanker trucks, as opposed to
sales through third party pipelines which has
directly impacted and improved our profitability. Although we
had the infrastructure in place to commence rack marketing, it
had not been implemented at the time that Mr. Lipinski
became our chief executive officer in June 2005.
Mr. Lipinski authorized additional company personnel to
expand the rack marketing operation and it has served as a key
factor in our companys success over the past two years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revised linear program model and focus on quality control.
Mr. Lipinski authorized a project to revise our linear
program model which we use for refinery planning and
optimization. A linear program is a computer program that
simulates plant operations and profitability based on different
pricing and operating environment assumptions. Mr. Lipinski
also directed that additional company resources be applied to
quality assurance and quality control activities throughout the
organization. As a result of these efforts, we now have a better
modeling tool to assess plant operating rates, sales
opportunities and crude oil purchases along with an improved
understanding of our operations and better control over product
quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technical focus and environmental stewardship. After becoming
chief executive officer, Mr. Lipinski recognized that our
organization needed a more technical focus in order to achieve
superior performance and he approved the hiring of additional
engineering and technical staff, particularly with respect to
process engineering. He also fostered a renewed focus on
environmental stewardship (evidenced by the construction of our
plant wide flare) and safety (evidenced by a reduction in lost
time accidents and reportable incidents).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation and initiation of a refinery expansion project,
as further described on page 2. In connection with the due
diligence review of our company prior to becoming our chief
executive officer, Mr. Lipinski recognized that there was a
significant opportunity to more fully utilize the
facilitys crude capacity by expanding our downstream
units. After assuming his position as CEO, Mr. Lipinski
sought approval of a project to expand the refinerys
capacity to 115,000 barrels per day, compared to an average
of less than 90,000 prior to June 2005.
|
183
|
|
|
|
|
Through Mr. Lipinskis leadership, we substantially
implemented this project in less than twenty-months and
currently benefit from improved capacity throughout the plant.
|
Additionally, due to the significant contributions of
Mr. Lipinski as reflected above, the compensation committee
awarded him for his services 0.1044200 shares in Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing, Inc. and 0.2125376 shares in
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. This approximates 0.31%
and 0.64% of each companys total shares outstanding,
respectively. The shares were issued to compensate him for his
exceptional performance related to the operations of the
business. Prior to the consummation of this offering, we expect
that these shares will be exchanged for shares of common stock
in CVR Energy at an equivalent fair market value.
We also plan to establish a stock incentive plan in connection
with the initial public offering. No awards have been
established at this time for the chief executive officer or
other named executive officers. In keeping with the compensation
committees stated philosophy, such awards will be intended
to help achieve the compensation goals necessary to run our
business.
Other Forms of
Compensation
Each of our executive officers has a provision in his employment
agreement providing for certain severance benefits in the event
of termination without cause. These severance provisions are
described in the Employment Agreements and Other
Arrangements section below. The severance arrangements
were all negotiated with the original employment agreements
between the executive officer and the company. There are no
change of control arrangements, but the compensation committee
believed that there needed to be some form of compensation upon
certain events of termination of services as is customary for
similar companies.
As a general matter, we do not provide a significant number of
perquisites to named executive officers. In April 2007,
however, we paid our Chief Operating Officer, Stanley A.
Riemann, approximately $220,000 as a relocation incentive for
Mr. Riemann to relocate at our request to the Sugar Land,
Texas area.
Compensation
Policies and Philosophy
Ours is a commodity business with high volatility and risk where
earnings are not only influenced by margins, but also by unique,
innovative and aggressive actions and business practices on the
part of the executive team. The compensation committee routinely
reviews financial and operational performance compared to our
business plan, positive and negative industry factors, and the
response of the senior management team in dealing with and
maximizing operational and financial performance in the face of
otherwise negative situations. Due to the nature of our
business, performance of an individual or the business as a
whole may be outstanding; however, our financial performance may
not depict this same level of achievement. The financial
performance of the company is not necessarily reflective of
individual operational performance. These are some of the
factors used in setting executive compensation. Specific
performance levels or benchmarks are not necessarily used to
establish compensation; however, the compensation committee
takes into account all factors to make a subjective
determination of related compensation packages for the executive
officers.
The compensation committee has not adopted any formal or
informal policies or guidelines for allocating compensation
between long-term and current compensation, between cash and
non-cash compensation, or among different forms of compensation
other than its belief that the most crucial component is equity
compensation. The decision is strictly made on a subjective and
individual basis considering all relevant facts.
For compensation decisions, including decisions regarding the
grant of equity compensation relating to executive officers
(other than our chief executive officer and chief operating
officer), the compensation committee typically considers the
recommendations of our chief executive officer.
184
In recommending compensation levels and practices, our
management reviews peer group compensation practices based on
publicly available data. The analysis is done in-house in its
entirety and is reviewed by executive officers who are not
members of the compensation committee. The analysis is based on
public information available through proxy statements and
similar sources. Because the analysis is almost always performed
based on prior year public information, it may often be somewhat
outdated. We have not historically and at this time do not
intend to hire or rely on independent consultants to analyze or
prepare formal surveys for us. We do receive certain unsolicited
executive compensation surveys; however, our use of these is
limited as we believe we need to determine our baseline based on
practices of other companies in our industry.
After this registration statement is declared effective,
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code will limit the
deductibility of compensation in excess of $1 million paid
out to our executive officers unless specific and detailed
criteria are satisfied. We believe that it is in our best
interest to deduct compensation paid to our executive officers.
We will consider the anticipated tax treatment to the company
and our executive officers in the review and determination of
the compensation payments and incentives. No assurance, however,
can be given that the compensation will be fully deductible
under Section 162(m).
Following the completion of this offering, we will continue to
reward executive officers through programs that enhance and
emphasize
performance-based
incentives. We will continue our strategy to identify rewards
that promote the objective of enhancing stockholder value.
Executive compensation will continue to be structured to ensure
that there is a balance between financial performance and
stockholder returns as well as an appropriate balance between
short-term and long-term performance.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer Limited Partnership
A number of our executive officers, including our chief
executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial
officer, general counsel, and executive vice president/general
manager for nitrogen fertilizer, will serve as executive
officers for both our company and the Partnership. These
executive officers will receive all of their compensation and
benefits from us, including compensation related to services for
the Partnership, and will not be paid by the Partnership or its
managing general partner. The percentage of each named executive
officers compensation that will represent the services
provided to the Partnership will be approximately as follows:
John J. Lipinski (10%), Stanley A. Riemann (25%), James T. Rens
(20%), Robert W. Haugen (0%) and Wyatt E. Jernigan (0%).
We will enter into a management services agreement with the
Partnership and its managing general partner in which we will
agree to provide management services to the Partnership for the
operation of the nitrogen fertilizer business. Under this
agreement any of the Partnership, its managing general partner
or Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, a subsidiary
of the Partnership, will pay us (i) all costs incurred by
us in connection with the employment of our employees, other
than administrative personnel, who provide services to the
Partnership under the agreement on a full-time basis, but
excluding share-based compensation; (ii) a prorated share
of costs incurred by us in connection with the employment of our
employees, other than administrative personnel, who provide
services to the Partnership under the agreement on a part-time
basis, but excluding share-based compensation, and such prorated
share shall be determined by us on a commercially reasonable
basis, based on the percent of total working time that such
shared personnel are engaged in performing services for the
Partnership; (iii) a prorated share of certain
administrative costs; and (iv) various other administrative
costs in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Either we
or the managing general partner of the Partnership may terminate
the agreement upon at least 90 days notice. For more
information on this management services agreement, see The
Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited Partnership Other
Intercompany Agreements.
185
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table sets forth certain information with respect
to compensation for the year ended December 31, 2006 earned
by our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer and
our three other most highly compensated executive officers as of
December 31, 2006. In this prospectus, we refer to these
individuals as our named executive officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Plan
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
Name and
Principal
|
|
|
|
|
Salary
|
|
|
Bonus ($)
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Compensation
($)
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Position
|
|
Year
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
Awards ($)
|
|
|
(1)(4)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
($)
|
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
650,000
|
|
|
|
1,331,790
|
|
|
|
4,326,188(3
|
)
|
|
|
487,500
|
|
|
|
5,007,935(5
|
)(6)
|
|
|
11,803,413
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
|
|
772,917
|
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210,000
|
|
|
|
943,789(5
|
)(7)
|
|
|
2,276,706
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James T. Rens
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
205,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
695,316(5
|
)(8)
|
|
|
1,280,316
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert W. Haugen
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
205,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117,000
|
|
|
|
695,471(5
|
)(9)
|
|
|
1,242,471
|
|
Executive Vice President, Refining
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyatt E. Jernigan
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
140,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117,000
|
|
|
|
318,000(5
|
)(10)
|
|
|
800,000
|
|
Executive Vice President Crude Oil
Acquisition and Petroleum Marketing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Bonuses are reported for the year in which they were earned,
though they may have been paid the following year. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes a retention bonus in the amount of $122,917. |
|
(3) |
|
Reflects the amount recognized for financial statement reporting
purposes for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 with
respect to shares of common stock of each of Coffeyville
Refining and Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizer, Inc. granted to Mr. Lipinski effective
December 28, 2006. |
|
(4) |
|
Reflects cash awards to the named individuals in respect of 2006
performance pursuant to our Variable Compensation Plan. |
|
|
|
(5) |
|
The amounts shown representing grants of profits interests in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and phantom points reflect the
dollar amounts recognized for financial statement reporting
purposes for the year ended December 31, 2006 in accordance
with FAS 123(R). Assumptions used in the calculation of
these amounts are included in footnote 5 to our audited
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2006.
The profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and the
phantom points are more fully described below under
Executives Interests in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. |
|
|
|
(6) |
|
Includes (a) a company contribution under our 401(k) plan
in 2006, (b) the premiums paid by us on behalf of the
executive officer with respect to our executive life insurance
program in 2006, (c) forgiveness of a note that
Mr. Lipinski owed to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC in the
amount of $350,000, (d) forgiveness of accrued interest
related to the forgiven note in the amount of $17,989,
(e) profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
granted in 2005 in the amount of $630,059, (f) a cash
payment in respect of taxes payable on his December 28,
2006 grant of subsidiary stock in the amount of $2,481,346,
(g) profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC that
were granted December 28, 2006 in the amount of $20,510 and
(h) phantom points granted during the period ending
December 31, 2006 in the amount of $1,495,211. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes (a) a company contribution under our 401(k) plan
in 2006, (b) the premiums paid by us on behalf of the
executive officer with respect to our executive life insurance
program in 2006, (c) profits interests in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC granted in 2005 in the amount of $279,670 and |
186
|
|
|
|
|
(d) phantom points granted to Mr. Riemann during the
period ending December 31, 2006 in the amount of $651,299. |
|
(8) |
|
Includes (a) a company contribution under our 401(k) plan
in 2006, (b) the premiums paid by us on behalf of the
executive officer with respect to our executive life insurance
program in 2006, (c) profits interests in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC granted in 2005 in the amount of $143,571 and
(d) phantom points granted to Mr. Rens during the
period ending December 31, 2006 in the amount of $541,061. |
|
(9) |
|
Includes (a) a company contribution under our 401(k) plan
in 2006, (b) the premiums paid by us on behalf of the
executive officer with respect to our executive life insurance
program in 2006, (c) profits interests in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC granted in 2005 in the amount of $143,571 and
(d) phantom points granted to Mr. Haugen during the period
ending December 31, 2006 in the amount of $541,061. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes (a) a company contribution under our 401(k) plan
in 2006, (b) the premiums paid by us on behalf of the
executive officer with respect to our executive life insurance
program in 2006, (c) profits interests in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC granted in 2005 in the amount of $143,571 and
(d) phantom points granted to Mr. Jernigan during the
period ending December 31, 2006 in the amount of $162,319. |
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other
Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards:
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
Shares of Stock
or
|
|
of Stock and
|
Name
|
|
Grant
Date
|
|
Units
(#)
|
|
Option
Awards
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
|
December 28, 2006
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
|
$4,326,188(1)
|
|
|
|
December 28, 2006
|
|
|
217,458(2)
|
|
|
|
$1,417,826(4)
|
|
|
|
December 11, 2006
|
|
|
2,737,142(3)
|
|
|
|
$4,252,562(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
December 11, 2006
|
|
|
1,192,266(3)
|
|
|
|
$1,852,367(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James T. Rens
|
|
December 11, 2006
|
|
|
990,476(3)
|
|
|
|
$1,538,851(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert W. Haugen
|
|
December 11, 2006
|
|
|
990,476(3)
|
|
|
|
$1,538,851(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyatt E. Jernigan
|
|
December 11, 2006
|
|
|
297,142(3)
|
|
|
|
$461,656(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Lipinski received a grant of shares of common stock of
each of Coffeyville Refining and Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc. effective December 28, 2006. The
number of shares of Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc.
granted was 0.2125376, which equaled approximately 0.64% of the
total shares outstanding. The number of shares of Coffeyville
Refining and Marketing, Inc. granted was 0.1044200, which
approximated 0.31% of the total shares outstanding. The dollar
amount shown reflects the grant date fair value recognized for
financial statement reporting purposes in accordance with
FAS 123(R). Assumptions used in the calculation of these
amounts are included in footnote 5 to our audited financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the number of profits interests in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC granted to the executive on December 28,
2006. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents the number of phantom points granted to the executive
on December 11, 2006. |
|
(4) |
|
The dollar amount shown reflects the fair value as of
December 31, 2006 recognized for financial reporting
purposes in accordance with FAS 123(R). Assumptions used
in the calculation of this amount are included in footnote 5 to
our audited financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2006. |
187
Employment
Agreements and Other Arrangements
Employment
Agreements
John J. Lipinski. On July 12,
2005, Coffeyville Resources, LLC entered into an employment
agreement with Mr. Lipinski, as Chief Executive Officer.
The agreement has a rolling term of three years so that at the
end of each month it automatically renews for one additional
month, unless otherwise terminated by Coffeyville Resources, LLC
or Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Lipinski receives an annual base
salary of $650,000. Mr. Lipinski is eligible to receive a
performance-based annual cash bonus with a target payment equal
to 75% (250% effective January 1, 2007) of his annual
base salary to be based upon individual
and/or
company performance criteria as established by the board of
directors of Coffeyville Resources, LLC for each fiscal year.
For years prior to 2007, in addition to his annual bonus, Mr.
Lipinski was eligible to participate in any special bonus
program that the board of directors of Coffeyville Resources,
LLC implemented to reward senior management for extraordinary
performance on terms and conditions established by such board.
Mr. Lipinskis agreement provides for certain
severance payments that may be due following the termination of
his employment. These benefits are described below under
Change-in-Control and Termination Payments.
Stanley A. Riemann, James T. Rens, Robert W. Haugen and
Wyatt E. Jernigan. On July 12, 2005,
Coffeyville Resources, LLC entered into employment agreements
with each of Mr. Riemann, as Chief Operating Officer;
Mr. Rens, as Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Haugen, as
Executive Vice President Engineering and
Construction; and Mr. Jernigan, as Executive Vice
President Crude Oil Acquisition and Petroleum
Marketing. The agreements have a term of three years and expire
on June 24, 2008, unless otherwise terminated earlier by
the parties. The agreements provide for an annual base salary of
$350,000 for Mr. Riemann, $250,000 for Mr. Rens,
$225,000 for Mr. Haugen ($275,000 effective January 1,
2007) and $225,000 for Mr. Jernigan. Each executive
officer is eligible to receive a performance-based annual cash
bonus with a target payment equal to 52% of his annual base
salary (60% for Mr. Riemann) to be based upon individual
and/or
company performance criteria as established by the board of
directors of Coffeyville Resources, LLC for each fiscal year.
Effective January 1, 2007, the target annual bonus
percentages are as follows: Mr. Reimann (200%),
Mr. Rens (120%), Mr. Haugen (120%) and
Mr. Jernigan (100%). For years prior to 2007, in addition
to their annual bonuses, the executives were eligible to
participate in any special bonus program that the board of
directors of Coffeyville Resources, LLC implemented to reward
senior management for extraordinary performance on terms and
conditions established by the board of directors of Coffeyville
Resources, LLC. Mr. Riemanns agreement provides that
he will receive retention bonuses of approximately $245,833 in
the aggregate during the years 2006 and 2007.
These agreements provide for certain severance payments that may
be due following the termination of the executive officers
employment. These benefits are described below under
Change-in-Control and Termination Payments.
Long Term
Incentive Plan
Prior to the completion of this offering, we intend to adopt the
CVR Energy, Inc. 2007 Long Term Incentive Plan, or the LTIP, to
permit the grant of options, stock appreciation rights, or SARs,
restricted stock, restricted stock units, dividend equivalent
rights, share awards and performance awards (including
performance share units, performance units and performance-based
restricted stock). Individuals who will be eligible to receive
awards and grants under the LTIP include our and our
subsidiaries employees, officers, consultants, advisors
and directors. A summary of the principal features of the LTIP
is provided below.
188
Shares Available
for Issuance
The LTIP authorizes a share pool of 7,500,000 shares of our
common stock, 1,000,000 of which may be issued in respect of
incentive stock options. Whenever any outstanding award granted
under the LTIP expires, is canceled, is settled in cash or is
otherwise terminated for any reason without having been
exercised or payment having been made in respect of the entire
award, the number of shares available for issuance under the
LTIP shall be increased by the number of shares previously
allocable to the expired, canceled, settled or otherwise
terminated portion of the award.
Administration
and Eligibility
The LTIP would be administered by a committee, which would
initially be the compensation committee. The committee would
determine who is eligible to participate in the LTIP, determine
the types of awards to be granted, prescribe the terms and
conditions of all awards, and construe and interpret the terms
of the LTIP. All decisions made by the committee would be final,
binding and conclusive.
Award
Limits
In any three calendar year period, no participant may be granted
awards in respect of more than 6,000,000 shares in the form
of (i) stock options, (ii) SARs,
(iii) performance-based restricted stock and
(iv) performance share units, with the above limit subject
to the adjustment provisions discussed below. The maximum dollar
amount of cash or the fair market value of shares that any
participant may receive in any calendar year in respect of
performance units may not exceed $3,000,000.
Type of
Awards
Stock Options. The compensation committee is
authorized to grant stock options to participants. The stock
options may be either nonqualified stock options or incentive
stock options. The exercise price of any stock option must be
equal to or greater than the fair market value of a share on the
date the stock option is granted. The term of a stock option
cannot exceed ten (10) years (except that options may be
exercised for up to one (1) year following the death of a
participant even if such period extends beyond the ten
(10) year term). Subject to the terms of the LTIP, the
options terms and conditions, which include but are no
limited to, exercise price, vesting, treatment of the award upon
termination of employment, and expiration of the option, would
be determined by the committee and set forth in an award
agreement. Payment for shares purchased upon exercise of an
option must be made in full at the time of purchase. The
exercise price may be paid (i) in cash or its equivalent
(e.g., check), (ii) in shares of our common stock already
owned by the participant, on terms determined by the committee,
(iii) in the form of other property as determined by the
committee, (iv) through participation in a cashless
exercise procedure involving a broker or (v) by a
combination of the foregoing.
SARS. The compensation committee may, in its
discretion, either alone or in connection with the grant of an
option, grant a SAR to a participant. The terms and conditions
of the award would be set forth in an award agreement. SARs may
be exercised at such times and be subject to such other terms,
conditions, and provisions as the committee may impose. SARs
that are granted in tandem with an option may only be exercised
upon the surrender of the right to purchase an equivalent number
of shares of our common stock under the related option and may
be exercised only with respect to the shares of our common stock
for which the related option is then exercisable. The committee
may establish a maximum amount per share that would be payable
upon exercise of a SAR. A SAR would entitle the participant to
receive, on exercise of the SAR, an amount equal to the product
of (i) the excess of the fair market value of a share of
our common stock on the date preceding the date of surrender
over the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the
date the SAR was issued, or, if the SAR is related to an option,
the per-share exercise price of the option and (ii) the
number of shares of our common stock subject to the SAR or
portion thereof being
189
exercised. Subject to the discretion of the committee, payment
of a SAR may be made (i) in cash, (ii) in shares of
our common stock or (iii) in a combination of both
(i) and (ii).
Dividend Equivalent Rights. The compensation
committee may grant dividend equivalent rights either in tandem
with an award or as a separate award. The terms and conditions
applicable to each dividend equivalent right would be specified
in an award agreement. Amounts payable in respect of dividend
equivalent rights may be payable currently or, if applicable,
deferred until the lapsing of restrictions on the dividend
equivalent rights or until the vesting, exercise, payment,
settlement or other lapse of restrictions on the award to which
the dividend equivalent rights relate.
Service Based Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock
Units. The compensation committee may grant awards of
time-based restricted stock and restricted stock units.
Restricted stock and restricted stock units may not be sold,
transferred, pledged, or otherwise transferred until the time,
or until the satisfaction of such other terms, conditions, and
provisions, as the committee may determine. When the period of
restriction on restricted stock terminates, unrestricted shares
of our common stock would be delivered. Unless the committee
otherwise determines at the time of grant, restricted stock
carries with it full voting rights and other rights as a
stockholder, including rights to receive dividends and other
distributions. At the time an award of restricted stock is
granted, the committee may determine that the payment to the
participant of dividends would be deferred until the lapsing of
the restrictions imposed upon the shares and whether deferred
dividends are to be converted into additional shares of
restricted stock or held in cash. The deferred dividends would
be subject to the same forfeiture restrictions and restrictions
on transferability as the restricted stock with respect to which
they were paid. Each restricted stock unit would represent the
right of the participant to receive a payment upon vesting of
the restricted stock unit or on any later date specified by the
committee. The payment would equal the fair market value of a
share of common stock as of the date the restricted stock unit
was granted, the vesting date, or such other date as determined
by the committee at the time the restricted stock unit was
granted. At the time of grant, the committee may provide a
limitation on the amount payable in respect of each restricted
stock unit. The committee may provide for a payment in respect
of restricted stock unit awards (i) in cash or (ii) in
shares of our common stock having a fair market value equal to
the payment to which the participant has become entitled.
Share Awards. The compensation committee may
award shares to participants as additional compensation for
service to us or a subsidiary or in lieu of cash or other
compensation to which participants have become entitled. Share
awards may be subject to other terms and conditions, which may
vary from time to time and among participants, as the committee
determines to be appropriate.
Performance Share Units and Performance
Units. Performance share unit awards and
performance unit awards may be granted by the compensation
committee under the LTIP. Performance share units are
denominated in shares and represent the right to receive a
payment in an amount based on the fair market value of a share
on the date the performance share units were granted, become
vested or any other date specified by the committee, or a
percentage of such amount depending on the level of performance
goals attained. Performance units are denominated in a specified
dollar amount and represent the right to receive a payment of
the specified dollar amount or a percentage of the specified
dollar amount, depending on the level of performance goals
attained. Such awards would be earned only if performance goals
established for performance periods are met. A minimum one-year
performance period is required. At the time of grant the
committee may establish a maximum amount payable in respect of a
vested performance share or performance unit. The committee may
provide for payment (i) in cash, (ii) in shares of our
common stock having a fair market value equal to the payment to
which the participant has become entitled or (iii) by a
combination of both (i) and (ii).
Performance-Based Restricted Stock. The
compensation committee may grant awards of performance-based
restricted stock. The terms and conditions of such award would
be set forth in an award agreement. Such awards would be earned
only if performance goals established for performance periods
are met. Upon the lapse of the restrictions, the committee would
deliver a stock
190
certificate or evidence of book entry shares to the participant.
Awards of performance-based restricted stock would be subject to
a minimum one-year performance cycle. At the time an award of
performance-based restricted stock is granted, the committee may
determine that the payment to the participant of dividends would
be deferred until the lapsing of the restrictions imposed upon
the performance-based restricted stock and whether deferred
dividends are to be converted into additional shares of
performance-based restricted stock or held in cash.
Performance
Objectives
Performance share units, performance units and performance-based
restricted stock awards under the LTIP may be made subject to
the attainment of performance goals based on one or more of the
following business criteria: (i) stock price;
(ii) earnings per share; (iii) operating income;
(iv) return on equity or assets; (v) cash flow;
(vi) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization, or EBITDA; (vii) revenues;
(viii) overall revenue or sales growth; (ix) expense
reduction or management; (x) market position;
(xi) total stockholder return; (xii) return on
investment; (xiii) earnings before interest and taxes, or
EBIT; (xiv) net income; (xv) return on net assets;
(xvi) economic value added; (xvii) stockholder value
added; (xviii) cash flow return on investment;
(xix) net operating profit; (xx) net operating profit
after tax; (xxi) return on capital; (xxii) return on
invested capital; or (xxiii) any combination, including one
or more ratios, of the foregoing.
Performance criteria may be in respect of our performance, that
of any of our subsidiaries, that of any of our divisions or any
combination of the foregoing. Performance criteria may be
absolute or relative (to our prior performance or to the
performance of one or more other entities or external indices)
and may be expressed in terms of a progression within a
specified range. The compensation committee may, at the time
performance criteria in respect of a performance award are
established, provide for the manner in which performance will be
measured against the performance criteria to reflect the effects
of extraordinary items, gain or loss on the disposal of a
business segment (other than the provisions for operating losses
or income during the phase-out), unusual or infrequently
occurring events and transactions that have been publicly
disclosed, changes in accounting principles, the impact of
specified corporate transactions (such as a stock split or stock
divided), special charges and tax law changes, all as determined
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (to
the extent applicable).
Amendment and
Termination of the LTIP
Our board of directors has the right to amend the LTIP except
that our board of directors may not amend the LTIP in a manner
that would impair or adversely affect the rights of the holder
of an award without the award holders consent. In
addition, our board of directors may not amend the LTIP absent
stockholder approval to the extent such approval is required by
applicable law, regulation or exchange requirement. The LTIP
will terminate on the tenth anniversary of the date of
stockholder approval. The board of directors may terminate the
LTIP at any earlier time except that termination cannot in any
manner impair or adversely affect the rights of the holder of an
award without the award holders consent.
Repricing of
Options or SARs
Unless our stockholders approve such adjustment, the
compensation committee would not have authority to make any
adjustments to options or SARs that would reduce or would have
the effect of reducing the exercise price of an option or SAR
previously granted under the LTIP.
Change in
Control
The effect, if any, of a change in control on each of the awards
granted under the LTIP may be set forth in the applicable award
agreement.
191
Adjustments
In the event of a reclassification, recapitalization, merger,
consolidation, reorganization, spin-off, split-up, stock
dividend, stock split or reverse stock split, or similar
transaction or other change in corporate structure affecting our
common stock, adjustments and other substitutions will be made
to the LTIP, including adjustments in the maximum number of
shares subject to the LTIP and other numerical limitations.
Adjustments will also be made to awards under the LTIP as the
compensation committee determines appropriate. In the event of
our merger or consolidation, liquidation or dissolution,
outstanding options and awards will either be treated as
provided for in the agreement entered into in connection with
the transaction (which may include the accelerated vesting and
cancellation of the options and SARs or the cancellation of
options and SARs for payment of the excess, if any, of the
consideration paid to stockholders in the transaction over the
exercise price of the options or SARs), or converted into
options or awards in respect of the same securities, cash,
property or other consideration that stockholders received in
connection with the transaction.
Executives
Interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
The following is a summary of the material terms of the
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC Second Amended and Restated Limited
Liability Company Agreement, or the LLC Agreement, as they
relate to the limited liability company interests granted to our
named executive officers pursuant to the LLC Agreement as of
December 31, 2006.
As part of the Transactions, half of the common units and
override units in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC held by each
executive officer will be redeemed in exchange for an equal
number of common units and override units in Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC so that, following the consummation of
the Transactions, such executive officer will hold an equal
number and type of limited liability interests in both
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC. The common units and override units in Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC will have the same rights and
obligations as the common units and override units in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
General
The LLC Agreement provides for two classes of interests in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC: (i) common units and
(ii) profits interests, which are called override units
(which consist of either operating units or value units) (common
units and override units are collectively referred to as
units). The common units provide for voting rights
and have rights with respect to profits and losses of, and
distributions from, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. Such voting
rights cease, however, if the executive officer holding common
units ceases to provide services to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
or one of its subsidiaries. The common units were issued to our
named executive officers in the following amounts (as
subsequently adjusted) in exchange for capital contributions in
the following amounts: Mr. Lipinski (capital contribution
of $650,000 in exchange for 57,446 units), Mr. Riemann
(capital contribution of $400,000 in exchange for
35,352 units), Mr. Rens (capital contribution of
$250,000 in exchange for 22,095 units), Mr. Haugen
(capital contribution of $100,000 in exchange for
8,838 units) and Mr. Jernigan (capital contribution of
$100,000 in exchange for 8,838 units). These named
executive officers were also granted override units, which
consist of operating units and value units, in the following
amounts: Mr. Lipinski (an initial grant of 315,818
operating units and 631,637 value units and a December 2006
grant of 72,492 operating units and 144,966 value units),
Mr. Riemann (140,185 operating units and 280,371 value
units), Mr. Rens (71,965 operating units and 143,931 value
units), Mr. Haugen (71,965 operating units and 143,931
value units) and Mr. Jernigan (71,965 operating units and
143,931 value units). Override units have no voting rights
attached to them, but have rights with respect to profits and
losses of, and distributions from, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
Our named executive officers were not required to make any
capital contribution with respect to the override units;
override units were issued only to certain members of management
who own common units and who agreed to provide services to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
192
In addition, common units were issued to the following executive
officers in the following amounts (as subsequently adjusted) in
exchange for the following capital contributions: Mr. Kevan
Vick (capital contribution of $250,000 in exchange for
22,095 units), Mr. Edmund Gross (capital contribution
of $30,000 in exchange for 2,651 units) and Mr. Chris
Swanberg (capital contribution of $25,000 in exchange for
2,209 units). Mr. Vick was also granted 71,965
operating units and 143,931 value units.
If all of the shares of common stock of our Company held by
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC were sold at $20.00 per share,
which is the assumed initial public offering price in this
offering, and cash was distributed to members pursuant to the
LLC Agreement, our named executive officers would receive a cash
payment in respect of their override units in the following
approximate amounts: Mr. Lipinski ($54.7 million),
Mr. Riemann ($21.6 million), Mr. Rens
($11.1 million), Mr. Haugen ($11.1 million), and
Mr. Jernigan ($11.1 million).
Forfeiture of
Override Units Upon Termination of Employment
If the executive officer ceases to provide services to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC or a subsidiary due to a termination
for cause (as such term is defined in the LLC
Agreement), the executive officer will forfeit all of his
override units. If the executive officer ceases to provide
services for any reason other than cause before the fifth
anniversary of the date of grant of his operating units, and
provided that an event that is an Exit Event (as
such term is defined in the LLC Agreement) has not yet occurred
and there is no definitive agreement in effect regarding a
transaction that would constitute an Exit Event, then
(a) unless the termination was due to the executive
officers death or disability (as that term is
defined in the LLC Agreement), in which case a different vesting
schedule will apply based on when the death or disability
occurs, all value units will be forfeited and (b) a
percentage of the operating units will be forfeited according to
the following schedule: if terminated before the second
anniversary of the date of grant, 100% of operating units are
forfeited; if terminated on or after the second anniversary of
the date of grant, but before the third anniversary of the date
of grant, 75% of operating units are forfeited; if terminated on
or after the third anniversary of the date of grant, but before
the fourth anniversary of the date of grant, 50% of operating
units are forfeited; and if terminated on or after the fourth
anniversary of the date of grant, but before the fifth
anniversary of the date of grant, 25% of his operating units are
forfeited.
Adjustments to
Capital Accounts; Distributions
Each of the executive officers has a capital account under which
his balance is increased or decreased, as applicable, to reflect
his allocable share of net income and gross income of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, the capital that the executive
officer contributed, distributions paid to such executive
officer and his allocable share of net loss and items of gross
deduction.
Value units owned by the executive officers do not participate
in distributions under the LLC Agreement until the Current
Value is at least two times the Initial Price
(as these terms are defined in the LLC Agreement), with full
participation occurring when the Current Value is four times the
Initial Price and pro rata distributions when the Current Value
is between two and four times the Initial Price. Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC may make distributions to its members to the
extent that the cash available to it is in excess of the
businesss reasonably anticipated needs. Distributions are
generally made to members capital accounts in proportion
to the number of units each member holds. Distributions in
respect of override units (both operating units and value
units), however, will be reduced until the total reductions in
proposed distributions in respect of the override units equals
the Benchmark Amount (i.e., $11.31 for override units granted on
July 25, 2005 and $34.72 for Mr. Lipinskis later
grant). The board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
will determine the Benchmark Amount with respect to
each override unit at the time of its grant. There is also a
catch-up
provision with respect to any value unit that was not previously
entitled to participate in a distribution because the Current
Value was not at least four times the Initial Price.
193
Other Provisions
Relating to Units
The executive officers are subject to transfer restrictions on
their units, although they may make certain transfers of their
units for estate planning purposes.
Executives
Interests in Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC
Following the consummation of this offering, Coffeyville
Acquisition III LLC, the sole parent of the managing general
partner of the Partnership, will be owned by the Goldman Sachs
Funds, the Kelso Funds, our executive officers, Mr. Wesley
Clark, Magnetite Asset Investors III L.L.C. and other members of
our management. The terms of the limited liability company
agreement for Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC will be
substantially the same as the terms of the LLC Agreement except
that there will be a single class of override units and such
override units will have the same rights as value units under
the LLC Agreement, will have rights with respect to profits and
losses of, and distributions from, Coffeyville Acquisition III
LLC, will not be subject to forfeiture upon termination of
employment and will fully participate in distributions by
Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC when the Current
Value is at least equal to the Initial Price
(as these terms will be defined in the Limited Liability Company
Agreement of Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC).
Our executive officers will make the following capital
contributions to Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC and
will receive a number of common units equal to their pro rata
portion of the total $10.6 million contributed:
Mr. Lipinski ($26,500), Mr. Riemann ($15,900),
Mr. Rens ($10,600), Mr. Gross ($1,060),
Mr. Haugen ($4,240), Mr. Jernigan ($4,240),
Mr. Vick ($10,600) and Mr. Swanberg ($1,060). The
managing general partner also intends to award value units to
these officers in amounts to be determined.
Coffeyville
Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan I)
and
Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan
(Plan II)
The following is a summary of the material terms of the
Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan
(Plan I), or the Phantom Unit Plan I, and the
Coffeyville Resources LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan
(Plan II), or the Phantom Unit Plan II, as they relate
or will relate to our named executive officers. Payments under
the Phantom Unit Plan I are tied to distributions made by
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, and payments under the Phantom Unit
Plan II will be tied to distributions made by Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC.
In connection with the Transactions and prior to the
consummation of this offering, because our named executive
officers will hold interests in both Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, we intend to adopt the
Phantom Unit Plan II at Coffeyville Resources, LLC which
will be tied to distributions made by Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC and be parallel to the Phantom Unit Plan I. The rights
and obligations under the Phantom Unit Plan II with respect
to Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC will be the same as the rights
and obligations under the Phantom Unit Plan I with respect
to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. The following description
generally reflects only the terms of the Phantom Unit
Plan I, but the Phantom Unit Plan II will have
parallel provisions.
General
The Phantom Unit Plan I is administered by the compensation
committee of the board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC. The Phantom Unit Plan I provides for two classes of
interests: phantom service points and phantom performance points
(collectively referred to as phantom points). Holders of the
phantom service points and phantom performance points have the
opportunity to receive a cash payment when distributions are
made pursuant to the LLC Agreement in respect of operating units
and value units, respectively. The phantom points represent a
contractual right to receive a payment when payment is made in
respect of certain profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC. Phantom points have been granted to our named executive
officers in the following amounts: Mr. Lipinski (1,368,571
phantom service points and 1,368,571 phantom performance points,
194
which represents 13.7% of the total phantom points awarded),
Mr. Riemann (596,133 phantom service points and 596,133
phantom performance points, which represents 6.0% of the total
phantom points awarded), Mr. Rens (495,238 phantom service
points and 495,238 phantom performance points, which represents
5.0% of the total phantom points awarded), Mr. Haugen
(495,238 phantom service points and 495,238 phantom performance
points, which represents 5.0% of the total phantom points
awarded) and Mr. Jernigan (148,571 phantom service points
and 148,571 phantom performance points, which represents 1.5% of
the total phantom points awarded). Our named executive officers
will receive phantom points under the Phantom Unit Plan II
in the same amounts. If all of the shares of common stock of our
company held by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC were sold at $20.00 per share, which is the
assumed initial public offering price in this offering, and cash
was distributed to members pursuant to the LLC Agreement and the
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC Agreement, our named executive
officers would receive a cash payment in respect of their
phantom points in the following amounts: Mr. Lipinski
($7.4 million), Mr. Riemann ($3.2 million),
Mr. Rens ($2.7 million), Mr. Haugen
($2.7 million) and Mr. Jernigan ($0.8 million).
The compensation committee of the board of directors of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC has authority to make additional
awards of phantom points under the Phantom Unit Plan I.
Phantom Point
Payments
Payments in respect of phantom service points will be made
within 30 days from the date distributions are made
pursuant to the LLC Agreement in respect of operating units.
Cash payments in respect of phantom performance points will be
made within 30 days from the date distributions are made
pursuant to the LLC Agreement in respect of value units (i.e.,
not until the Current Value is at least two times
the Initial Price (as such terms are defined in the
LLC Agreement), with full participation occurring when the
Current Value is four times the Initial Price and pro rata
distributions when the Current Value is between two and four
times the Initial Price). There is also a
catch-up
provision with respect to phantom performance points for which
no cash payment was made because no distribution pursuant to the
LLC Agreement was made with respect to value units.
Other Provisions
Relating to the Phantom Points
The board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC may, at
any time or from time to time, amend or terminate the Phantom
Unit Plan I. If a participants employment is terminated
prior to an Exit Event (as such term is defined in
the LLC Agreement), all of the participants phantom points
are forfeited. Phantom points are generally non-transferable
(except by will or the laws of descent and distribution). If
payment to a participant in respect of his phantom points would
result in the application of the excise tax imposed under
Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, then the payment will be cut back so that
it will no longer be subject to the excise tax.
CVR GP, LLC
Profit Bonus Plan
The following is a summary of the material terms of the CVR GP,
LLC Profit Bonus Plan, or the bonus plan, which the managing
general partner of the MLP intends to adopt prior to the
consummation of this offering, as those terms relate to our
named executive officers. Payments under the bonus plan will
relate to distributions made by Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC.
General
The bonus plan will be administered by the compensation
committee of the managing general partner of the Partnership.
The bonus plan provides a class of interests called bonus
points. Holders of bonus points will receive a cash payment when
distributions of profit are made pursuant to the Coffeyville
Acquisition III Limited Liability Company Agreement, or the
Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC Agreement. The bonus points
represent a contractual right to receive a payment when a profit
distribution is made to the holders of the interests in
Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC. The managing general partner of
the MLP intends to allocate bonus points to our named executive
officers when the
195
bonus plan is adopted. 1,000,000 bonus points will be available
for grant under the bonus plan. Any employee of Coffeyville
Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC or any of its affiliates, or
any employee of any entity providing services to the Partnership
or Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, is eligible
to participate. The compensation committee of the managing
general partner of the Partnership will have the authority to
make initial awards and additional awards in the future. CVR
will not make any direct payments under this plan.
Bonus Point
Payments
Payments in respect of bonus points will be made within
30 days from the date distributions of profit are made
pursuant to the Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC Agreement. When
each distribution is made, a bonus pool will be created which
will equal 4.069% of the profits distributed. If such a
distribution is made and the bonus pool is funded, participants
will share proportionately in the pool based on the percentage
of the available bonus points they were granted in relation to
the total number of bonus points issued.
Other Provisions
Relating to the Bonus Points
The managing general partner of the Partnership may, at any time
or from time to time, amend or terminate the plan. If a
participants employment is terminated, all of the
participants bonus points are forfeited. Bonus points are
non-transferable. If payment to a participant in respect of
bonus points would result in the application of the excise tax
imposed under Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, then the payment will be
cut back so that it will no longer be subject
to the excise tax.
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
Awards
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
or Units of
|
|
|
Market Value of
Shares or Units
|
|
|
|
Stock That Have
Not Vested
|
|
|
of Stock That
Have Not Vested
|
|
Name
|
|
(1) (2)
(12)
|
|
|
(11)
|
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
|
|
947,455
|
(3)
|
|
$
|
28,038,350
|
|
|
|
|
217,458
|
(4)
|
|
$
|
1,417,826
|
|
|
|
|
2,737,142
|
(5)
|
|
$
|
4,252,562
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
|
420,556
|
(6)
|
|
$
|
12,445,652
|
|
|
|
|
1,192,266
|
(7)
|
|
$
|
1,852,367
|
|
James T. Rens
|
|
|
215,896
|
(8)
|
|
$
|
6,389,080
|
|
|
|
|
990,476
|
(9)
|
|
$
|
1,538,851
|
|
Robert W. Haugen
|
|
|
215,896
|
(8)
|
|
$
|
6,389,080
|
|
|
|
|
990,476
|
(9)
|
|
$
|
1,538,851
|
|
Wyatt E. Jernigan
|
|
|
215,896
|
(8)
|
|
$
|
6,389,080
|
|
|
|
|
297,142
|
(10)
|
|
$
|
461,656
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC generally
vest as follows: operating units generally become
non-forfeitable in 25% annual increments beginning on the second
anniversary of the date of grant, and value units are generally
forfeitable upon termination of employment. The profits
interests are more fully described above under
Executives Interests in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC. |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
The phantom points granted pursuant to the Coffeyville
Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan I) are
generally forfeitable upon termination of employment. The
phantom points are more fully described above under
Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit
Appreciation Plan (Plan I) and Coffeyville Resources
Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan II). |
196
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Represents profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
(315,818 operating units and 631,637 value units) granted to the
executive on June 24, 2005. These profits interests have
been transferred to trusts for the benefit of members of
Mr. Lipinskis family. |
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Represents profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
(72,492 operating units and 144,966 value units) granted to the
executive on December 28, 2006. These profits interests
have been transferred to trusts for the benefit of members of
Mr. Lipinskis family. |
|
|
|
(5) |
|
Represents phantom points (1,368,571 phantom service points and
1,368,571 phantom performance points) granted to the executive
on December 11, 2006. |
|
(6) |
|
Represents profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
(140,185 operating units and 280,371 value units) granted to the
executive on June 24, 2005. |
|
(7) |
|
Represents phantom points (596,133 phantom service points and
596,133 phantom performance points) granted to the executive on
December 11, 2006. |
|
(8) |
|
Represents profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
(71,965 operating units and 143,931 value units) granted to the
executive on June 24, 2005. |
|
(9) |
|
Represents phantom points (495,238 phantom service points and
495,238 phantom performance points) granted to the executive on
December 11, 2006. |
|
(10) |
|
Represents phantom points (148,571 phantom service points and
148,571 phantom performance points) granted to the executive on
December 11, 2006. |
|
(11) |
|
The dollar amount shown reflects the fair value as of
December 31, 2006, based upon an independent valuation
prepared with a combination of a binomial model and a
probability-weighted expected return method. Assumptions used in
the calculation of this amount are included in footnote 5 to our
audited financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2006. |
|
(12) |
|
Following the consummation of the Transactions, each of the
named executive officers will hold half of the number of profits
interests set forth above in each of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC. |
Option Exercises
and Stock Vested
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
Awards
|
|
|
Number of
Shares
|
|
Value Realized
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
on Vesting
|
Name
|
|
on
Vesting (#)
|
|
($)
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
|
(1)
|
|
4,326,188(1)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Lipinski received a grant of shares of common stock of each
of Coffeyville Refining and Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc. effective December 28, 2006.
These shares were fully vested as of the date of grant. The
number of shares of Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc.
granted was 0.2125376, which approximated 0.64% of the total
shares outstanding. The number of shares of Coffeyville Refining
and Marketing, Inc. granted was 0.1044200, which approximated
0.31% of the total shares outstanding. Prior to the consummation
of this offering, Mr. Lipinskis shares of common stock of
each of Coffeyville Refining and Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc. will be exchanged for shares of common
stock of CVR Energy having an equivalent value. |
Change-in-Control
and Termination Payments
Severance
Benefits Provided Pursuant to Employment
Agreements
Under the terms of their respective employment agreements, the
named executive officers may be entitled to severance and other
benefits following the termination of their employment. These
benefits are summarized below. The amounts of potential
post-employment
payments assume that the triggering event took place on
December 31, 2006.
197
If Mr. Lipinskis employment is terminated either by
Coffeyville Resources, LLC without cause and other than for
disability or by Mr. Lipinski for good reason (as these
terms are defined in Mr. Lipinskis employment
agreement), then Mr. Lipinski is entitled to receive as
severance (a) salary continuation for 36 months and
(b) the continuation of medical benefits for thirty-six
months at active-employee rates or until such time as
Mr. Lipinski becomes eligible for medical benefits from a
subsequent employer. The estimated total amounts of these
payments are set forth in the table below. As a condition to
receiving the salary continuation and continuation of medical
benefits, Mr. Lipinski must (a) execute, deliver and
not revoke a general release of claims and (b) abide by
restrictive covenants as detailed below. If
Mr. Lipinskis employment is terminated as a result of
his disability, then in addition to any payments to be made to
Mr. Lipinski under disability plan(s), Mr. Lipinski is
entitled to supplemental disability payments equal to, in the
aggregate, Mr. Lipinskis base salary as in effect
immediately before his disability (the estimated total amount of
this payment is set forth in the table below). Such supplemental
disability payments will be made in installments for a period of
36 months from the date of disability. If
Mr. Lipinskis employment is terminated at any time by
reason of his death, then Mr. Lipinskis beneficiary
(or his estate) will be paid the base salary Mr. Lipinski
would have received had he remained employed through the
remaining term of his contract. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
Coffeyville Resources, LLC may, at its option, purchase
insurance to cover the obligations with respect to either
Mr. Lipinskis supplemental disability payments or the
payments due to Mr. Lipinskis beneficiary or estate
by reason of his death. Mr. Lipinski will be required to
cooperate in obtaining such insurance. If any payments or
distributions due to Mr. Lipinski would be subject to the
excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, then such payments or
distributions will be cutback so that they will no
longer be subject to the excise tax.
The agreement requires Mr. Lipinski to abide by a perpetual
restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure. The agreement
also includes covenants relating to non-solicitation and
non-competition during Mr. Lipinskis employment and,
following termination of employment, for as long as he is
receiving severance or supplemental disability payments or one
year if he is receiving none.
If the employment of Mr. Riemann, Mr. Rens,
Mr. Haugen or Mr. Jernigan is terminated either by
Coffeyville Resources, LLC without cause and other than for
disability or by the executive officer for good reason (as such
terms are defined in the respective employment agreements), then
the executive officer is entitled to receive as severance
(a) salary continuation for 12 months (18 months
for Mr. Riemann) and (b) the continuation of medical
benefits for 12 months (18 months for
Mr. Riemann) at active-employee rates or until such time as
the executive officer becomes eligible for medical benefits from
a subsequent employer. The amount of these payments is set forth
in the table below. As a condition to receiving the salary, the
executives must (a) execute, deliver and not revoke a
general release of claims and (b) abide by restrictive
covenants as detailed below. The agreements provide that if any
payments or distributions due to an executive officer would be
subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the
Internal Revenue Code, as amended, then such payments or
distributions will be cutback so that they will no
longer be subject to the excise tax.
The agreements require each of the executive officers to abide
by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure.
The agreements also include covenants relating to
non-solicitation and non-competition during their employment
and, following termination of employment, for one year (for
Mr. Riemann, the applicable period is during his employment
and, following termination of employment, for as long as he is
receiving severance, or one year if he is receiving none).
Below is a table setting forth the estimated aggregate amount of
the payments discussed above assuming a December 31, 2006
termination date (and, where applicable, no offset due to
eligibility to receive medical benefits from a subsequent
employer). The table assumes that the executive officers
termination was by Coffeyville Resources, LLC without cause or
by the executive officers for good reason, and in the case of
Mr. Lipinski also provides information assuming his
termination was due to his disability.
198
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Dollar
Value of
|
Name
|
|
Total
Severance Payments
|
|
Medical
Benefits
|
|
John J. Lipinski (severance if
terminated without cause or resigns for good reason)
|
|
$
|
1,950,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,307
|
|
John J. Lipinski (supplemental
disability payments if terminated due to disability)
|
|
$
|
650,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
$
|
525,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,154
|
|
James T. Rens
|
|
$
|
250,000
|
|
|
$
|
9,713
|
|
Robert W. Haugen
|
|
$
|
225,000
|
|
|
$
|
9,713
|
|
Wyatt E. Jernigan
|
|
$
|
225,000
|
|
|
$
|
3,154
|
|
Director
Compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or
Paid
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Name
|
|
in
Cash
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Total
|
|
Wesley Clark
|
|
$
|
40,000
|
|
|
$
|
257,352
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
297,352
|
|
Scott Lebovitz, George E.
Matelich, Stanley de J. Osborne and Kenneth A. Pontarelli
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Clark was awarded 244,038 phantom service points and
244,038 phantom performance points under the Coffeyville
Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Plan (Plan I) in September
2005. Collectively, Mr. Clarks phantom points
represent 2.44% of the total phantom points awarded. The value
of the interest was $71,234 on the grant date. In accordance
with SFAS 123(R), we apply a fair-value-based measurement
method in accounting for share-based issuance of the phantom
points. An independent third-party valuation is performed at the
end of each reporting period using a binomial model based on
company projections of undiscounted future cash flows.
Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are
included in footnote 5 to our audited financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 2006. The phantom points are more
fully described above under Coffeyville
Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan I) and
Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan
(Plan II). |
Non-employee directors who do not work principally for entities
affiliated with us were entitled to receive an annual retainer
of $40,000 in 2006 and are entitled to receive an annual
retainer of $60,000 in 2007. In addition, all directors are
reimbursed for travel expenses and other
out-of-pocket
costs incurred in connection with their attendance at meetings.
Effective January 1, 2007, Mark Tomkins joined our board of
directors. Mr. Tomkins was elected as the chairman of the
audit committee and in that role he receives an additional
annual retainer of $15,000. Messrs. Lebovitz, Matelich,
Osborne and Pontarelli received no compensation in respect of
their service as directors in 2006.
In connection with this offering, we intend to grant
12,500 shares of non-vested restricted stock of CVR Energy
to Mr. Tomkins and 5,000 shares of non-vested restricted
stock of CVR Energy to Mr. Lippert. The restrictions on
these shares will generally lapse in
one-third
annual increments beginning on the first anniversary of the date
of grant. In addition to the annual retainer described above, we
intend to make a grant to each of Mr. Tomkins and
Mr. Lippert of an option to purchase 5,150 shares of CVR
Energy with an exercise price equal to the initial public
offering price. These options will generally vest in
one-third
annual increments beginning on the first anniversary of the date
of grant.
199
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
Mr. Lipinski, our chief executive officer, served on the
compensation committee of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC during
2005 and 2006. Mr. Lipinski is also a director and serves
on the compensation committee of Intercat Inc., a privately held
company of which Regis B. Lippert, who serves as a director
on our board of directors, is the chief executive officer.
Otherwise, no interlocking relationship exists between our board
of directors or compensation committee and the board of
directors or compensation committee of any other company.
Employee Stock
Grants
In connection with this offering, we plan to grant
50 shares of common stock in CVR Energy to each of our
employees who does not currently have either phantom points or
override units. This group, which currently consists of
543 employees, will receive 27,150 shares. In
addition, we plan to award each of these employees a cash
payment of $500. Because all of the named executive officers
currently own phantom points and override units, none will be
part of this program.
200
PRINCIPAL AND SELLING STOCKHOLDERS
The following table presents information regarding beneficial
ownership of our common stock by:
|
|
|
|
|
each of our directors;
|
|
|
|
each of our named executive officers;
|
|
|
|
each stockholder known by us to beneficially hold five percent
or more of our common stock;
|
|
|
|
|
|
each selling stockholder; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
all of our executive officers and directors as a group.
|
Beneficial ownership is determined under the rules of the SEC
and generally includes voting or investment power with respect
to securities. Unless indicated below, to our knowledge, the
persons and entities named in the table have sole voting and
sole investment power with respect to all shares beneficially
owned, subject to community property laws where applicable.
Shares of common stock subject to options that are currently
exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of the date of
this prospectus are deemed to be outstanding and to be
beneficially owned by the person holding such options for the
purpose of computing the percentage ownership of that person but
are not treated as outstanding for the purpose of computing the
percentage ownership of any other person. Except as otherwise
indicated, the business address for each of our beneficial
owners is c/o CVR Energy, Inc., 2277 Plaza Drive,
Suite 500, Sugar Land, Texas 77479.
Prior to this offering, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC owned 100% of our outstanding
common stock. Following the closing of this offering, each of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC will own 32,930,996 shares of our common stock, or
approximately 40.3% of our outstanding common stock, and the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds, along with certain
members of management, will beneficially own their interests in
our common stock set forth below through their ownership of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and/or Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC, as applicable. John J. Lipinski
will own a portion of his shares in us directly and a portion
indirectly through his interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC. Unless otherwise indicated,
information in the table below for the Goldman Sachs Funds, the
Kelso Funds and our officers and directors reflects the number
of shares of our common stock that correspond to each named
holders economic interest in common units in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC or Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, as
applicable, and does not reflect any interest in operating
override units and value override units in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and/or Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, as
applicable. Management will not have the right to vote or
dispose of shares held by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC or
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, and thus will not have
beneficial ownership of such shares, but will receive net
proceeds upon the sale of shares by such entities in an amount
based on their interest in the common units and override units
of such entities.
201
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially
|
|
To Be Sold
|
|
Shares Beneficially
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially
|
|
Owned After this Offering
|
|
If the
|
|
Owned After this Offering
|
|
|
Owned Prior
|
|
Assuming the
|
|
Underwriters
|
|
Assuming the
|
|
|
to this
|
|
Underwriters Option Is
|
|
Option Is
|
|
Underwriters Option Is
|
|
|
Offering
|
|
Not Exercised(1)
|
|
Exercised In Full(1)
|
|
Exercised In Full (1)
|
Name and Address
|
|
Number
|
|
Percent
|
|
Number
|
|
Percent
|
|
Number
|
|
Number
|
|
Percent
|
|
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC(2)(3)
|
|
|
32,930,996
|
|
|
|
49.8
|
|
|
|
32,930,996
|
|
|
|
40.3
|
|
|
|
1,162,500
|
|
|
|
31,894,721
|
|
|
|
39.1
|
|
Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC(4)(5)
|
|
|
32,930,996
|
|
|
|
49.8
|
|
|
|
32,930,996
|
|
|
|
40.3
|
|
|
|
1,162,500
|
|
|
|
31,894,721
|
|
|
|
39.1
|
|
The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc.(4)
|
|
|
32,608,906
|
|
|
|
49.3
|
|
|
|
32,608,906
|
|
|
|
39.9
|
|
|
|
1,151,129
|
|
|
|
31,457,777
|
|
|
|
38.5
|
|
85 Broad Street
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, New York 10004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kelso Investment
Associates VII, L.P.
|
|
|
25,727,939
|
|
|
|
38.9
|
|
|
|
25,727,939
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
908,223
|
|
|
|
24,819,716
|
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
KEP VI, LLC(2)
|
|
|
6,370,727
|
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
6,370,727
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
224,894
|
|
|
|
6,145,833
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
320 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York, New York 10022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John J. Lipinski(6)
|
|
|
418,275
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
418,275
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
5,854
|
|
|
|
412,421
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann(7)
|
|
|
102,049
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
102,049
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
3,602
|
|
|
|
98,447
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
James T. Rens(7)
|
|
|
63,780
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
63,780
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
2,252
|
|
|
|
61,529
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Edmund S. Gross(7)
|
|
|
7,653
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
7,653
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
270
|
|
|
|
7,383
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Robert W. Haugen(7)
|
|
|
25,512
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
25,512
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
901
|
|
|
|
24,611
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Wyatt E. Jernigan(7)
|
|
|
25,512
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
25,512
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
901
|
|
|
|
24,611
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Kevan A. Vick(7)
|
|
|
63,781
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
63,781
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
2,252
|
|
|
|
61,529
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Christopher G. Swanberg(7)
|
|
|
6,377
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
6,377
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
225
|
|
|
|
6,152
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Wesley Clark(7)
|
|
|
63,781
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
63,781
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
2,252
|
|
|
|
61,529
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Scott Lebovitz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regis B. Lippert(8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
George E. Matelich(2)
|
|
|
32,098,666
|
|
|
|
48.5
|
|
|
|
32,098,666
|
|
|
|
39.3
|
|
|
|
1,133,117
|
|
|
|
30,965,550
|
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
Stanley de J. Osborne
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth A. Pontarelli(4)
|
|
|
32,608,906
|
|
|
|
49.3
|
|
|
|
32,608,906
|
|
|
|
39.9
|
|
|
|
1,151,129
|
|
|
|
31,457,775
|
|
|
|
38.5
|
|
Mark Tomkins(9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
All directors and executive
officers, as a group (14 persons)
|
|
|
65,501,792
|
|
|
|
99.0
|
|
|
|
65,501,792
|
|
|
|
80.2
|
|
|
|
2,302,755
|
|
|
|
63,181,537
|
|
|
|
77.4
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The underwriters have an option to purchase up to an additional
2,325,000 shares from the selling stockholders in this
offering. If the underwriters exercise this option, shares would
be sold to the underwriters by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC in equal proportion and
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC would distribute the proceeds to their respective members. |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC directly owns 32,930,996 shares
of common stock. The number of shares indicated as owned by the
Kelso Funds reflects the number of shares of common stock that
corresponds to the number of common units held by the Kelso
Funds in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. With respect to the total
number of shares of common stock deemed to be beneficially owned
prior to this offering, the share amount includes
(1) 25,727,939 shares of common stock deemed to be
beneficially owned by Kelso Investment Associates VII,
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, or KIA VII, and
(2) 6,370,727 shares of common stock deemed to be
beneficially owned by KEP VI, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, or KEP VI. KIA VII and KEP VI,
due to their common control, could be deemed to beneficially own
each of the others shares but each disclaims such
beneficial ownership. Shares and percentages indicated represent |
202
|
|
|
|
|
the upper limit of the expected ownership of our equity
securities by these persons and entities. Messrs. Nickell,
Wall, Matelich, Goldberg, Wahrhaftig, Bynum, Berney, Loverro and
Connors may be deemed to share beneficial ownership of shares of
common stock owned of record, by virtue of their status as
managing members of KEP VI and of Kelso GP VII,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the principal
business of which is serving as the general partner of
Kelso GP VII, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,
the principal business of which is serving as the general
partner of KIA VII. Each of Messrs. Nickell, Wall,
Matelich, Goldberg, Wahrhaftig, Bynum, Berney, Loverro and
Connors share investment and voting power with respect to the
ownership interests owned by KIA VII and KEP VI but
disclaim beneficial ownership of such interests. If the
underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares
in full, (i) 908,223 shares of common stock will be
sold in respect of member units owned by KIA VII and
(ii) 224,894 shares of common stock will be sold in
respect of member units owned by KEP VI. |
|
|
|
(3) |
|
The board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC has the
power to dispose of the securities of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC. |
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC directly owns 32,930,996 shares
of common stock. The number of shares indicated as owned by The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. reflects the number of shares of
common stock that corresponds to the number of common units held
by the Goldman Sachs Funds in Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and certain affiliates, including
Goldman, Sachs & Co., may be deemed to directly or
indirectly own in the aggregate 32,608,906 shares of common
stock which are deemed to be beneficially owned directly or
indirectly by investment partnerships, which we refer to as the
Goldman Sachs Funds, of which affiliates of The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are the general
partner, managing limited partner or the managing partner.
Goldman, Sachs & Co. is the investment manager for
certain of the Goldman Sachs Funds. Goldman, Sachs &
Co. is a direct and indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. and the Goldman Sachs Funds share
voting power and investment power with certain of their
respective affiliates. Shares deemed to be beneficially owned by
the Goldman Sachs Funds consist of:
(1) 17,170,547 shares of common stock deemed to be
beneficially owned by GS Capital Partners V Fund, L.P.,
(2) 8,869,589 shares of common stock deemed to be
beneficially owned by GS Capital Partners V Offshore Fund, L.P.,
(3) 5,888,018 shares of common stock deemed to be
beneficially owned by GS Capital Partners V Institutional, L.P.,
and (4) 680,752 shares of common stock deemed to be
beneficially owned by GS Capital Partners V GmbH & Co.
KG. Ken Pontarelli is a managing director of Goldman,
Sachs & Co. Mr. Pontarelli, The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. each disclaims
beneficial ownership of the shares of common stock owned
directly or indirectly by the Goldman Sachs Funds, except to the
extent of their pecuniary interest therein, if any. If the
underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares
in full, (1) 606,139 shares of common stock will be
sold in respect of member units owned by GS Capital Partners V
Fund, L.P., (2) 313,106 shares of common stock will be
sold in respect of member units owned by GS Capital Partners V
Offshore Fund, L.P., (3) 207,853 shares of common
stock will be sold in respect of member units owned by GS
Capital Partners V Institutional, L.P. and
(4) 24,031 shares of common stock will be sold in
respect of member units owned by GS Capital Partners V
GmbH & Co. KG. |
|
|
|
(5) |
|
The board of directors of Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC
has the power to dispose of the securities of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC. |
|
|
|
(6) |
|
Of the 418,275 shares of common stock indicated above,
252,448 shares are owned directly by Mr. Lipinski and
165,827 shares represent shares Mr. Lipinski owns
indirectly through his ownership of common units in Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
Mr. Lipinski does not have the power to vote or dispose of
shares that correspond to his ownership of common units in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC and thus does not have beneficial ownership of such shares. |
203
|
|
|
(7) |
|
Reflects the number of shares of common stock that corresponds
to such holders interest in common units of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC. Such holder
does not have the power to vote or dispose of such shares and
thus does not have beneficial ownership of such shares. |
|
|
|
(8) |
|
In connection with this offering, our board of directors has
awarded 5,000 shares of non-vested restricted stock to
Mr. Lippert. The restrictions on these shares will
generally lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on the
first anniversary of the date of grant. In addition, our board
of directors has awarded Mr. Lippert options to purchase
5,150 shares of common stock with an exercise price equal
to the initial public offering price. These options will
generally vest in one-third annual increments beginning on the
first anniversary of the date of grant. |
|
|
|
(9) |
|
In connection with this offering, our board of directors has
awarded 12,500 shares of non-vested restricted stock to
Mark Tomkins. The restrictions on these shares will generally
lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on the first
anniversary of the date of grant. In addition, our board of
directors has awarded Mr. Tompkins options to purchase
5,150 shares of common stock with an exercise price equal
to the initial public offering price. These options will
generally vest in one-third annual increments beginning on the
first anniversary of the date of grant. |
204
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
This section describes related party transactions between CVR
Energy (and its predecessors) and its directors, executive
officers and 5% stockholders. For a description of transactions
between CVR Energy and the Partnership, whose managing general
partner is owned by our controlling stockholders and senior
management, see The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited
Partnership.
Transactions with the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso
Funds
Prior to this offering, GS Capital Partners V Fund, L.P. and
related entities, or the Goldman Sachs Funds, and Kelso
Investment Associates VII, L.P. and related entity, the Kelso
Funds, were the majority owners of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
As part of the Transactions, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC will
redeem all of its outstanding common units held by the Goldman
Sachs Funds in exchange for the same number of common units in
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, a newly formed limited liability
company to which Coffeyville Acquisition LLC will transfer half
of its interests in each of Coffeyville Refining &
Marketing, Inc., Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. and CVR
Energy. In addition, half of the common units and override units
in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC held by each executive officer
will be redeemed in exchange for an equal number of common units
and override units in Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC. Following
the consummation of this offering, the Kelso Funds will be the
majority owner of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and the Goldman
Sachs Funds will be the majority owner of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC.
Investments in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
On June 24, 2005, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement
dated May 15, 2005, between Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
acquired all of the subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings,
LLC. The Goldman Sachs Funds made capital contributions of
$112,817,500 to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and the Kelso Funds
made capital contributions of $110,817,500 to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC in connection with the acquisition. The total
proceeds received by Pegasus Partners II, L.P. and the
other unit holders of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC, including
then current management, in connection with the Subsequent
Acquisition was $526,185,017, after repayment of Immediate
Predecessors credit facility.
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC paid companies related to the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds each equal amounts
totaling $6.0 million for the transaction fees related to
the Subsequent Acquisition, as well as an additional
$0.7 million paid to the Goldman Sachs Funds for reimbursed
expenses related to the Subsequent Acquisition.
On July 25, 2005, the following executive officers and
directors made the following capital contributions to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC: John J. Lipinski, $650,000; Stanley
A. Riemann, $400,000; James T. Rens, $250,000; Kevan A. Vick,
$250,000; Robert W. Haugen, $100,000; Wyatt E. Jernigan,
$100,000; Chris Swanberg, $25,000. On September 12, 2005,
Edmund Gross made a $30,000 capital contribution to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC. On September 20, 2005, Wesley Clark made a
$250,000 capital contribution to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
All but two of the executive officers received common units,
operating units and value units of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and the director received common units of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC.
On September 14, 2005, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds each invested an additional $5.0 million in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. On May 23, 2006, the Goldman
Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds each invested an additional
$10.0 million in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. In each case
they received additional common units of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC.
On December 28, 2006, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC granted
John J. Lipinski 217,458 override units, of which 72,492 were
operating units and 144,966 were value units. Mr. Lipinski
subsequently transferred all of his override units to trusts for
the benefit of members of his family.
205
On December 28, 2006, the directors of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC approved a cash dividend of $244,710,000 to
companies related to the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds
and $3,360,393 to certain members of our management, including
John J. Lipinski ($914,844), Stanley A. Riemann
($548,070), James T. Rens ($321,180), Keith D. Osborn
($321,180), Robert W. Haugen ($164,680) and Wyatt E.
Jernigan ($164,680), as well as Wesley Clark ($241,205).
In connection with this offering, the directors of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC,
respectively, will approve a special dividend of
$10.6 million to their members, including $5,201,356 to the
Goldman Sachs Funds, $5,119,969 to the Kelso Funds and $197,289
to certain members of our management and Wesley Clark. The
common unit holders receiving this special dividend will
contribute $10.6 million collectively to Coffeyville
Acquisition III LLC, which will use such amounts to acquire the
managing general partner.
J.
Aron & Company
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC entered into commodity derivative
contracts in the form of three swap agreements for the period
from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010 with J. Aron,
a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. The swap
agreements were originally entered into by Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC on June 16, 2005 in conjunction with the
acquisition of Immediate Predecessor and were required under the
terms of our long-term debt agreements. The swap agreements were
executed at the prevailing market rate at the time of execution
and management believes the swap agreements provide an economic
hedge on future transactions. These agreements were assigned to
Coffeyville Resources, LLC on June 24, 2005. The
economically hedged volumes total approximately 70% of the
forecasted production from July 2005 through June 2009 and
approximately 17% from July 2009 through June 2010. These
positions resulted in unrealized losses of approximately
$235.9 million at December 31, 2005, unrealized gains
of approximately $126.8 million for the year ended December
31, 2006 and unrealized losses of approximately
$119.7 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007. See Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources Cash Flow Swap.
Effective December 30, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
entered into a crude oil supply agreement with J. Aron. Other
than locally produced crude we gather ourselves, we purchase
crude oil from third parties using this credit intermediation
agreement. The terms of this agreement provide that we will
obtain all of the crude oil for our refinery, other than the
crude we obtain through our own gathering system, through J.
Aron. Once we identify cargos of crude oil and pricing terms
that meet our requirements, we notify J. Aron and J. Aron then
provides credit, transportation and other logistical services to
us for a fee. This agreement significantly reduces the
investment that we are required to maintain in petroleum
inventories relative to our competitors and reduces the time we
are exposed to market fluctuations before the inventory is
priced to a customer. The current credit intermediation
agreement with J. Aron expires on December 31, 2007. At
that time we may renegotiate the agreement with J. Aron, seek a
similar arrangement with another party, or choose to obtain our
crude supply directly without the use of an intermediary.
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC also entered into certain crude oil,
heating oil, and gasoline option agreements with J. Aron as of
May 16, 2005. These agreements expired unexercised on
June 16, 2005 and resulted in an expense of $25,000,000
reported in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations as gain (loss) on derivatives for the 233 days
ended December 31, 2005.
As a result of the refinery turnaround in early 2007, we needed
to delay the processing of quantities of crude oil that we
purchased from various small independent producers. In order to
facilitate this anticipated delay, we entered into a purchase,
storage and sale agreement for gathered crude oil, dated
March 20, 2007, with J. Aron. Pursuant to the terms of the
agreement, J. Aron agreed to purchase gathered crude oil from
us, store the gathered crude oil and sell us the gathered crude
oil on a forward basis.
206
Consulting and
Advisory Agreements
Under the terms of separate consulting and advisory agreements,
dated June 24, 2005, between Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and each of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Kelso &
Company, L.P., Coffeyville Acquisition LLC was required to pay
an advisory fee of $1,000,000 per year, payable quarterly
in advance, to each of Goldman Sachs and Kelso for consulting
and advisory services provided by Goldman Sachs and Kelso. The
advisory agreements provide that Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
will indemnify Goldman Sachs and Kelso and their respective
affiliates, designees, officers, directors, partners, employees,
agents and control persons (as such term is used in the
Securities Act and the rules and regulations thereunder), to the
extent lawful, against claims, losses and expenses as incurred
in connection with the services rendered to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC under the consulting and advisory agreements or
arising out of any such person being a controlling person of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. The agreements also provide that
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC will reimburse expenses incurred by
Goldman Sachs and Kelso in connection with their investment in
Coffeyville Acquisition and with respect to services provided to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC pursuant to the consulting and
advisory agreements. The consulting and advisory agreements also
provide for the payment of certain fees, as may be determined by
mutual agreement, payable by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC to
Goldman Sachs and Kelso in connection with transaction services
and for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection
with such services. Payments relating to the consulting and
advisory agreements include $1,310,416, $2,315,937 and $537,915
which was expensed in selling, general, and administrative
expenses for the 233 days ended December 31, 2005, the
year ended December 31, 2006 and the three months ended
March 31, 2007, respectively. In addition, $1,046,575, $0
and $0 were included in other current liabilities and
approximately $78,671, $0 and $0 were included in accounts
payable at December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006 and
March 31, 2007, respectively.
Pursuant to the terms of these consulting and advisory
agreements, these agreements will automatically terminate upon
consummation of this offering and each of Goldman,
Sachs & Co. and Kelso & Company, L.P. will
receive a one-time fee of $5 million by reason of such
termination in conjunction with this offering. Pursuant to the
terms of these consulting and advisory agreements, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLCs obligations under such agreements,
including, without limitation, obligations with respect to the
indemnification of Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Kelso & Company, L.P. and their respective affiliates
and reimbursement of expenses, will survive such termination.
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC will assign both consulting and
advisory agreements to us and we will assume all of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLCs obligations under these consulting and
advisory agreements, including, without limitation, the
obligation to pay the termination fees.
Credit
Facilities
Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., an affiliate of Goldman,
Sachs & Co., or Goldman Sachs, is one of the lenders
under the Credit Facility. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners is also
a joint lead arranger and bookrunner under the Credit Facility.
Goldman Sachs Credit Partners was also a lender, sole lead
arranger, sole bookrunner and syndication agent under our first
lien credit agreement and a lender and joint lead arranger,
joint bookrunner and syndication agent under our second lien
credit agreement. The first lien credit agreement and second
lien credit agreement were entered into in connection with the
financing of the Subsequent Acquisition and, at that time, we
paid this Goldman Sachs affiliate a $22.1 million fee
included in deferred financing costs. Additionally, in
conjunction with the financing that occurred on
December 28, 2006, we paid $8.1 million to a Goldman
Sachs affiliate. For the 233 days ended December 31,
2005, Successor made interest payments to this Goldman Sachs
affiliate of $1.8 million recorded in interest expense and
paid letter of credit fees of approximately $155,000 which were
recorded in selling, general, and administrative expenses. See
Description of Our Indebtedness and the Cash Flow
Swap.
207
Transactions with
Senior Management
On June 30, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC loaned
$500,000 to John J. Lipinski, CEO of Successor. This loan
accrued interest at the rate of 7% per year. The loan was made
in conjunction with Mr. Lipinskis purchase of 50,000
common units of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. Mr. Lipinski repaid
$150,000 of principal and paid $17,643.84 in interest on January
13, 2006. The unpaid loan balance of $350,000, together with
accrued and unpaid interest of $17,989, was forgiven in full in
September 2006.
On December 28, 2006, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC granted
John J. Lipinski 217,458 override units, of which 72,492 were
operating units and 144,966 were value units. Mr. Lipinski
subsequently transferred all of his override units to trusts for
the benefit of members of his family.
On December 28, 2006, the directors of Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizer, Inc. approved the issuance of shares of common stock
of Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, par value $.01 per
share, to John J. Lipinski in exchange for $10.00 pursuant to a
Subscription Agreement. Mr. Lipinski also entered into a
Stockholders Agreement with Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer and
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC at the same time he entered into the
Subscription Agreement. Pursuant to the Stockholders Agreement,
Mr. Lipinski may not transfer any shares of common stock in
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer except in certain specified
circumstances. Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer also has
certain buyback and repurchase rights for all of
Mr. Lipinskis shares if Mr. Lipinski is
terminated. Coffeyville Acquisition LLC has the right to
exchange all shares of common stock in Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizer held by Mr. Lipinski for such number of common
units of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC or equity interests of a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, in each
case having a fair market value equal to the fair market value
of the common stock in Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer held by
Mr. Lipinski.
On December 28, 2006, the directors of Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing, Inc. approved the issuance of
shares of common stock of Coffeyville Refining & Marketing,
par value $.01 per share, to John J. Lipinski in exchange
for $10.00 pursuant to a Subscription Agreement.
Mr. Lipinski also entered into a Stockholders Agreement
with Coffeyville Refining & Marketing and Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC at the same time he entered into the
Subscription Agreement. Pursuant to the Stockholders Agreement,
Mr. Lipinski may not transfer any shares of common stock in
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing except in certain
specified circumstances. Coffeyville Refining &
Marketing also has certain buyback and repurchase rights for all
of Mr. Lipinskis shares if Mr. Lipinski is
terminated. Coffeyville Acquisition LLC has the right to
exchange all shares of common stock in Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing held by Mr. Lipinski for
such number of common units of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC or
equity interests of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC, in each case having a fair market value equal
to the fair market value of the common stock in Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing held by Mr. Lipinski.
In connection with the Transactions, we intend to enter into a
Subscription Agreement prior to the completion of this offering
pursuant to which Mr. Lipinski will exchange his shares of
common stock of Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc. and
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. for shares of
our common stock. Under this agreement we will issue
252,448 shares of common stock to Mr. Lipinski.
All decisions concerning Mr. Lipinskis compensation
have been approved by the compensation committee of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC without Mr. Lipinskis participation.
In April 2007, we paid Stanley A. Riemann, our Chief Operating
Officer, approximately $220,000 as a relocation incentive in
connection with our request for him to relocate from Missouri to
Texas.
Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC Operating Agreement
Prior to the consummation of this offering, the Goldman Sachs
Funds, the Kelso Funds, and John J. Lipinski, Stanley A.
Riemann, James T. Rens, Edmund Gross, Robert W. Haugen, Wyatt E.
Jernigan, Kevan A. Vick, Christopher Swanberg, Wesley Clark,
Magnetite Asset Investors III L.L.C.
208
and other members of our management were members of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC, which owned all of our capital stock.
In connection with this offering, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
will redeem all of its outstanding common units held by the
Goldman Sachs Funds in exchange for the same number of common
units in Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, a newly formed
limited liability company to which Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
will transfer half of its assets. As a result, CVR Energy will
be owned equally by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC. In addition, half of the common units
and half of the profits interests in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
held by executive officers and a director will be redeemed in
exchange for an equal number and type of limited liability
interests in Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC. Following the
consummation of this offering, the Kelso Funds will own
substantially all of the common units of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC, the Goldman Sachs Funds will own substantially all of the
common units of Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and
executive officers and a director will own an equal number and
type of interests in both Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
The existing LLC Agreement of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC will
be amended and restated to reflect this revised ownership
structure. Among other things, the amended and restated LLC
Agreement will contain provisions outlining the interests of
senior management in Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. See
Management Employment Agreements and
Change-in-Control
Arrangements Executives Interests in
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC. The operating agreement for
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC will be substantially the
same as the amended and restated LLC Agreement of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC.
Stockholders Agreement
In connection with the Transactions, we intend to enter into a
Stockholders Agreement with Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC prior to the completion of
this offering. Pursuant to this agreement, for so long as
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC collectively beneficially own in the aggregate an amount of
our common stock that represents at least 40% of our outstanding
common stock, CA and CA II each have the right to designate
two directors to our board of directors so long as that party
holds an amount of our common stock that represent 20% or more
of our outstanding common stock and one director to our board of
directors so long as that party holds an amount of our common
stock that represent less than 20% but more than 5% of our
outstanding common stock. If CA and CA II cease to
collectively beneficially own in the aggregate an amount of our
common stock that represents at least 40% of our outstanding
common stock, the foregoing rights become a nomination right and
the parties to the Stockholders Agreement are not obligated to
vote for each others nominee. In addition, the
Stockholders Agreement contains certain tag-along rights with
respect to certain transfers (other than underwritten offerings
to the public) of shares of common stock by the parties to the
Stockholders Agreement. For so long as Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC
beneficially own in the aggregate at least 40% of our common
stock, (i) each such stockholder that has the right to
designate at least two directors will have the right to have at
least one of its designated directors on any committee (other
than the audit committee and conflicts committee), to the extent
permitted by SEC or NYSE rules, (ii) directors designated
by the stockholders will be a majority of each such committee
(at least 50% in the case of the compensation committee and the
nominating committee), and (iii) the chairman of each such
committee will be a director designated by such stockholder.
Registration Rights Agreements
In connection with the Transactions, we intend to enter into a
registration rights agreement prior to the completion of this
offering with Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC pursuant to which we may be required to
register the sale of our shares held by Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and permitted
transferees. Under the registration rights agreement, the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds will each have the right
to request that
209
we register the sale of shares held by Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC or Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, as applicable, on their
behalf on three occasions including requiring us to make
available shelf registration statements permitting sales of
shares into the market from time to time over an extended
period. In addition, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds
will have the ability to exercise certain piggyback registration
rights with respect to their own securities if we elect to
register any of our equity securities. The registration rights
agreement will also include provisions dealing with holdback
agreements, indemnification and contribution, and allocation of
expenses. Immediately after this offering, all of our shares
held by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition
II LLC will be entitled to these registration rights.
In connection with the Transactions, we intend to enter into a
registration rights agreement prior to the completion of this
offering with John J. Lipinski. Under the registration rights
agreement, Mr. Lipinski will have the ability to exercise
certain piggyback registration rights with respect to his own
securities if any of our equity securities are offered to the
public pursuant to a registration statement. The registration
rights agreement will also include provisions dealing with
holdback agreements, indemnification and contribution, and
allocation of expenses. Immediately after this offering, all of
the shares in our company held directly by John J. Lipinski will
be entitled to these registration rights.
Transactions with Pegasus Partners II, L.P.
Pegasus Partners II, L.P., or Pegasus, was a majority owner
of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC (Immediate Predecessor)
during the period March 3, 2004 through June 24, 2005.
On March 3, 2004, Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC, through
its wholly owned subsidiary, Coffeyville Resources, LLC,
acquired the assets of the former Farmland petroleum division
and one facility within Farmlands nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturing and marketing division through a bankruptcy court
auction process for approximately $107 million and the
assumption of approximately $23 million of liabilities.
On March 3, 2004, Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC entered
into a management services agreement with Pegasus Capital
Advisors, L.P., pursuant to which Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P.
provided Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC with managerial and
advisory services. In consideration for these services,
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC agreed to pay Pegasus Capital
Advisors, L.P. an annual fee of up to $1.0 million plus
reimbursement for any
out-of-pocket
expenses. During the year ended December 31, 2004,
Immediate Predecessor paid an aggregate of approximately
$545,000 to Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P. in fees under this
agreement. $1,000,000 was expensed to selling, general, and
administrative expenses for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005. In addition, Immediate Predecessor paid
approximately $455,000 in legal fees on behalf of Pegasus
Capital Advisors, L.P. in lieu of the remaining amount owed
under the management fee. This management services agreement
terminated at the time of the Subsequent Acquisition in June
2005.
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC paid Pegasus Capital Advisors,
L.P. a $4.0 million transaction fee upon closing of the
acquisition on March 3, 2004. The transaction fee related
to a $2.5 million merger and acquisition fee and
$1.5 million in deferred financing costs. In addition, in
conjunction with the refinancing of our senior secured credit
facility on May 10, 2004, Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC
paid an additional $1.25 million fee to Pegasus Capital
Advisors, L.P. as a deferred financing cost.
On March 3, 2004, Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC entered
into Executive Purchase and Vesting Agreements with the then
executive officers listed below providing for the sale by
Immediate Predecessor to them of the number of our common units
to the right of each executive officers name at a purchase
price of approximately $0.0056 per unit. Pursuant to the
terms of these agreements, as amended, each executive
officers common units were to vest at a rate of 16.66%
every six months with the first 16.66% vesting on
November 10, 2004. In connection with their purchase of the
common units pursuant to the Executive Purchase and Vesting
Agreements, each of the executive officers at that time issued
promissory notes in the amounts indicated below. These notes
were paid in full on May 10, 2004.
210
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Promissory
|
|
Executive Officer
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Note
|
|
|
Philip L. Rinaldi
|
|
|
3,717,647
|
|
|
$
|
21,000
|
|
Abraham H. Kaplan
|
|
|
2,230,589
|
|
|
$
|
12,600
|
|
George W. Dorsey
|
|
|
2,230,589
|
|
|
$
|
12,600
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
|
1,301,176
|
|
|
$
|
7,350
|
|
James T. Rens
|
|
|
371,764
|
|
|
$
|
2,100
|
|
Keith D. Osborn
|
|
|
650,588
|
|
|
$
|
3,675
|
|
Kevan A. Vick
|
|
|
650,588
|
|
|
$
|
3,675
|
|
On May 10, 2004, Mr. Rinaldi entered into another
Executive Purchase and Vesting Agreement under the same terms as
described above providing for the purchase of an additional
500,000 common units of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC for an
aggregate purchase price of $2,850.
On May 10, 2004, Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC refinanced
its existing long-term debt with a $150 million term loan
and used the proceeds of the borrowings to repay the outstanding
borrowings under Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLCs previous
credit facility. The borrowings were also used to distribute a
$99,987,509 dividend, which included a preference payment of
$63,200,000 plus a yield of $1,802,956 to the preferred unit
holders and a $63,000 payment to the common unit holders for
undistributed capital per the LLC agreement. The remaining
$34,921,553 was distributed to the preferred and common unit
holders pro rata according to their ownership percentages, as
determined by the aggregate of the common and preferred units.
On October 8, 2004, Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC entered
into a joint venture with The Leiber Group, Inc., a company
whose majority stockholder was Pegasus Partners II, L.P.,
the principal stockholder of Immediate Predecessor. In
connection with the joint venture, Coffeyville Group Holdings,
LLC contributed approximately 68.7% of its membership interests
in Coffeyville Resources, LLC to CL JV Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, or CL JV Holdings, and The Leiber
Group, Inc. contributed the Judith Leiber business to CL JV
Holdings. At the time of the Subsequent Acquisition, in June
2005, the joint venture was effectively terminated.
On January 13, 2005, Immediate Predecessors board of
directors authorized the following bonus payments to the
following then executive officers, at that time, in recognition
of the importance of retaining their services:
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Officer
|
|
Bonus Amount
|
|
Philip L. Rinaldi
|
|
$
|
1,000,000
|
|
Abraham H. Kaplan
|
|
$
|
600,000
|
|
George W. Dorsey
|
|
$
|
300,000
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
$
|
700,000
|
|
James T. Rens
|
|
$
|
150,000
|
|
Keith D. Osborn
|
|
$
|
150,000
|
|
Kevan A. Vick
|
|
$
|
150,000
|
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
|
$
|
200,000
|
|
During 2004 and 2005, Immediate Predecessor shared office space
with Pegasus in New York, New York for which we paid Pegasus
$10,000 per month.
211
On June 23, 2005, immediately prior to the Subsequent
Acquisition, Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC used available cash
balances to distribute a $52,211,493 dividend to its preferred
and common unit holders pro rata according to their ownership
percentages, as determined by the aggregate of the common and
preferred units.
Other
Transactions
We paid Intercat, Inc. $525,507 during 2006 for chemical
additives. Mr. Regis B. Lippert, a director of our
company, is the principal shareholder and chief executive
officer of Intercat, Inc.
Related Party Transaction Policy
Prior to the completion of this offering, our board of directors
will adopt a Related Party Transaction Policy, which is designed
to monitor and ensure the proper review, approval, ratification
and disclosure of related party transactions involving us. This
policy applies to any transaction, arrangement or relationship
(or any series of similar transactions, arrangements or
relationships) in which we were, are or will be a participant
and the amount involved exceeds $100,000, and in which any
related party had, has or will have a direct or indirect
material interest. The audit committee of our board of directors
must review, approve and ratify a related party transaction if
such transaction is consistent with the Related Party
Transaction Policy and is on terms, taken as a whole, which the
audit committee believes are no less favorable to us than could
be obtained in an arms-length transaction with an unrelated
third party, unless the audit committee otherwise determines
that the transaction is not in our best interests. Any related
party transaction or modification of such transaction which our
board of directors has approved or ratified by the affirmative
vote of a majority of directors, who do not have a direct or
indirect material interest in such transaction, does not need to
be approved or ratified by our audit committee. In addition,
related party transactions involving compensation will be
approved by our compensation committee in lieu of our audit
committee.
Conflicts of
Interests Policy for Transactions between the Partnership and
Us
Prior to the completion of this offering, our board of directors
will adopt a Conflicts of Interests Policy, which is designed to
monitor and ensure the proper review, approval, ratification and
disclosure of transactions between the Partnership and us. The
policy applies to any transaction, arrangement or relationship
(or any series of similar transactions, arrangements or
relationships) between us or any of our subsidiaries, on the one
hand, and the Partnership, its managing general partner and any
subsidiary of the Partnership, on the other hand. According to
the policy, all such transactions must be fair and reasonable to
us. If such transaction is expected to involve a value, over the
life of such transaction, of less than $1 million, it is
deemed to be fair and reasonable to us. If such transaction is
expected to involve a value of more than $1 million but
less than $5 million, it is deemed to be fair and
reasonable to us if (i) such transaction is approved by the
conflicts committee of our board of directors, (ii) the
terms of such transaction are no less favorable to us than those
generally being provided to or available from unrelated third
parties or (iii) such transaction, taking into account the
totality of any other such transaction being entered into at
that time between the parties involved (including other
transaction that may be particularly favorable or advantageous
to us), is equitable to the Company. If such transaction is
expected to involve a value, over the life of such transaction,
of $5 million or more, it is deemed to be fair and
reasonable to us if it have been approved by the conflicts
committee of our board of directors.
212
THE NITROGEN
FERTILIZER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Background
Prior to the consummation of this offering, we intend to create
a new limited partnership, CVR Partners, LP, or the
Partnership, and to transfer our nitrogen fertilizer business to
the Partnership. The Partnership will have two general partners:
a managing general partner, Fertilizer GP, which we intend to
sell to an entity owned by our controlling stockholders and
senior management at fair market value prior to the consummation
of this offering, and a second general partner, which will be
one of our
wholly-owned
subsidiaries. Another wholly-owned subsidiary of ours will be a
nominal limited partner of the Partnership. Following the
consummation of this offering, Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC,
the sole parent of the managing general partner of the
Partnership, will be owned by the Goldman Sachs Funds, the Kelso
Funds, our executive officers, Mr. Wesley Clark, Magnetite
Asset Investors III L.L.C. and other members of our management.
We have considered various strategic alternatives with respect
to the nitrogen fertilizer business, including an initial public
or private offering of limited partner interests of the
Partnership. We have observed that entities structured as master
limited partnerships, or MLPs, have over recent history
demonstrated significantly greater relative market valuation
levels compared to corporations in the refining and marketing,
or R&M, sector when measured as a ratio of enterprise
value, or EV, to EBITDA. For example, at calendar year-ends
2004, 2005 and 2006, a broad sampling of publicly-traded MLPs
has traded at average EV/Last Twelve Months, or LTM, EBITDA
multiples of 13.8x, 13.1x and 12.9x which were 9.5x, 8.6x and
8.4x, respectively, higher than those multiples observed for
publicly-traded corporations in the R&M sector. As of
April 24, 2007, the average EV/LTM multiple for the same
MLP entities was 16.0x, or 10.2x higher than the average for the
publicly traded R&M corporations. We believe one of the
reasons for the higher valuations is the treatment of these
entities as partnerships for federal income tax purposes.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is no assurance that the
Partnership will seek to consummate a public or private offering
of its limited partner interests and, if it does, there is no
assurance that it would be able to realize valuations
historically observed in the MLP sector. Any decision to pursue
a public or private offering would be in the sole discretion of
the managing general partner of the Partnership (subject to our
approval rights if in an amount over $200 million) and
would be subject to, among other things, market conditions and
negotiation of terms acceptable to the Partnerships
managing general partner.
Prior to the consummation of this offering, Fertilizer GP, the
limited partner and our wholly-owned subsidiary, as a general
partner, will enter into a limited partnership agreement which
will set forth the various rights and responsibilities of the
partners in the Partnership and which is filed as an exhibit to
the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part.
In addition, we will enter into a number of intercompany
agreements with the Partnership which will regulate business
relations among us, the Partnership and the managing general
partner following this offering. In addition to regulating the
ongoing business relations among us, the Partnership and the
managing general partner, the partnership agreement and the
other intercompany agreements will provide for:
|
|
|
|
|
the formation of the partnership, as described in
Formation Transactions;
|
|
|
|
|
|
a right for the managing general partner to cause the
Partnership to pursue an initial public or initial private
offering of its limited partner interests; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
a restructuring of our interest in the Partnership, including a
potential sale of a portion of our interest, in connection with
any initial public or initial private offering by the
Partnership, as described in Initial Offering
Transactions.
|
Formation
Transactions
In connection with the formation of the Partnership, the
Partnership will enter into a contribution, conveyance and
assumption agreement, or the contribution agreement, with
Fertilizer GP, Coffeyville Resources, LLC, CVR Special GP, LLC
(our subsidiary that will hold our general partner interest in
the
213
Partnership), and CVR LP, LLC (our subsidiary that will hold
our limited partner interest in the Partnership).
Pursuant to this agreement, Coffeyville Resources, LLC will
transfer the fertilizer business to the Partnership in exchange
for (1) the issuance to CVR Special GP, LLC of 30,303,000
special GP units, representing a 99.9% general partner interest
in the Partnership, (2) the issuance to CVR LP, LLC of
30,333 special LP units, representing a 0.1% limited partner
interest in the Partnership, and (3) the issuance of a
$75 million intercompany note to Coffeyville Resources,
LLC. The Partnership will assume all liabilities arising out of
or related to the ownership of the fertilizer business to the
extent arising or accruing on and after the date of transfer.
Following the transfer and issuance, the Partnership initially
will be our wholly-owned subsidiary (prior to the sale of the
managing general partner). Because we are contributing a
wholly-owned subsidiary, which owns the fertilizer business, to
another wholly-owned subsidiary, the Partnership, in exchange
for all of the interests in the Partnership, we have not
determined the fair market value of the assets and operations
being transferred to the Partnership.
In connection with this offering, following formation of the
Partnership pursuant to the contribution agreement, the
following entities and individuals will contribute the following
amounts in cash to Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC, a newly
formed entity owned by our controlling stockholders and
executive officers. Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC will
use these contributions to purchase the managing general partner
from us:
|
|
|
|
|
Contributing
Parties
|
|
Amount
Contributed
|
|
|
The Goldman Sachs Funds
|
|
$
|
5,248,060
|
|
The Kelso Funds
|
|
|
5,165,380
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
|
|
26,500
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
|
|
15,900
|
|
James T. Rens
|
|
|
10,600
|
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
|
|
1,060
|
|
Robert W. Haugen
|
|
|
4,240
|
|
Wyatt E. Jernigan
|
|
|
4,240
|
|
Kevan A. Vick
|
|
|
10,600
|
|
Christopher G. Swanberg
|
|
|
1,060
|
|
Wesley Clark
|
|
|
10,600
|
|
Others
|
|
|
101,760
|
|
Total Contribution:
|
|
$
|
10,600,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville Acquisition III will purchase the managing general
partner from us for $10.6 million, which our board has
determined, after consultation with management and a third party
valuation firm, represents the fair market value of the managing
general partner interest. We valued the managing general partner
interest by calculating the projected cash flows due to the
managing general partner under the terms of the
Partnerships limited partnership agreement, subject to an
appropriate discount. The Partnerships cash distributions
were assumed to be flat at expected forward fertilizer prices,
with cash reserves developed in periods of high prices and cash
reserves reduced in periods of lower prices. The
Partnerships projected cash flows utilized for the
valuation were calculated based on estimates of production
volumes and operating costs which were developed by management
based on historical operations and experience. Price projections
were based on information received from Blue Johnson and
Associates, a leading fertilizer industry consultant in the
United States which we routinely use for fertilizer market
analysis. There can be no assurance that the value of the
managing general partner will not differ in the future from the
amount initially paid for it.
214
Description of
Partnership Interests Initially Following Formation
The partnership agreement will provide that initially the
Partnership will issue three types of partnership interests:
(1) special GP units, representing special general partner
interests, which will be issued to one of our
wholly-owned
subsidiaries and will initially represent all of the interests
in the Partnership (other than the managing general partner
interest and associated IDRs), (2) special LP units,
representing a nominal limited partner interest, which will be
owned by another newly-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of ours
and (3) a managing general partner interest which has
associated incentive distribution rights, or IDRs, which will be
held by Fertilizer GP as managing general partner.
Special units. The special units will
be comprised of special GP units and special LP units. We will
own all 30,303,000 special GP units and all 30,333 special LP
units. The special GP units will be special general partner
interests giving the holder thereof specified approval rights
(which we refer to as special GP rights), including rights with
respect to the appointment, termination and compensation of the
chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of the
managing general partner, and entitling the holder to
participate in Partnership distributions and allocations of
income and loss. Special LP units have identical voting and
distribution rights as the special GP units, but represent
limited partner interests in the Partnership and do not give the
holder thereof the special GP rights. The nominal limited
partner interests are being issued because the Delaware Revised
Uniform Partnership Act requires there to be at least one
limited partner in a limited partnership to prevent such limited
partnership from automatically dissolving. The special units
will be entitled to payment of a set target distribution of
$0.4313 per unit ($13.1 million in the aggregate for
all our special units each quarter), or $1.7252 per unit on
an annualized basis ($52.3 million in the aggregate for all
our special units annually), prior to the payment of any
quarterly distribution in respect of the IDRs. Due to the
various restrictions on distributions in respect of the IDRs, it
is likely to be a number of years before there will be any cash
distributions made in respect of the IDRs. For more information
on cash distributions to the special units and the IDRs please
see Cash Distributions by the
Partnership. We will be permitted to sell the special
units at any time without the consent of the managing general
partner, subject to compliance with applicable securities laws,
but upon any sale of special GP units to an unrelated third
party the special GP rights will no longer apply to such units.
Managing general partner interest. The
managing general partner interest to be held solely by
Fertilizer GP, as managing general partner, will entitle the
holder to manage the business and operations of the Partnership,
but will not entitle the holder to participate in Partnership
distributions or allocations except in respect of associated
incentive distribution rights, or IDRs. IDRs represent the right
to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly distributions
of available cash from operating surplus after the target
distribution ($0.4313 per unit per quarter) has been paid
and following distribution of the aggregate adjusted operating
surplus generated by the Partnership during the period from its
formation through June 30, 2009 to the special units and/or
the common and subordinated units (if issued). In addition,
there will be no distributions paid on the managing general
partners IDRs for so long as the Partnership or its
subsidiaries are guarantors under our Credit Facility. The IDRs
will not be transferable apart from the general partner
interest. The managing general partner can be sold without the
consent of other partners in the Partnership.
Initial Offering
Transactions
Under the partnership agreement, the managing general partner
has the sole discretion to cause the Partnership to undertake an
initial private or public offering, subject to our approval
rights (as holder of the special GP rights, described below) if
the offering involves the issuance of more than
$200 million of the Partnerships securities
(exclusive of the underwriters overallotment option, if
any). There is no assurance that the Partnership will undertake
or consummate a public or private offering.
Under the contribution agreement, if Fertilizer GP elects to
cause the Partnership to undertake an initial private or public
offering, Fertilizer GP must give prompt notice to us of such
election and the proposed terms of the offering. We have agreed
to use our commercially reasonable efforts to take
215
such actions as Fertilizer GP reasonably requests in order to
effectuate and permit the consummation of the offering. We have
agreed that Fertilizer GP may structure the initial offering to
include (1) a secondary offering of interests by us or
(2) a primary offering of interests by the Partnership
where the use of proceeds is to redeem an equal number of
interests from us (with a
per-unit
redemption price equal to the price at which a unit is purchased
from the Partnership, net of sales commissions or underwriting
discounts) (a special GP offering), provided that in
either case the number of units associated with the special GP
offering is reasonably expected by Fertilizer GP to generate up
to $100 million in net proceeds to us (exclusive of the
underwriters overallotment option, if any) and provided
further that the special GP offering may not be consummated
without our consent if the net proceeds to us are less than $10
per unit. If the initial public offering includes a special GP
offering, unless we otherwise agree with the Partnership, the
special GP offering will be increased to cover our pro rata
portion of any exercise of the underwriters overallotment
option, if any.
Under the contribution agreement, if Fertilizer GP reasonably
determines that, in order to consummate the initial offering, it
is necessary or appropriate for the Partnership and its
subsidiaries to be released from their obligations under our
credit facility and our swap arrangements with J. Aron, then
Fertilizer GP must give prompt written notice to us describing
the requested amendments. The notice must be given 90 days
prior to the anticipated closing date of the initial offering.
We will be required to use our commercially reasonable efforts
to effect the requested modifications. We will not be considered
to have made commercially reasonable efforts if we
do not effect such requested modifications due to (i) payment of
fees to the lenders or the swap counterparty, (ii) the
costs of this type of amendment, (iii) an increase in
applicable margins or spreads or (iv) changes to the terms
required by the lenders including covenants, events of default
and repayment and prepayment provisions; provided that (i),
(ii), (iii) and (iv) in the aggregate are not likely
to have a material adverse effect on us. In order to effect the
requested modifications, we may require that (1) the
initial offering include a special GP offering generating at
least $140 million in net proceeds to us and (2) the
Partnership repay the $75 million intercompany note owed to
us in full prior to or concurrently with the closing of the
initial offering.
In addition, if we materially amend our Credit Facility, and the
substance of the amendments is in the nature of a refinancing of
our Credit Facility, whether or not the Partnership consummates
a public or private offering, we will be required to use our
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the release of the
Partnership and its subsidiaries from their obligations
thereunder. Commercially reasonable efforts will be
qualified in the same manner as described above.
If the Partnership consummates an initial public or private
offering and we sell units, or our units are redeemed, in a
special GP offering, the gain on such sale, or redemption, would
be taxable to us. If the Partnership consummates an initial
public or private offering, regardless of whether we sell units,
the distributions that we receive from the Partnership could
decrease because the Partnerships distributions will have
to be shared with the new limited partners. Additionally, when
the Partnership issues units or engages in certain other
transactions, the Partnership will determine the fair market
value of its assets and allocate any unrealized gain or loss
attributable to those assets to the capital accounts of the
existing partners. As a result of this revaluation and the
Partnerships adoption of the remedial allocation method
under Section 704(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
(i) new unitholders will be allocated deductions as if the
tax basis of the Partnerships property were equal to the
fair market value thereof at the time of the offering, and
(ii) we will be allocated reverse Section 704(c)
allocations of income or loss over time consistent with
our allocation of unrealized gain or loss.
If the Partnership consummates an initial public or private
offering of common LP units representing limited partner
interests (in either case, the Partnerships initial
offering) as either a primary or secondary offering, our
special units, other than those sold or redeemed in a special GP
offering, if any, will be converted into a combination of
(1) common units and (2) subordinated units. The
special units will be converted into common units and
subordinated units, on a one-for-one basis, such that the lesser
of (1) 40% of all outstanding units after the initial
offering (prior to the exercise of the underwriters
overallotment option, if any) and (2) all of the units
owned by us, will be
216
subordinated. For a description of the common units and
subordinated units please see Description of
Partnership Interests Following Initial Offering. The
special GP units will convert into common GP units or
subordinated GP units and the special LP units will convert into
common LP units or subordinated LP units.
The following table sets forth the number of special GP units
and special LP units that will be outstanding initially and
illustrates the number of common GP units, subordinated GP
units, common LP units and subordinated LP units we will own, as
well as the number of common LP units that public unitholders
will own, assuming the Partnerships initial offering
involves a total of 10 million common LP units,
7 million of which are our special units (converted into
common LP units immediately prior to sale directly in the
initial offering, or redeemed using the proceeds from the
issuance of common LP units by the Partnership, as described
above in Initial Offering Transactions)
and 3 million of which are new common LP units. The
following table assumes that the 7 million of our special
units reduce our special LP units and special GP units are
reduced pro rata (i.e., 99.9% from the special GP units and 0.1%
from our special LP units). This information is presented for
illustrative purposes only. There can be no assurance the
Partnership will undertake an initial offering consistent with
these assumptions or at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial
|
|
Following
Partnership Initial Offering
|
|
|
Special
Units
|
|
Common
Units
|
|
Subordinated
Units
|
|
Owned by us
|
|
30,303,000
special GP units
|
|
9,990,000
common GP units
|
|
13,320,000
subordinated LP units
|
|
|
30,333
special LP units
|
|
10,000
common LP units
|
|
13,333
subordinated LP units
|
Owned by public
|
|
|
|
10,000,000
common LP units
|
|
|
The partnership agreement will prohibit Fertilizer GP from
causing the Partnership to undertake or consummate an initial
offering unless the board of directors of Fertilizer GP
determines, after consultation with us, that the Partnership
will likely be able to earn and pay the minimum quarterly
distribution (which is currently set at $0.375 per unit) on all
units for each of the two consecutive, nonoverlapping
four-quarter periods following the initial offering. As an
illustration, the Partnership would need to earn and pay
$50 million during each of the two consecutive,
nonoverlapping
four-quarter
periods based upon the number of units (i.e., 33,333,333
total units) in the hypothetical illustrated in the table above.
If Fertilizer GP determines that the Partnership is not likely
to be able to earn and pay the minimum quarterly distribution
for such periods, Fertilizer GP may, in its sole discretion and
effective upon closing of the initial offering, reduce the
minimum quarterly distribution to an amount it determines to be
appropriate and likely to be earned and paid during such periods.
The contribution agreement also provides that if the initial
offering is not consummated by the second anniversary of the
date of the agreement, Fertilizer GP can require us to purchase
the managing general partner interest. This put right expires on
the earlier of (1) the fifth anniversary of the date of the
agreement and (2) the closing of the initial offering. If
the initial offering is not consummated by the fifth anniversary
of the date of this agreement, we have the right to require
Fertilizer GP to sell the managing general partner interest to
us. This call right expires on the closing of the initial
offering. In the event of an exercise of a put right or a call
right, the purchase price will be the fair market value of the
managing general partner interest at the time of purchase. The
fair market value will be determined by an independent
investment banking firm selected by us and Fertilizer GP. The
independent investment banking firm may consider the value of
the Partnerships assets, the rights and obligations of
Fertilizer GP and other factors it may deem relevant but the
fair market value shall not include any control premium. See
Risk Factors Risks Related to the Limited
Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our Interest in
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business If the Partnership
does not consummate an initial offering within two years after
the consummation of this offering, Fertilizer GP can require us
to purchase its managing general partner interest in the
Partnership. We may not have requisite funds to do so.
217
Description of
Partnership Interests Following Initial Offering
Common units. The common units, if
issued, will be comprised of common GP units and common LP
units. The common GP units will be special general partner
interests giving the holder special GP rights (described below),
including rights with respect to the appointment, termination
and compensation of the chief executive officer and the chief
financial officer of the managing general partner, and entitling
the holder to participate in Partnership distributions and
allocations on a pro rata basis with common LP units.
Common LP units, if issued, will have identical voting and
distribution rights as the common GP units, but will represent
limited partner interests in the Partnership and will not give
the holder thereof the special GP rights. The common units will
be entitled to payment of the minimum quarterly distribution
prior to the payment of any quarterly distribution on the
subordinated units or the IDRs. For more information of the
rights and preferences of holders of the common units,
subordinated units and IDRs in the Partnerships
distributions, please see Cash Distributions
by the Partnership.
We will be permitted to sell the common units we own at any time
without the consent of the managing general partner, subject to
compliance with applicable securities laws. The common GP units
will automatically convert to common LP units immediately prior
to sale thereof to an unrelated third party. The common GP units
will automatically convert into common LP units (with no special
GP rights) immediately if the holder of the common GP units,
together with all of its affiliates, ceases to own 15% or more
of all units of the Partnership (not including the managing
general partner interest).
Subordinated units. The subordinated
units, if issued, will be comprised of subordinated GP units and
subordinated LP units. The subordinated GP units will be special
general partner interests giving the holder special GP rights,
including rights with respect to the appointment, termination
and compensation of the chief executive officer and the chief
financial officer of the managing general partner. Subordinated
LP units, if issued, will have identical voting and distribution
rights as the subordinated GP units, but will represent limited
partner interests in the Partnership and will not give the
holder thereof the special GP rights. The subordinated units
will entitle the holder to participate in Partnership
distributions and allocations on a subordinated basis to the
common units (as described in Cash
Distributions by the Partnership). During the
subordination period (as defined in Cash
Distributions by the Partnership Distributions from
Operating Surplus Subordination Period), the
subordinated units will not be entitled to receive any
distributions until the common units have received the set
minimum quarterly distribution plus any arrearages from prior
quarters. Furthermore, no arrearages will be paid on the
subordinated units. As a result, if the Partnership consummates
an initial offering, the portion of our special units that are
converted into subordinated units will be subordinated to the
common units and may not receive distributions unless and until
the common units have received the minimum quarterly
distribution, plus any accrued and unpaid arrearages in the
minimum quarterly distribution from prior quarters. See
Risk Factors Risks Related to the Limited
Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our Interest In
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business Our rights to
receive distributions from the Partnership may be limited over
time and Risk Factors Risks Related to
the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our
Interest In the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business If the
Partnership completes a public offering or private placement of
limited partner interests our voting power in the Partnership
would be reduced and our rights to distributions from the
Partnership would be adversely affected.
We will be permitted to sell the subordinated units we own at
any time without the consent of the managing general partner,
subject to compliance with applicable securities laws. The
subordinated units will automatically convert into common units
on the second day after the distribution of cash in respect of
the last quarter in the subordination period (which will end no
earlier than five years after the initial offering), although up
to 50% may convert earlier. The subordinated GP units will
automatically convert to subordinated LP units immediately prior
to sale thereof to an unrelated third party. The subordinated GP
units will automatically convert into subordinated LP units
immediately if the holder of the subordinated GP units, together
with all of its affiliates, ceases to own 15% or more of all
units of the Partnership.
218
Managing general partner interest. The
managing general partner interest will continue to be
outstanding following the initial offering.
Management of the
Partnership
Fertilizer GP, as the managing general partner, will manage the
Partnerships operations and activities, subject to our
specified approval rights and rights with respect to the
appointment, termination and compensation of the chief executive
officer and the chief financial officer of the managing general
partner. Among other things, the managing general partner will
have sole authority to effect an initial public or private
offering, including the right to determine the timing, size
(subject to our approval rights for any initial offering in
excess of $200 million, exclusive of the underwriters
overallotment option, if any) and underwriters or initial
purchasers, if any, for any initial offering. Fertilizer GP is
wholly owned by a newly created entity controlled by the Goldman
Sachs Funds, the Kelso Funds and our senior management. The
operations of Fertilizer GP, in its capacity as managing general
partner, are managed by its board of directors. The managing
general partner of the Partnership is not elected by the unit
holders or us and will not be subject to re-election on a
regular basis in the future.
The holders of special GP units (and/or common GP units and
subordinated GP units, if any) have certain special GP rights.
Upon consummation of this offering and the formation of the
Partnership, we will hold all of the special GP units. The
special GP rights will terminate if we cease to own 15% of more
of all units of the Partnership, because the special GP units
(or common GP units and subordinated GP units) will
automatically convert to limited partner interests as described
above. The special GP rights include:
|
|
|
|
|
approval rights over any merger by the Partnership into another
entity where:
|
|
|
|
|
|
for so long as we own 50% or more of all units of the
Partnership immediately prior to the merger, less than 60% of
the equity interests of the resulting entity are owned by the
pre-merger unit holders of the Partnership;
|
|
|
|
for so long as we own 25% or more of all units of the
Partnership immediately prior to the merger, less than 50% of
the equity interests of the resulting entity are owned by the
pre-merger unit holders of the Partnership; and
|
|
|
|
for so long as we own more than 15% of the all units of the
Partnership immediately prior to the merger, less than 40% of
the equity interests of the resulting entity are owned by the
pre-merger unit holders of the Partnership;
|
|
|
|
|
|
approval rights over any purchase or sale of assets or entities
with a purchase/sale price equal to 50% or more of the current
asset value of the Partnership;
|
|
|
|
approval rights over any fundamental change in the business of
the Partnership from that conducted by the nitrogen fertilizer
business;
|
|
|
|
|
|
approval rights over any incurrence of indebtedness or issuance
of Partnership securities with rights to distribution or in
liquidation ranking prior or senior to the common units, in
either case in excess of $125 million ($200 million in
the case of the Partnerships initial public or private
offering, exclusive of the underwriters overallotment
option, if any), increased by 80% of the purchase price for
assets or entities whose purchase was approved by us as
described in the second bullet point above;
|
|
|
|
|
|
approval rights over the appointment, termination of employment
and compensation of the chief executive officer and chief
financial officer of the managing general partner, not to be
exercised unreasonably (our consent is deemed given if the chief
executive officer or the chief financial officer of the managing
general partner is an executive officer of CVR Energy);
|
|
|
|
the right to appoint a director to the board of directors (or
comparable governing body) of the managing general partner; and
|
219
|
|
|
|
|
the right to appoint an additional director to the board of
directors (or comparable governing body) of the managing general
partner if the Partnership does not make distributions of at
least the MQD for four consecutive quarters.
|
Upon consummation of this offering, the board of directors of
the managing general partner will consist of
five directors, including two representatives of the
Goldman Sachs Funds, two representatives of the Kelso Funds, and
one of our representatives. If the Partnership effects an
initial public offering in the future, the board of directors of
the managing general partner will be required, subject to
phase-in requirements of any national securities exchange upon
which the Partnerships common units are listed for
trading, to have at least three members who are not officers or
employees, and are otherwise independent, of the entity which
owns the managing general partner, and its affiliates, including
CVR Energy and the Partnerships general partners. In
addition, if an initial public offering of the Partnership
occurs, the board of directors of the managing general partner
will be required to maintain an audit committee comprised of at
least three independent directors.
The partnership agreement will permit the board of directors of
the managing general partner to establish a conflicts committee,
comprised of at least one independent director (if any), that
may determine if the resolution of a conflict of interest with
the Partnerships general partners or their affiliates is
fair and reasonable to the Partnership. Any matters approved by
the conflicts committee will be conclusively deemed to be fair
and reasonable to the Partnership, approved by all of the
Partnerships partners and not a breach by the general
partners of any duties they may owe the Partnership or the unit
holders of the Partnership.
Cash
Distributions by the Partnership
Distributions
of Available Cash
Available Cash. The partnership agreement will
require the Partnership to make quarterly distributions of 100%
of its available cash. Available cash is defined as
all cash on hand at the end of any particular quarter less
(i) the amount of any cash reserves established by the
managing general partner to (a) provide for the proper conduct
of the Partnerships business (including the satisfaction
of obligations in respect of pre-paid fertilizer contracts,
future capital expenditures and anticipated future credit
needs), (b) comply with applicable law or any loan
agreement, security agreement, mortgage, debt instrument or
other agreement or obligation to which the Partnership or any of
its subsidiaries is a party or by which it is bound or its
assets are subject or (c) provide funds for distributions
in respect of any one or more of the next eight quarters; plus
(ii) working capital borrowings, if any. Working capital
borrowings are generally borrowings that are used solely for
working capital purposes or to make distributions to partners.
Cash distributions will be made within 45 days after the end of
each quarter. The amount of distributions paid by the
Partnership and the decision to make any distribution will be
determined by the managing general partner, taking into
consideration the terms of the partnership agreement.
Prior to the earlier to occur of (i) such time as the
limitations described below in Non-IDR surplus
amount no longer apply, after which time available cash
from operating surplus could be distributed in respect of the
IDRs, assuming each unit has received at least the first target
distribution, as described below, and (ii) an initial
offering by the Partnership, after which there will be limited
partners to whom available cash from operating surplus could be
distributed, all available cash will be distributed to us, as
holder of the special units. Because all available cash will be
distributed to us, the board of directors of Fertilizer GP has
not adopted a formal distribution policy.
Operating
Surplus, Capital Surplus and Adjusted Operating
Surplus
General. All cash distributed by the
Partnership will be characterized either as operating surplus or
capital surplus. The Partnership distributes available cash from
operating surplus differently than available cash from capital
surplus.
220
Definition of operating surplus. Operating
surplus will be defined, generally, as:
|
|
|
|
|
all of the Partnerships cash receipts (from formation
before an initial offering, if any, reset to the date of the
initial offering if an initial offering occurs), excluding cash
from (i) borrowings that are not working capital
borrowings, (ii) sales of equity and debt securities and
(iii) sales or other dispositions of assets outside the
ordinary course of business; plus
|
|
|
|
|
|
interest (after giving effect to any interest rate swap
agreements) paid on debt incurred by the Partnership, and cash
distributions paid on the equity securities issued by the
Partnership, to finance all or any portion of the construction,
expansion or improvement of its facilities during the period
from such financing until the earlier to occur of the date the
capital asset is put into service or the date it is abandoned or
disposed of; plus
|
|
|
|
|
|
interest (after giving effect to any interest rate swap
agreements) paid on debt incurred by the Partnership, and cash
distributions paid on the equity securities issued by the
Partnership, in each case, to pay the construction period
interest on debt incurred, or to pay construction period
distributions on equity issued, to finance the construction
projects referred to above; 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 the Partnerships operating expenditures after
formation (reset to the date of closing of the
Partnerships initial offering); less
|
|
|
|
|
|
the amount of cash reserves established by the managing general
partner to provide funds for future operating expenditures
(which does not include expansive capital expenditures).
|
If a working capital borrowing, which increases operating
surplus, is not repaid during the twelve month period following
the borrowing, it will be deemed repaid at the end of such
period, thus decreasing operating surplus at such time. When
such working capital is in fact repaid, it will not be treated
as a reduction in operating surplus because operating surplus
will have been previously reduced by the deemed repayment.
Operating expenditures generally means all of the
Partnerships expenditures, including, but not limited to,
taxes, reimbursement of expenses of the managing general
partner, repayment of working capital borrowings, debt service
payments and capital expenditures, but will not include payments
of principal of and premium on indebtedness other than working
capital borrowings, capital expenditures made for acquisitions
or for capital improvements, payment of transaction expenses
relating to interim capital transactions or distributions to
partners. Where capital expenditures are made in part for
acquisitions or for capital improvements and in part for other
purposes, the Partnerships managing general partner, with
the concurrence of the conflicts committee, will determine the
allocation between the amounts paid for each.
Maintenance capital expenditures reduce operating surplus from
which the Partnership makes the minimum quarterly distribution,
but capital expenditures for acquisitions and capital
improvements do not. Maintenance capital expenditures represent
capital expenditures to replace partially or fully depreciated
assets to maintain the operating capacity (or productivity) or
capital base of the Partnership. Maintenance capital
expenditures include expenditures required to maintain equipment
reliability, plant integrity and safety and to address
environmental regulations. Capital improvement expenditures
include expenditures to acquire or construct assets to grow the
Partnerships business and to expand existing fertilizer
production capacity. Repair and maintenance expenses associated
with existing assets that are minor in nature and do not extend
the useful life of existing assets are charged to operating
expenses as incurred. The Partnerships managing general
partner will determine how to allocate a capital expenditure for
the acquisition or expansion of the Partnerships assets
between maintenance capital expenditures and capital improvement
expenditures.
221
Distributions
from Operating Surplus
The Partnerships distribution structure with respect to
operating surplus will change based upon the occurrence of three
events: (1) distribution by the Partnership of the non-IDR
surplus amount (as defined below), together with a release of
the guarantees by the Partnership and its subsidiaries of our
Credit Facility, (2) occurrence of an initial offering of
the Partnership (following which all or a portion of our
interest will be converted into subordinated units and the
minimum quarterly distribution could be reduced) and
(3) expiration (or early termination) of the subordination
period.
Minimum Quarterly Distributions. The minimum
quarterly distribution, or MQD, represents the set quarterly
distribution amount that the common units, if issued, will be
entitled to prior to the payment of any quarterly distribution
on the subordinated units. The amount of the MQD will initially
be set in the Partnerships limited partnership agreement
at $0.375 per unit, or $1.50 per unit on an annualized basis, to
the extent the Partnership has sufficient available cash. The
partnership agreement will prohibit Fertilizer GP from causing
the Partnership to undertake or consummate an initial offering
unless the board of directors of Fertilizer GP, after
consultation with us, concludes that the Partnership will be
likely to be able to earn and pay the minimum quarterly
distribution on all units for each of the two consecutive,
nonoverlapping four-quarter periods following the initial
offering. If Fertilizer GP determines that the Partnership is
not likely to be able to earn and pay the minimum quarterly
distribution for such periods, Fertilizer GP may, in its sole
discretion and effective upon closing of the initial offering,
reduce the minimum quarterly distribution to an amount it
determines to be appropriate. If the Partnership were to
distribute $0.375 per unit on the number of units we will
initially own, we would receive a quarterly distribution of
$11.4 million in the aggregate. The MQD for any period of
less than a full calendar quarter (e.g., the periods before and
after the closing of an initial offering of the Partnership)
will be adjusted based on the actual length of the periods. To
the extent we receive amounts from the Partnership in the form
of quarterly distributions, we will generally not be able to
distribute such amounts to our stockholders due to restrictions
contained in our Credit Facility. See Dividend
Policy.
Target Distributions. The Partnerships
limited partnership agreement provides for target
distribution levels. After the limitations described below
in Non-IDR surplus amount no longer apply,
Fertilizer GPs IDRs will entitle it to receive increasing
percentages of any incremental quarterly cash distributed by the
Partnership as the target distribution levels for each quarter
are exceeded. There will be three target distribution levels set
in the partnership agreement: $0.4313, $0.4688 and $0.5625. See
Distributions Prior to the Partnerships
Initial Offering (if any) and See
Distributions After the Partnerships
Initial Offering (if any). The target distribution levels
for any period of less than a full calendar quarter (e.g., the
period from the formation of the Partnership through the end of
the quarter in which such formation occurs and the periods
before and after the closing of an initial offering of the
Partnership) will be adjusted based on the actual length of the
periods. The target distribution levels will not be adjusted in
connection with any reduction of the MQD in connection with the
Partnerships initial offering (as discussed under
Minimum Quarterly Distributions) unless we
otherwise agree with Fertilizer GP.
The following table illustrates the percentage allocations of
available cash from operating surplus between the unit holders
and the Partnerships managing general partner up to the
various target distribution levels. The amounts set forth under
marginal percentage interest in distributions are
the percentage interests of the Partnerships managing
general partner and the unit holders in any available cash from
operating surplus the Partnership distributes up to and
including the corresponding amount in the column total
quarterly distribution, until the available cash from
operating surplus the Partnership distributes reaches the next
target distribution level, if any. The percentage interests
shown for the unit holders and managing 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 the
managing general partner include its incentive distribution
rights.
222
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marginal
Percentage Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
in
Distributions
|
|
|
|
Total
Quarterly
|
|
Special GP
Units;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
Common and
|
|
|
Managing
|
|
|
|
Target
Amount
|
|
Subordinated
Units
|
|
|
General
Partner
|
|
|
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
|
|
$0.375
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
First Target Distribution
|
|
up to $0.4313
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Second Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.4313 and
|
|
|
87
|
%
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
|
|
up to $0.4688
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.4688 and
|
|
|
77
|
%
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
up to $0.5625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
above $0.5625
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
|
|
48
|
%
|
Adjustment to the Minimum Quarterly Distribution and Target
Distribution Levels. In addition to adjusting the minimum
quarterly distribution and target distribution levels to reflect
a distribution of capital surplus (see
Distributions from Capital Surplus), and
a potential reduction of the MQD in connection with the
Partnerships initial offering (as discussed under
Minimum Quarterly Distributions) if the
Partnership combines its units into fewer units or subdivides
its units into a greater number of units, the Partnership will
proportionately adjust:
|
|
|
|
|
the minimum quarterly distribution;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the target distribution levels; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
the initial unit price, as described below under
Distributions of Cash Upon Liquidation.
|
For example, if a
two-for-one
split of the common and subordinated units should occur, the
minimum quarterly distribution, the target distribution levels
and the initial unit price would each be reduced to 50% of its
initial level. If the Partnership combines its common units into
fewer units or subdivides its common units into a greater number
of units, the Partnership will combine its subordinated units or
subdivide its subordinated units, using the same ratio applied
to the common units. The Partnership will not make any
adjustment by reason of the issuance of additional units for
cash or property.
In addition, if legislation is enacted or if existing law is
modified or interpreted by a court of competent jurisdiction so
that the Partnership or any of its subsidiaries becomes taxable
as a corporation or otherwise subject to taxation as an entity
for federal, state or local income tax purposes, the managing
general partner may, in its sole discretion, reduce the minimum
quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels for
each quarter by multiplying each distribution level by a
fraction, the numerator of which is available cash for that
quarter (after deducting the managing general partners
estimate of the Partnerships aggregate liability for the
quarter for such income taxes payable by reason of such
legislation or interpretation) and the denominator of which is
the sum of available cash for that quarter plus the managing
general partners estimate of the Partnerships
aggregate liability for the quarter for such income taxes
payable by reason of such legislation or interpretation. To the
extent that the actual tax liability differs from the estimated
tax liability for any quarter, the difference will be accounted
for in subsequent quarters.
Non-IDR surplus amount. There will be no
distributions paid on the IDRs until the aggregate adjusted
operating surplus (as described below) generated by the
Partnership during the period from its formation through
June 30, 2009, or the non-IDR surplus amount, has been
distributed in respect of the special units and/or the common
and subordinated units (if any are issued). In addition, there
will be no distributions paid on the managing general
partners IDRs for so long as the Partnership or its
subsidiaries are guarantors under our Credit Facility.
Limitation on increases in regular quarter
distributions. After the limitations described in
Non-IDR surplus amount no longer apply,
the managing general partner will not be permitted to increase
the Partnerships regular quarterly distribution
(calculated on a
per-unit
basis), unless the
223
managing general partner determines that the increased
per-unit
distribution rate is likely to be sustainable for at least the
succeeding two years. This restriction will not apply to any
special distributions declared by the managing general partner
or any distributions in the nature of a full or partial
liquidation of the Partnership.
Distributions Prior to the Partnerships Initial
Offering (if any). Prior to the Partnerships initial
offering (if any), quarterly distributions of available cash
from operating surplus (as described below) will be paid solely
in respect of the special units until the non-IDR surplus amount
has been distributed.
After the limitations described in Non-IDR
surplus amount no longer apply and prior to the
Partnerships initial offering (if any), quarterly
distributions of available cash from operating surplus will be
paid in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
First, to the special units, until each special unit has
received a total quarterly distribution equal to $0.4313 (the
first target distribution);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, (i) 13% to the managing general partner interest
(in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 87% to the special units until
each special unit has received a total quarterly amount equal to
$0.4688 (the second target distribution);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third, (i) 23% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 77% to the
special units, until each special unit has received a total
quarterly amount equal to $0.5625 (the third target
distribution); and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter, (i) 48% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 52% to the
special units.
|
Distributions After the Partnerships Initial Offering
(if any). If the non-IDR surplus amount has not been
distributed at the time of the Partnerships initial
offering, quarterly distributions of available cash from
operating surplus after the initial offering will be paid in the
following manner until the non-IDR surplus amount has been
distributed:
|
|
|
|
|
First, to the common units, until each common unit has
received an amount equal to the MQD plus any arrearages from
prior quarters;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, to the subordinated units, until each
subordinated unit has received an amount equal to the MQD; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter, to all common units and subordinated units,
pro rata.
|
After the limitations described in Non-IDR
surplus amount no longer apply, after the
Partnerships initial offering (if any) and during the
subordination period, quarterly distributions of available cash
from operating surplus will be paid in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
First, to all common units, until each common unit has
received a total quarterly distribution equal to the MQD plus
any arrearages for prior quarters;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, to all subordinated units, until each
subordinated unit has received a total quarterly distribution
equal to the MQD;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third, to all common units and subordinated units, pro
rata, until each common unit and subordinated unit has received
a total quarterly distribution equal to $0.4313 (excluding any
distribution in respect of arrearages) (the first target
distribution);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth, (i) 13% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 87% to all
common units and subordinated units, pro rata, until each common
unit and subordinated unit has received a total quarterly
distribution equal to $0.4688 (excluding any distribution in
respect of arrearages) (the second target distribution);
|
224
|
|
|
|
|
Fifth, (i) 23% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 77% to all
common units and subordinated units, pro rata, until each common
unit and subordinated unit has received a total quarterly
distribution equal to $0.5625 (excluding any distribution in
respect of arrearages) (the third target distribution); and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter, (i) 48% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 52% to all
common units and subordinated units, pro rata.
|
After the limitations described in Non-IDR
surplus amount no longer apply, after the
Partnerships initial offering (if any) and after the
subordination period (when all of our subordinated units
automatically convert into common units), quarterly
distributions of available cash from operating surplus will be
paid in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
First, to all common units, until each common unit has
received a total quarterly distribution equal to $0.4313 (the
first target distribution);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, (i) 13% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 87% to all
common units, pro rata, until each common unit has received a
total quarterly distribution equal to $0.4688 (the second target
distribution);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third, (i) 23% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 87% to all
common units, pro rata, until each common unit has received a
total quarterly distribution equal to $0.5625 (the third target
distribution); and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter, (i) 48% to the managing general partner
interest (in respect of the IDRs) and (ii) 52% to all
common units, pro rata.
|
Subordination period. The subordination period
can occur only after the initial offering of the Partnership,
when all or a portion of our special units convert into
subordinated units. Accordingly, a subordination period may
never occur. During the subordination period, the common units
will have the right to receive distributions of available cash
from operating surplus in an amount equal to the MQD, plus any
arrearages in the payment of the MQD on the common units from
prior quarters, before any distributions of available cash from
operating surplus may be made on the subordinated units held by
us. The subordinated units will be deemed
subordinated because during the subordination
period, the subordinated units will not be entitled to receive
distributions until the common units have received the MQD plus
any arrearages from prior quarters. Furthermore, no arrearages
will be paid on the subordinated units.
The subordination period will generally extend until the second
day after the Partnership has met the tests specified in the
partnership agreement. The tests generally require:
|
|
|
|
|
the Partnership to have earned and paid
the MQD on all of the Partnerships outstanding units
during specified periods; and
|
|
|
|
there to be no arrearages in payment of the MQD on the common
units.
|
By earning the MQD, we mean that the Partnership has
generated a sufficient amount of adjusted operating surplus
during the specified periods to pay the MQD on all of the
outstanding units on a fully diluted basis. By
paying the MQD, we mean that the Partnership has
actually made distributions of available cash from operating
surplus on each outstanding unit in an amount that equals or
exceeds the MQD in respect of each quarter in the specified
periods.
The subordination period will generally extend for at least five
years after the date of an initial offering (if any) of the
Partnership and will end the second day after the date when the
Partnership has earned and paid the MQD on all of the
outstanding units for each of the three consecutive,
non-overlapping four-quarter periods immediately preceding that
date and there are no arrearages in payment of the MQD on the
common units.
225
25% of the subordinated units may convert into common units
early (before the end of the subordination period) if, on a date
at least three years after the Partnerships initial
offering, the Partnership has earned and paid the MQD on all of
the outstanding units for each of the three consecutive,
non-overlapping four-quarter periods immediately preceding that
date and there are no arrearages in payment of the MQD on the
common units.
An additional 25% of the subordinated units may convert into
common units early if, on a date at least four years after the
Partnerships initial offering, the Partnership has earned
and paid the MQD on all of the outstanding units for each of the
three consecutive, non-overlapping four-quarter periods
immediately preceding that date and there are no arrearages in
payment of the MQD on the common units, provided, that the last
four-quarter period cannot include any quarter included in the
periods used for conversion of the first 25% of the subordinated
units.
Furthermore, if the unit holders remove the Partnerships
managing general partner other than for cause and no units held
by us and our affiliates are voted in favor of such removal,
(1) the subordination period will end and each subordinated
unit will immediately convert into one common unit, and
(2) any existing arrearages in payment of the MQD on the
common units will be extinguished.
Definition of adjusted operating surplus.
Adjusted operating surplus will be defined, generally, for
any period as:
|
|
|
|
|
operating surplus generated with respect to that period; less
|
|
|
|
any net increase in working capital borrowings with respect to
that period; less
|
|
|
|
any net reduction 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.
|
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.
Distributions
from Capital Surplus
Capital surplus is generally generated only by borrowings other
than working capital borrowings, sales of debt and equity
securities, and sales or other dispositions of assets for cash,
other than inventory, accounts receivable and the other current
assets sold in the ordinary course of business or as part of
normal retirements or replacements of assets.
The Partnership will make distributions of available cash from
capital surplus, if any, in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
First, to all unit holders, pro rata, until the minimum
quarterly distribution is reduced to zero, as described below;
|
|
|
|
Second, to the common unit holders, pro rata, until the
Partnership distributes 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, the Partnership will make all distributions
of available cash from capital surplus as if they were from
operating surplus.
|
The preceding discussion is based on the assumptions that the
Partnership does not issue additional classes of equity
securities.
226
The partnership agreement will treat a distribution of capital
surplus as the repayment of the consideration for the issuance
of a unit by the Partnership, which is a return of capital. 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 distribution had in
relation to the fair market value of the units prior to the
announcement of the distribution. Because distributions of
capital surplus will reduce the minimum quarterly distribution,
after any of these distributions are made, it may be easier for
the managing general partner to receive incentive distributions
and for the subordinated units to convert into common units.
However, any distribution of capital surplus before the minimum
quarterly distribution is reduced to zero cannot be applied to
the payment of the minimum quarterly distribution or any
arrearages.
Once the Partnership reduces the minimum quarterly distribution
and the target distribution levels to zero, the Partnership will
then make all future distributions from operating surplus, with
52% being paid to the unit holders, pro rata, and 48% to the
Partnerships managing general partner.
Unaudited Pro
Forma Available Cash
If the nitrogen fertilizer business had been contributed to the
Partnership on January 1, 2006, we estimate that the
Partnerships pro forma available cash generated during
2006 would have been approximately $53.9 million. This
amount would have been in excess of the amount necessary for the
Partnership to make cash distributions for 2006 at a rate of
$0.375 per unit per quarter (or $1.50 per unit on an
annualized basis) on the 30,333,333 special units we will
initially own. Because all available cash will initially be
distributed to us, as described above under
Distributions of Available Cash the
board of directors of Fertilizer GP has not adopted a formal
distribution policy. The minimum quarterly distribution
specified in the Partnerships limited partnership
agreement could be reduced without our consent or increased with
our consent under certain circumstances, and the Partnership
could issue additional units. This information is presented for
illustrative purposes only.
This pro forma available cash is derived from unaudited segment
operating data for our nitrogen fertilizer segment and is based
on specific estimates and assumptions. The pro forma amounts do
not purport to present results of operations for the Partnership
had the transactions contemplated below actually been completed
as of January 1, 2006. Furthermore, available cash is
primarily a cash accounting concept, while our unaudited
nitrogen fertilizer segment operating data have been prepared on
an accrual basis. We derived the amounts of pro forma available
cash stated above in the manner described in the table below. As
a result, the amount of pro forma available cash should only be
viewed as a general indication of the amount of available cash
that the Partnership might have generated had it been formed and
completed the transactions contemplated below in 2006 and had it
been operated in a manner consistent with that described in the
footnotes.
The following table illustrates the Partnerships cash
available for distribution, on a pro forma basis for 2006,
assuming:
|
|
|
|
|
our nitrogen fertilizer business was contributed to the
Partnership on January 1, 2006;
|
|
|
|
|
|
the agreements described in Other Intercompany
Agreements were entered into on January 1,
2006; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
the termination of the management agreements with Goldman,
Sachs & Co. and Kelso and Company, L.P. occurred on or
prior to December 31, 2005.
|
227
Each of the pro forma adjustments presented below is explained
in the footnotes to such adjustments.
CVR Partners,
LP
Unaudited Pro Forma Cash Available to Make
Distributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
|
|
|
|
Segment Cash
Flow
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Cash
Flow
|
|
|
|
For Year Ended
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
for the Year
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2006
|
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
|
December 31,
2006
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
162,464,532
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
162,464,532
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation & amortization)
|
|
|
25,898,902
|
|
|
|
(3,494,618
|
)(a)
|
|
|
22,404,284
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
63,683,224
|
|
|
|
(72,451
|
)(b)
|
|
|
63,610,773
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation &
amortization)
|
|
|
18,914,256
|
|
|
|
(6,876,482
|
)(c)
|
|
|
12,037,774
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
17,125,898
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,125,898
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
125,622,280
|
|
|
|
(10,443,551
|
)
|
|
|
115,178,729
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
36,842,252
|
|
|
|
10,443,551
|
|
|
|
47,285,803
|
|
Interest (expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,437,500
|
)(d)
|
|
|
(5,437,500
|
)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
180,680
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
180,680
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before provision for
income taxes
|
|
|
37,022,932
|
|
|
|
5,006,051
|
|
|
|
42,028,983
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
17,106,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,106,734
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
19,164
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,164
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(13,257,681
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,257,681
|
)
|
Revolving credit borrowings to
fund discretionary capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,917,655
|
(e)
|
|
|
8,917,655
|
|
Changes in working capital
|
|
|
(1,990,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,990,000
|
)
|
Gain/loss on the Disposition of
Assets
|
|
|
1,056,791
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,056,791
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments to cash flow
|
|
|
2,935,008
|
|
|
|
8,917,655
|
|
|
|
11,852,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash available for distribution
|
|
$
|
39,957,940
|
|
|
$
|
13,923,706
|
|
|
$
|
53,881,646
|
|
|
|
|
a) |
|
Reflects the lower price for pet coke to be supplied by the
refinery to the Partnership under the terms of the coke supply
agreement to be entered into between us and the Partnership. The
actual results for the year ended December 31, 2006
included a coke transfer price of $15 per short ton of
coke. The price would have been $5 per ton under the terms
of the coke supply agreement. The refinery transferred
349,462 tons of pet coke to the nitrogen fertilizer segment
during the year ended December 31, 2006. Under the terms of
the coke supply agreement the Partnership would not have been
required to purchase more than 349,462 tons of pet coke. |
|
|
|
b) |
|
Represents a decrease in costs of general environmental
insurance allocable to the Partnership under the terms of the
management services agreement. The actual results for the year
ended December 31, 2006 reflect a simple 1/3 allocation to
the nitrogen fertilizer segment. The allocation under the
management services agreement would have been based on payroll. |
228
|
|
|
c) |
|
Represents a lower allocation of selling general and
administrative expenses under the terms of the management
services agreement. The actual results for the year ended
December 31, 2006 reflect a simple 1/3 allocation to the
nitrogen fertilizer segment. The allocation under the management
services agreement would have been based on payroll. In
addition, the pro forma adjustment reflects the reversal of the
allocation to the nitrogen fertilizer segment of a portion of a
related party management fee which will not be included in
actual charges for future years. The pro forma selling, general
and administrative expenses does not include any estimated
incremental general and administrative expenses that we expect
the Partnership would incur if the Partnership were a publicly
traded partnership, such as costs associated with annual and
quarterly reports to unit holders, tax return and
Schedule K-1
preparation and distribution, independent auditor fees, investor
relations activities, registrar and transfer agent fees, SEC
reporting and filing requirements, incremental director and
officer liability insurance costs and director compensation. We
estimate that these incremental general and administrative
expenses would not exceed approximately $2.0 million per
year. |
|
|
|
d) |
|
Reflects the interest expense related to an assumed
$75 million in borrowings under a term loan facility and on
assumed revolving credit facility borrowings to finance
discretionary capital expenditures (and to finance interest
expense on such borrowings), at an assumed interest rate of
7.50%. The Partnership will issue a $75 million
intercompany note to us pursuant to the contribution agreement,
but does not have a term loan facility or credit facility, or
any commitment letters with any prospective lenders. There can
be no assurance that the Partnership will be able to obtain a
term loan facility or a revolving credit facility or do so on
acceptable terms. If the assumed interest rate used to calculate
the interest on the borrowings were 1% higher or lower, the
annual interest cost would increase or decrease, respectively,
by approximately $750,000. |
|
|
|
e) |
|
For purposes of determining pro forma cash available for
distribution, we have assumed that the Partnership was operated
during 2006 consistent with the manner in which we assume it
would operate as a publicly traded partnership, including
borrowing the amounts necessary to cover discretionary capital
expenditures, as well as interest payments on such borrowings,
as reflected in the table. The nitrogen fertilizer segment
incurred significant expenditures related to discretionary
capital expenditure projects which we assume would not have been
funded from cash from operations if the Partnership were
operated as a publicly traded partnership. We assume the
Partnership would either reserve adequate cash to complete
discretionary capital expenditures or would raise additional
capital to fund projects that are not required to sustain
operations. The managing general partner will determine whether
capital expenditures will be funded from operating surplus. |
The pro forma financial data described above indicates that the
Partnership would have had sufficient net available cash during
2006 in order to pay the minimum quarterly distribution during
2006. For 2007, the Company does not know of any demands,
commitments, events or uncertainties that are reasonably likely
to cause the Partnerships available cash to decrease in a
material way during 2007. In addition, the Partnerships
limited partnership agreement includes a provision that the
Partnership may not consummate an initial offering unless the
managing general partner believes that the Partnership will be
able to pay the minimum quarterly distribution for at least two
years.
Distributions
of Cash Upon Liquidation
General. If the Partnership dissolves in
accordance with the partnership agreement, the Partnership will
sell or otherwise dispose of its assets in a process called
liquidation. The Partnership will first apply the proceeds of
liquidation to the payment of its creditors. The Partnership
will distribute any remaining proceeds to the unit holders and
the managing general partner, in accordance with their capital
account balances, as adjusted to reflect any gain or loss upon
the sale or other disposition of the Partnerships assets
in liquidation.
The allocations of gain and loss upon liquidation are intended,
to the extent possible, to entitle the holders of units to a
repayment of the initial value contributed by the unit holder to
the Partnership
229
for its units, which we refer to as the initial unit
price for each unit. With respect to our special GP units,
the initial unit price will be the value of the nitrogen
fertilizer business we contribute to the Partnership, divided by
the number of special GP units we receive. The initial unit
price for the common units issued by the Partnership in the
initial offering, if any, will be the price paid for the common
units. If there are common units and subordinated units
outstanding, the allocation is intended, to the extent possible,
to entitle the holders of common units to a preference over the
holders of subordinated units upon the Partnerships
liquidation, to the extent required to permit common unit
holders to receive their initial unit price plus the minimum
quarterly distribution for the quarter during which liquidation
occurs plus any unpaid arrearages in payment of the minimum
quarterly distribution on the common units. However, there may
not be sufficient gain upon the Partnerships liquidation
to enable the holders of units to fully recover all of this
initial unit price. Any further net gain recognized upon
liquidation will be allocated in a manner that takes into
account the incentive distribution rights of the managing
general partner.
Manner of Adjustments for Gain. The manner of
the adjustment for gain is set forth in the partnership
agreement. If the Partnerships liquidation occurs after
the Partnerships initial offering, if any, and before the
end of the subordination period, the Partnership will allocate
any gain to the partners in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
First, to the managing general partner and the holders of
units who have negative balances in their capital accounts to
the extent of and in proportion to those negative balances;
|
|
|
|
Second, to the common unit holders, pro rata, until the
capital account for each common unit is equal to the sum of:
|
(1) the initial unit price;
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
the amount of the minimum quarterly distribution for the quarter
during which the liquidation occurs; and
|
(3) any unpaid arrearages in payment of the minimum
quarterly distribution;
|
|
|
|
|
Third, to the subordinated unit holders, pro rata, until
the capital account for each subordinated unit is equal to the
sum of:
|
(1) the initial unit price; and
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
the amount of the minimum quarterly distribution for the quarter
during which the liquidation occurs;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth, to all unit holders, pro rata, until the
Partnership allocates under this paragraph an amount per unit
equal to:
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
the sum of the excess of the first target distribution per unit
over the minimum quarterly distribution per unit for each
quarter of the Partnerships existence; less
|
|
|
(2)
|
the cumulative amount per unit of any distributions of available
cash from operating surplus in excess of the minimum quarterly
distribution per unit that the Partnership distributed to the
unit holders, pro rata, for each quarter of the
Partnerships existence;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fifth, 87% to all unit holders, pro rata, and 13% to the
managing general partner, until the Partnership allocates under
this paragraph an amount per unit equal to:
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
the sum of the excess of the second target distribution per unit
over the first target distribution per unit for each quarter of
the Partnerships existence; less
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
the cumulative amount per unit of any distributions of available
cash from operating surplus in excess of the first target
distribution per unit that the Partnership distributed 87% to
the unit holders, pro rata, and 13% to the managing general
partner for each quarter of the Partnerships existence;
|
230
|
|
|
|
|
Sixth, 77% to all unit holders, pro rata, and 23% to the
managing general partner, until the Partnership allocates under
this paragraph an amount per unit equal to:
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
the sum of the excess of the third target distribution per unit
over the second target distribution per unit for each quarter of
the Partnerships existence; less
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
the cumulative amount per unit of any distributions of available
cash from operating surplus in excess of the second target
distribution per unit that the Partnership distributed 77% to
the unit holders, pro rata, and 23% to the managing general
partner for each quarter of the Partnerships existence; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter, 52% to all unit holders, pro rata, and 48% to
the managing general partner.
|
The percentages set forth above are based on the assumption that
the Partnership has not issued additional classes of equity
securities.
If the liquidation occurs before the Partnerships initial
offering, the special units will receive allocations of gain in
the same manner as described above for the common units, except
that the distinction between common units and subordinated units
will not be relevant, so that clause (3) of the second bullet
point above and all of the third bullet point above will not be
applicable. If the liquidation occurs after the end of the
subordination period, the distinction between common units and
subordinated units will disappear, so that clause (3) of
the second bullet point above and all of the third bullet point
above will no longer be applicable.
Manner of Adjustments for Losses. If the
Partnerships liquidation occurs after the
Partnerships initial offering, if any, and before the end
of the subordination period, the Partnership will generally
allocate any loss to the managing general partner and the unit
holders in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
First, to holders of subordinated units in proportion to
the positive balances in their capital accounts, until the
capital accounts of the subordinated unit holders have been
reduced to zero;
|
|
|
|
Second, to the holders of common units in proportion to
the positive balances in their capital accounts, until the
capital accounts of the common unit holders have been reduced to
zero; and
|
|
|
|
Thereafter, 100% to the managing general partner.
|
If the liquidation occurs before the Partnerships initial
offering, the special units will receive allocations of loss in
the same manner as described above for the common units, except
that the distinction between common units and subordinated units
will not be relevant, so that all of the first bullet point
above will not be applicable. If the liquidation occurs after
the end of the subordination period, the distinction between
common units and subordinated units will disappear, so that all
of the first bullet point above will no longer be applicable.
Adjustments to Capital Accounts. The
Partnership will make adjustments to capital accounts upon the
issuance of additional units. In doing so, the Partnership will
allocate any unrealized and, for tax purposes, unrecognized gain
or loss resulting from the adjustments to the unit holders and
the managing general partner in the same manner as the
Partnership allocates gain or loss upon liquidation. In the
event that the Partnership makes positive adjustments to the
capital accounts upon the issuance of additional units, the
Partnership will allocate any later negative adjustments to the
capital accounts resulting from the issuance of additional units
or upon the Partnerships liquidation in a manner which
results, to the extent possible, in the managing general
partners capital account balances equaling the amount
which they would have been if no earlier positive adjustments to
the capital accounts had been made.
Other Provisions
of the Partnership Agreement
In addition to the provisions regarding the formation of the
Partnership, the Partnership interests that will be outstanding
initially following formation and that may be issued in an
initial offering by the
231
Partnership and the relative rights and preferences of the
holders of such Partnership interests in the Partnerships
distributions, the Partnerships limited partnership
agreement contains additional material provisions that set forth
the various rights and responsibilities of the partnership in
the Partnership. The following is a summary of these additional
material provisions.
Removal of the
Managing General Partner
For the first five years after the Partnerships formation,
the managing general partner may be removed only for
cause by a vote of the holders of at least 80% of
the outstanding units, including any units owned by the managing
general partner and its affiliates, voting together as a single
class. Cause will be defined as a final,
non-appealable judicial determination that the managing general
partner, as an entity, has materially breached a material
provision of the partnership agreement or is liable for actual
fraud or willful misconduct in its capacity as a general partner
of the Partnership.
After five years from the formation of the Partnership, the
managing general partner may be removed with or without cause by
a vote of the holders of at least 80% of the outstanding units,
including any units owned by the managing general partner and
its affiliates, voting together as a single class.
The partnership agreement also provides that if the managing
general partner is removed as managing general partner under
circumstances where cause does not exist and no units held by
us, our subsidiary that holds the subordinated units (if any)
and our other affiliates are voted in favor of that removal:
|
|
|
|
|
the subordination period will end and all outstanding
subordinated units will immediately convert into common units on
a
one-for-one
basis; and
|
|
|
|
any existing arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution on the common units will be extinguished.
|
If the managing general partner is removed as managing general
partner under circumstances where cause does not exist and no
units held by the managing general partner and its affiliates
(which will include us until such time as we cease to be an
affiliate of the managing general partner) are voted in favor of
that removal, the managing general partner will have the right
to convert its managing general partner interest, including the
incentive distribution rights, into common units or to receive
cash in exchange for those interests based on the fair market
value of the interests at the time.
In the event of removal of the managing general partner under
circumstances where cause exists or withdrawal of the managing
general partner where that withdrawal violates the partnership
agreement, a successor managing general partner will have the
option to purchase the managing general partner interest,
including the IDRs, of the departing managing general partner
for a cash payment equal to the fair market value of the
managing general partner interest. Under all other circumstances
where the managing general partner withdraws or is removed by
the limited partners, the departing managing general partner
will have the option to require the successor managing general
partner to purchase the managing general partner interest of the
departing managing general partner for its fair market value. In
each case, this fair market value will be determined by
agreement between the departing managing general partner and the
successor managing general partner. If no agreement is reached,
an independent investment banking firm or other independent
expert selected by the departing managing general partner and
the successor managing general partner will determine the fair
market value. If the departing managing general partner and the
successor managing general partner cannot agree upon an expert,
then an expert chosen by agreement of the experts selected by
each of them will determine the fair market value.
If the option described above is not exercised by either the
departing managing general partner or the successor managing
general partner, the departing managing general partners
general partner interest, including its IDRs, will automatically
convert into common units equal to the fair market value
232
of those interests as determined by an investment banking firm
or other independent expert selected in the manner described in
the preceding paragraph.
In addition, the Partnership will be required to reimburse the
departing managing general partner for all amounts due to it,
including, without limitation, all employee-related liabilities,
including severance liabilities, incurred for the termination of
any employees employed by the departing managing general partner
or its affiliates for the Partnerships benefit.
Voting
Rights
Various matters require the approval of a unit
majority. A unit majority requires (1) prior to the
initial offering, the approval of a majority of the special
units; (2) during the subordination period, the approval of
a majority of the common units, excluding those common units
held by our managing general partner and its affiliates (which
will include us until such time as we cease to be an affiliate
of the managing general partner), and a majority of the
subordinated units, voting as separate classes; and
(3) after the subordination period, the approval of a
majority of the common units.
In voting their units, the Partnerships general partners
and their affiliates will have no fiduciary duty or obligation
whatsoever to the Partnership or the limited partners, including
any duty to act in good faith or in the best interests of the
Partnership and its limited partners.
The following is a summary of the vote requirements specified
for certain matters under the partnership agreement:
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of additional units: no vote required.
|
|
|
|
Amendment of the partnership
agreement: certain amendments may be made by the
managing general partner without the approval of the unit
holders. Other amendments generally require the approval of a
unit majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merger of the Partnership or the sale of all or substantially
all of the Partnerships assets: unit majority in
certain circumstances. See Merger, Sale or
Other Disposition of Assets. In addition, the holder of
special GP rights has approval rights with respect to some
mergers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuation of the Partnership upon
dissolution: unit majority. See
Termination and Dissolution.
|
|
|
|
Withdrawal of the managing general
partner: under most circumstances a unit majority
is required for the withdrawal of the managing general partner
prior to June 30, 2017 in a manner which would cause a
dissolution of the Partnership. See
Withdrawal of the Managing General Partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removal of the managing general
partner: generally not less than 80% of the
outstanding common and subordinated units, voting as a single
class, including units held by our managing general partner and
its affiliates. See Removal of the Managing
General Partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer of the managing general partners general
partner interest: the managing general partner
may transfer all, but not less than all, of its managing general
partner interest in the Partnership without a vote of the unit
holders to an affiliate or to another person in connection with
its merger or consolidation with or into, or sale of all or
substantially all of the managing general partners assets
to, such person. A unit majority is required in other
circumstances for a transfer of the managing general partner
interest to a third party prior to June 30, 2017. See
Transfer of Managing General Partner
Interests.
|
|
|
|
Transfer of ownership interests in the managing general
partner: no approval required at any time. See
Transfer of Ownership Interests in the
Managing General Partner.
|
233
Issuance of
Additional Securities
The partnership agreement authorizes the Partnership to issue an
unlimited number of additional partnership securities for the
consideration and on the terms and conditions determined by the
managing general partner without the approval of the unit
holders, subject to the special GP rights with respect to the
issuance of equity with rights to distribution or in liquidation
ranking prior to or senior to or junior to the common units.
It is possible that the Partnership will fund acquisitions
through the issuance of common units, subordinated units or
other partnership securities. Holders of any additional
partnership securities issued by the Partnership will be
entitled to share equally with the then-existing holders of
partnership securities in distributions of available cash. In
addition, the issuance of additional common units or other
partnership securities may dilute the value of the interests of
the then-existing holders of partnership securities in the
Partnerships net assets.
In accordance with Delaware law and the provisions of the
partnership agreement, the Partnership may also issue additional
partnership securities that, as determined by the managing
general partner, have special voting rights to which the special
units, common units and subordinated units will not be entitled.
In addition, the partnership agreement does not prohibit the
issuance by the Partnerships subsidiaries of equity
securities, which may effectively rank senior to our units.
Upon issuance of additional partnership securities, the
Partnerships managing general partner will have the right,
which it may from time to time assign in whole or in part to any
of its affiliates, to purchase common units, subordinated units
or other partnership securities whenever, and on the same terms
that, the Partnership issues those securities to persons other
than the managing general partner and its affiliates, to the
extent necessary to maintain its and its affiliates
percentage interest, including such interest represented by
common units and subordinated units, that existed immediately
prior to each issuance. We will have similar rights to purchase
common units, subordinated units or other partnership securities
from the Partnership, except that our rights will not apply to
any issuance of securities by the Partnership in its initial
offering. For the purpose of these rights, we and the managing
general partner shall be deemed not to be affiliates of one
another, unless we otherwise agree. Other holders of units will
not have preemptive rights to acquire additional common units or
other partnership securities.
Amendment of
the Partnership Agreement
General. Amendments to the partnership
agreement may be proposed only by the managing general partner.
However, the managing general partner will have no duty or
obligation to propose any amendment and may decline to do so
free of any fiduciary duty or obligation whatsoever to the
Partnership or the unit holders, including any duty to act in
good faith or in the best interests of the Partnership or the
unit holders. In order to adopt a proposed amendment, other than
the amendments discussed below, the managing general partner
must seek written approval of the holders of the number of units
required to approve the amendment or call a meeting of the unit
holders to consider and vote upon the proposed amendment. Except
as described below, an amendment must be approved by a unit
majority.
Prohibited Amendments. No amendment may be
made that would (1) enlarge the obligations of any limited
partner or us, as a general partner, without its consent, unless
approved by at least a majority of the type or class of partner
interests so affected or (2) enlarge the obligations of,
restrict in any way any action by or rights of, or reduce in any
way the amounts distributable, reimbursable or otherwise payable
by the Partnership to its general partners or any of their
affiliates without the consent of the managing general partner,
which may be given or withheld at its option.
The provision of the partnership agreement preventing the
amendments having the effects described in clauses (1) and
(2) above can be amended upon the approval of the holders
of at least 90% of the outstanding units, voting together as a
single class (including units owned by the
234
managing general partner and its affiliates). Upon completion of
this offering, we will own all of the outstanding units.
No Unit Holder Approval. The managing general
partner may generally make amendments to the partnership
agreement without the approval of any unit holders to reflect:
|
|
|
|
|
a change in the Partnerships name, the location of its
principal place of business, its registered agent or its
registered office;
|
|
|
|
the admission, substitution, withdrawal or removal of partners
in accordance with the partnership agreement;
|
|
|
|
a change that the managing general partner determines to be
necessary or appropriate for the Partnership to qualify or to
continue its qualification as a limited partnership or a
partnership in which the limited partners have limited liability
under the laws of any state or to ensure that the Partnership
will not be treated as an association taxable as a corporation
or otherwise taxed as an entity for federal income tax purposes
(to the extent not already so treated or taxed);
|
|
|
|
an amendment that is necessary, in the opinion of the
Partnerships counsel, to prevent the Partnership or its
managing general partner or its directors, officers, agents, or
trustees or CVR Energy from in any manner being subjected to the
provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment
Advisors Act of 1940, or plan asset regulations
adopted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), whether or not substantially similar
to plan asset regulations currently applied or proposed;
|
|
|
|
an amendment that the managing general partner determines to be
necessary or appropriate for the authorization of additional
partnership securities or rights to acquire partnership
securities;
|
|
|
|
any amendment expressly permitted in our partnership agreement
to be made by the Partnerships managing general partner
acting alone;
|
|
|
|
an amendment effected, necessitated or contemplated by a merger
agreement that has been approved under the terms of the
partnership agreement;
|
|
|
|
any amendment that the Partnerships managing general
partner determines to be necessary or appropriate for the
formation by the Partnership of, or its investment in, any
corporation, partnership or other entity, as otherwise permitted
by the partnership agreement;
|
|
|
|
a change in the Partnerships fiscal year or taxable year
and related changes;
|
|
|
|
mergers with or conveyances to another limited liability entity
that is newly formed and has no assets, liabilities or
operations at the time of the merger or conveyance other than
those it receives by way of the merger or conveyance; or
|
|
|
|
any other amendments substantially similar to any of the matters
described above.
|
In addition, the managing general partner may make amendments to
the partnership agreement without the approval of any unit
holders if the managing general partner determines that those
amendments:
|
|
|
|
|
do not adversely affect the partners (or any particular class of
partners) in any material respect;
|
|
|
|
are necessary or appropriate to satisfy any requirements,
conditions, or guidelines contained in any opinion, directive,
order, ruling, or regulation of any federal or state agency or
judicial authority or contained in any federal or state statute;
|
|
|
|
are necessary or appropriate to facilitate the trading of
partner interests or to comply with any rule, regulation,
guideline, or requirement of any securities exchange on which
the partner interests are or will be listed for trading;
|
235
|
|
|
|
|
are necessary or appropriate for any action taken by the
managing general partner relating to splits or combinations of
units under the provisions of the partnership agreement; or
|
|
|
|
|
|
are required to effect the intent of the provisions of the
partnership agreement or this registration statement or are
otherwise contemplated by the partnership agreement.
|
Opinion of Counsel and Unit Holder
Approval. The managing general partner will not
be required to obtain an opinion of counsel that an amendment
will not result in a loss of limited liability to the limited
partners or result in the Partnership being treated as an entity
for federal income tax purposes in connection with any of the
amendments described under No Unit Holder
Approval. No other amendments to the partnership agreement
will become effective without the approval of holders of at
least 90% of the outstanding units voting as a single class
unless the managing general partner first obtains an opinion of
counsel to the effect that the amendment will not affect the
limited liability under Delaware law of any of the
Partnerships limited partners. Finally, the managing
general partner may consummate any merger without the prior
approval of the Partnerships unit holders if the
Partnership is the surviving entity in the transaction, the
transaction would not result in a material amendment to the
partnership agreement, each of the units will be an identical
unit of the Partnership following the transaction, the units to
be issued do not exceed 20% of the outstanding units immediately
prior to the transaction and the managing general partner has
received an opinion of counsel regarding certain limited
liability and tax matters.
In addition to the above restrictions, any amendment that would
have a material adverse effect on the rights or preferences of
any type or class of outstanding units in relation to other
classes of units will require the approval of at least a
majority of the type or class of units so affected. Any
amendment that reduces the voting percentage required to take
any action must be approved by the affirmative vote of unit
holders whose aggregate outstanding units constitute not less
than the voting requirement sought to be reduced.
Credit Facility. We may not enter into
material amendments related to any material rights under the
partnership agreement without the consent of the lenders under
our Credit Facility.
Merger, Sale,
or Other Disposition of Assets
A merger or consolidation of the Partnership requires the prior
consent of Fertilizer GP, as managing general partner, and may
be subject to our specified approval rights. However, the
Partnerships general partners will have no duty or
obligation to consent to any merger or consolidation and may
decline to do so free of any fiduciary duty or obligation
whatsoever to the Partnership or the unit holders, including any
duty to act in good faith or in the best interest of the
Partnership or the unit holders.
In addition, the partnership agreement generally prohibits the
managing general partner, without the prior approval of the
holders of units representing a unit majority, from causing the
Partnership to, among other things, sell, exchange or otherwise
dispose of all or substantially all of the Partnerships
assets in a single transaction or a series of related
transactions, including by way of merger, consolidation or other
combination, or approving on the Partnerships behalf the
sale, exchange or other disposition of all or substantially all
of the assets of the Partnerships subsidiaries. The
managing general partner may, however, mortgage, pledge,
hypothecate or grant a security interest in all or substantially
all of the Partnerships assets without that approval. The
managing general partner may also sell all or substantially all
of the Partnerships assets under a foreclosure or other
realization upon those encumbrances without that approval.
If the conditions specified in the partnership agreement are
satisfied, the managing general partner may convert the
Partnership or any of its subsidiaries into a new limited
liability entity or merge the Partnership or any of its
subsidiaries into, or convey some or all of its assets to, a
newly formed entity if the sole purpose of that merger or
conveyance is to effect a mere change in its legal form into
another limited liability entity. The unit holders are not
entitled to dissenters rights of appraisal under the
partnership agreement or applicable Delaware law in the event of
a conversion,
236
merger or consolidation, a sale of substantially all of the
Partnerships assets or any other transaction or event.
Termination
and Dissolution
The Partnership will continue as a limited partnership until
terminated under the partnership agreement. The Partnership will
dissolve upon:
(1) the election of the managing general partner to
dissolve the Partnership, if approved by the holders of units
representing a unit majority;
(2) there being no limited partners, unless the Partnership
continues without dissolution in accordance with applicable
Delaware law;
(3) the entry of a decree of judicial dissolution of the
Partnership; or
(4) the withdrawal or removal of the managing general
partner or any other event that results in its ceasing to be the
Partnerships managing general partner other than by reason
of a transfer of its managing general partner interest in
accordance with the partnership agreement or withdrawal or
removal following approval and admission of a successor.
Upon a dissolution under clause (4), the holders of a unit
majority may also elect, within specific time limitations, to
reconstitute the Partnership and continue the Partnerships
business on the same terms and conditions described in the
partnership agreement by appointing as managing general partner
an entity approved by the holders of units representing a unit
majority, subject to receipt of an opinion of counsel to the
effect that (1) the action would not result in the loss of
limited liability under Delaware law of any limited partner and
(2) neither the Partnership nor any of its subsidiaries
would be treated as an association taxable as a corporation or
otherwise be taxable as an entity for federal income tax
purposes upon the exercise of that right to continue (to the
extent not already so treated or taxed).
Upon dissolution of the Partnership, unless the business of the
Partnership is continued, the liquidator authorized to wind up
the Partnerships affairs will, acting with all of the
powers of the managing general partner that are necessary or
appropriate, liquidate the Partnerships assets and apply
the proceeds of the liquidation as described in the partnership
agreement. The liquidator may defer liquidation or distribution
of the Partnerships assets for a reasonable period of time
or distribute assets to partners in kind if it determines that a
sale would be impractical or would cause undue loss to the
partners.
Withdrawal of
the Managing General Partner
Except as described below, the managing general partner has
agreed not to withdraw voluntarily as managing general partner
prior to June 30, 2017 without obtaining the approval of the
holders of at least a majority of the outstanding units,
excluding units held by the managing general partner and its
affiliates, and furnishing an opinion of counsel regarding
limited liability and tax matters. On or after June 30, 2017,
the managing general partner may withdraw as managing general
partner without first obtaining approval of any unit holder by
giving 90 days written notice, and that withdrawal
will not constitute a violation of the partnership agreement.
Notwithstanding the information above, the managing general
partner may withdraw without unit holder approval upon
90 days notice to the unit holders if at least 50% of
the outstanding units are held or controlled by one person and
its affiliates other than the managing general partner and its
affiliates, including us. In addition, the partnership agreement
permits the managing general partner in some instances to sell
or otherwise transfer all of its managing general partner
interest in the Partnership without the approval of the unit
holders. See Transfer of Managing General
Partner Interest.
Upon withdrawal of the managing general partner under any
circumstances, other than as a result of a transfer by the
managing general partner of all or a part of its general partner
interest in the Partnership, the holders of a majority of the
outstanding classes of units, voting as separate classes, may
select a successor to that withdrawing managing general partner.
If a successor is not
237
elected, or is elected but an opinion of counsel regarding
limited liability and tax matters cannot be obtained, the
Partnership will be dissolved, wound up and liquidated, unless
within a specified period of time after that withdrawal, the
holders of a unit majority agree in writing to continue the
Partnerships business and to appoint a successor managing
general partner. See Termination and
Dissolution.
Transfer of
Managing General Partner Interest
Except for the transfer by the managing general partner of all,
but not less than all, of its managing general partner interest
in the Partnership to (1) an affiliate of the managing
general partner (other than an individual) or (2) another
entity as part of the merger or consolidation of the managing
general partner with or into another entity or the transfer by
the managing general partner of all or substantially all of its
assets to another entity, the managing general partner may not
transfer all or any part of its managing general partner
interest in the Partnership to another person prior to June 30,
2017 without the approval of the holders of at least a majority
of the outstanding units, excluding units held by the managing
general partner and its affiliates. As a condition of this
transfer, the transferee must, among other things, assume the
rights and duties of the managing general partner, agree to be
bound by the provisions of the partnership agreement and furnish
an opinion of counsel regarding limited liability and tax
matters.
The Partnerships general partners and their affiliates may
at any time transfer units to one or more persons, without unit
holder approval, except that they may not transfer subordinated
units to the Partnership.
Transfer of
Ownership Interests in the Managing General
Partner
At any time, the owners of the managing general partner may sell
or transfer all or part of their ownership interests in the
managing general partner to an affiliate or a third party
without the approval of the Partnerships unit holders.
Change of
Management Provisions
The partnership agreement contains specific provisions that are
intended to discourage a person or group from attempting to
remove CVR GP, LLC as the managing general partner of the
Partnership or otherwise change the Partnerships
management. If any person or group other than the managing
general partner and its affiliates (including us) acquires
beneficial ownership of 20% or more of any class of units, that
person or group loses voting rights on all of its units. This
loss of voting rights does not apply to any person or group that
acquires the units from the managing general partner or its
affiliates and any transferees of that person or group approved
by the managing general partner or to any person or group who
acquires the units with the prior approval of the board of
directors of the managing general partner.
The partnership agreement also provides that if the
Partnerships managing general partner is removed without
cause and no units held by us, our subsidiary that holds the
subordinated units (if any) and our other affiliates are voted
in favor of that removal:
|
|
|
|
|
the subordination period will end and all outstanding
subordinated units will immediately convert into common units on
a
one-for-one
basis; and
|
|
|
|
any existing arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution on the common units will be extinguished.
|
If the managing general partner is removed as managing general
partner under circumstances where cause does not exist and no
units held by the managing general partner and its affiliates
(which will include us until such time as we cease to be an
affiliate of the managing general partner) are voted in favor of
that removal, the managing general partner will have the right
to convert its
238
managing general partner interest, including its incentive
distribution rights, into common units or to receive cash in
exchange for the managing general partner interest.
Limited call
right
If at any time the Partnerships managing general partner
and its affiliates (other than CVR Energy and its subsidiaries)
own more than 80% of the then-issued and outstanding partnership
securities of any class, the managing general partner will have
the right, which it may assign in whole or in part to any of its
affiliates or to the Partnership, to acquire all, but not less
than all, of the remaining partnership securities of the class
held by unaffiliated persons. At any time following the
Partnerships initial offering, if any, if we fail to hold
at least 20% of the units of the Partnership our common GP units
will be deemed to be part of the same class of partnership
securities as the common LP units for purposes of this
provision. This provision will make it easier for the managing
general partner to take the Partnership private in its
discretion.
The limited call right is exercisable by the managing general
partner, acting in its individual capacity, and may be assigned
to its affiliates.
The purchase price in the event of such an acquisition will be
the greater of:
(1) the highest cash price paid by either of the managing
general partner or any of its affiliates for any partnership
securities of the class purchased within the 90 days
preceding the date on which the managing general partner first
mails notice of its election to purchase those partnership
securities; and
(2) the current market price as of the date three days
before the date the notice is mailed.
Indemnification
Under the partnership agreement, the Partnership will indemnify
the following persons in most circumstances, to the fullest
extent permitted by law, from and against all losses, claims,
damages, or similar events:
(1) the Partnerships general partners;
(2) any departing general partner;
(3) any person who is or was an officer, director,
fiduciary or trustee of any entity described in (1) or (2) above
or of any of the Partnerships subsidiaries;
(4) any person who is or was serving as a director,
officer, fiduciary or trustee of another person at the request
of the managing general partner or any departing managing
general partner or any of their affiliates;
(5) any person who controls a general partner; or
(6) any person designated by the Partnerships
managing general partner.
Any indemnification under these provisions will only be out of
the Partnerships assets. Unless they otherwise agree, the
Partnerships general partners will not be personally
liable for, or have any obligation to contribute or loan funds
or assets to the Partnership to enable the Partnership to
effectuate, indemnification.
Reimbursement
of Expenses
The partnership agreement requires the Partnership to reimburse
the Partnerships managing general partner and its
affiliates for all direct and indirect expenses it incurs or
payments it makes on behalf of the Partnership and all other
expenses allocable to the Partnership or otherwise incurred by
the managing general partner and its affiliates in connection
with operating the Partnerships business, including
overhead allocated to the Partnership by us. These expenses
include salary, bonus,
239
incentive compensation and other amounts paid to persons who
perform services for the Partnership or on behalf of the
Partnership, and expenses allocated to the managing general
partner by its affiliates. The managing general partner is
entitled to determine in good faith the expenses that are
allocable to the Partnership.
Conflicts of
Interest Arising from the Partnership Structure
Conflicts of interest exist and may arise in the future as a
result of (1) the overlap of directors and officers between
us and the Partnerships managing general partner, which
may result in conflicting obligations by our directors and
officers, (2) duties of the Partnerships managing
general partner to act for the benefit of its owners, which may
conflict with our interests and the interests of our
stockholders, and (3) our duties as a general partner of
the Partnership to act for the benefit of all unit holders,
including future unaffiliated partners, which may conflict with
our interests and the interests of our stockholders. The
directors and officers of the Partnerships managing
general partner, Fertilizer GP, have fiduciary duties to manage
Fertilizer GP in a manner beneficial to its owners, but at the
same time, Fertilizer GP has a fiduciary duty to manage the
Partnership in a manner beneficial to its unit holders,
including us. In addition, since we are a general partner of the
Partnership, we have a legal duty to exercise our special GP
rights in a manner beneficial to the Partnerships unit
holders, who may in the future include unaffiliated partners,
but at the same time our directors and officers have a fiduciary
duty to act in a manner beneficial to us and our stockholders.
With respect to conflicts of interest between us and the
Partnership, and in particular with respect to contractual
arrangements between us and the Partnership and amendments to
existing contractual arrangements, we expect to adopt a
conflicts of interest policy to govern transactions between us
and the Partnership. Under the policy, transactions above
$5 million between us and the Partnership will need to be
approved by our conflicts committee, which will consist of one
or more directors who have no interest in the Partnership or the
managing general partner of the Partnership, and transactions
above $1 million will need to be either (1) approved
by the conflicts committee, (2) no less favorable to us
than those available from an unrelated third party or
(3) take into account other simultaneous transactions being
entered into among the parties, equitable to us. See
Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions Conflicts of Interests Policy for
Transactions Between the Partnership and Us.
With respect to conflicts of interest between the Partnership
and Fertilizer GP, the Partnerships managing general
partner will resolve that conflict. The partnership agreement
will permit the board of directors of the managing general
partner to establish a conflicts committee. See
Management of the Partnership. The
partnership agreement contains provisions that modify and limit
the fiduciary duties of Fertilizer GP and us to the unit
holders. The partnership agreement also restricts the remedies
available to unit holders (including us) for actions taken that,
without those limitations, might constitute breaches of
fiduciary duty.
Fertilizer GP, as the managing general partner, will not be in
breach of its obligations under the partnership agreement or its
duties to the Partnership or its unit holders (including us) if
the resolution of the conflict is:
|
|
|
|
|
approved by Fertilizer GPs conflicts committee, although
Fertilizer GP is not obligated to seek such approval;
|
|
|
|
approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding common
units, excluding any common units owned by Fertilizer GP and its
affiliates (including us so long as we remain on affiliate).);
|
|
|
|
on terms no less favorable to the Partnership than those
generally being provided to or available from unrelated third
parties; or
|
240
|
|
|
|
|
fair and reasonable 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.
|
Fertilizer GP may, but is not required to, seek approval from
the conflicts committee of its board of directors or from the
common unit holders. If Fertilizer GP does not seek approval
from the conflicts committee and its board of directors
determines that the resolution or course of action taken with
respect to the conflict of interest satisfies either of the
standards set forth in the third and fourth bullet points above,
then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, the board
of directors acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought
by or on behalf of any partner or the Partnership, the person
bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of
overcoming such presumption. Unless the resolution of a conflict
is specifically provided for in the partnership agreement,
Fertilizer GP or the conflicts committee may consider any
factors it determines in good faith to consider when resolving a
conflict. When the partnership agreement requires someone to act
in good faith, it requires that person to reasonably believe
that he is acting in the best interests of the Partnership,
unless the context otherwise requires.
Conflicts of interest could arise in the situations described
below, among others.
Fertilizer GP
will hold all of the incentive distribution rights in the
Partnership.
Fertilizer GP, as managing general partner of the Partnership,
will hold all of the incentive distribution rights in the
Partnership. Incentive distribution rights will give Fertilizer
GP a right to increasing percentages of the Partnerships
quarterly distributions from operating surplus after the
aggregate adjusted operating surplus generated by the
Partnership during the period from its formation through June
30, 2009 has been distributed in respect of the special GP units
and/or the common and subordinated units. Fertilizer GP may have
an incentive to manage the Partnership in a manner which
increases these future cash flows rather than in a manner which
increases current cash flows. See Risk Factors
Risks Related to the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which
We Will Hold Our Interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer
Business The managing general partner of the
Partnership will have a fiduciary duty to favor the interests of
its owners, and these interests may differ from or conflict with
our interests and the interests of our stockholders.
Initial
officers and directors of Fertilizer GP also serve as officers
and directors of us and have obligations to both the Partnership
and our business.
Initially, all of the directors and executive officers of
Fertilizer GP also serve as directors and executive officers of
CVR Energy. We have entered into a management services
agreement with Fertilizer GP and Partnership pursuant to which
our management provides services to the Partnership. The
executive officers who work for both us and Fertilizer GP,
including our chief executive officer, chief operating officer,
chief financial officer and general counsel, will divide their
time between our business and the business of the Partnership.
These executive officers will face conflicts of interests from
time to time in making decisions that may benefit either our
company or the Partnership. When making decisions on behalf of
Fertilizer GP they will have to take into account the interests
of the Partnership and not of us.
The owners of
the Partnerships managing general partner may compete with
us or the Partnership or own businesses that compete with us or
the Partnership.
The owners of Fertilizer GP, which are our controlling
stockholders and senior management, are permitted to compete
with us or the Partnership or to own businesses that compete
with us or the Partnership. In addition, the owners of
Fertilizer GP are not required to share business opportunities
with us or the Partnership. See Risk Factors
Risks Related to the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which
We Will Hold Our Interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer
Business The managing general
241
partner of the Partnership will have a fiduciary duty to favor
the interests of its owners, and these interests may differ from
or conflict with our interests and the interests of our
stockholders.
Fertilizer GP
is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other
than the Partnership in resolving conflicts.
The partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the
standards to which its general partners would otherwise be held
by state fiduciary duty law. For example, the partnership
agreement permits Fertilizer GP to make a number of
decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to its capacity
as managing general partner. This entitles Fertilizer GP 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, the Partnership, the
Partnerships affiliates or any partner. Examples include
the exercise of Fertilizer GPs call right and the
determination of whether to consent to any merger or
consolidation of the Partnership.
Fertilizer GP
has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties, and
has also restricted the remedies available to the
Partnerships unit holders (including us) for actions that,
without the limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary
duty.
In addition to the provisions described above, the partnership
agreement contains provisions that restrict the remedies
available to its unit holders for actions that might otherwise
constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement provides that Fertilizer GP shall
not have any liability to the Partnership or its unit holders
(including us) for decisions made in its capacity as managing
general partner so long as it acted in good faith, meaning it
believed that the decision was in the best interests of the
Partnership.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement generally provides that affiliated
transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not
approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of
Fertilizer GP and not involving a vote of unit holders must be
on terms no less favorable to the Partnership than those
generally being provided to or available from unrelated third
parties or be fair and reasonable to the
Partnership, as determined by Fertilizer GP in good faith, and
that, in determining whether a transaction or resolution is
fair and reasonable, Fertilizer GP may consider the
totality of the relationships between the parties involved,
including other transactions that may be particularly
advantageous or beneficial to the Partnership.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement provides that Fertilizer GP and its
officers and directors will not be liable for monetary damages
to the Partnership or its 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 its officers or directors acted in bad
faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct.
|
Actions taken
by Fertilizer GP may affect the amount of cash distributions to
unit holders.
The amount of cash that is available for distribution to unit
holders, including us, is affected by decisions of Fertilizer GP
regarding such matters as:
|
|
|
|
|
amount and timing of asset purchases and sales;
|
|
|
|
cash expenditures;
|
|
|
|
borrowings;
|
|
|
|
issuance of additional units; and
|
|
|
|
the creation, reduction, or increase of reserves in any quarter.
|
242
In addition, borrowings by the Partnership and its affiliates do
not constitute a breach of any duty owed by Fertilizer GP to the
Partnerships unit holders, including us, including
borrowings that have the purpose or effect of enabling
Fertilizer GP to receive distributions on the incentive
distribution rights. For example, in the event that the
Partnership does not generate sufficient cash from operations to
pay the minimum quarterly distribution, the partnership
agreement permits the Partnership to borrow funds, which would
enable the Partnership to make this distribution on all
outstanding units.
Contracts
between the Partnership, on the one hand, and Fertilizer GP, on
the other, will not be the result of arms-length
negotiations.
The partnership agreement allows the Partnerships managing
general partner to determine, in good faith, any amounts to pay
itself for any services rendered to the Partnership. Neither the
partnership agreement nor any of the other agreements, contracts
and arrangements between the Partnership and the managing
general partner are or will be the result of arms-length
negotiations.
The partnership agreement generally provides that any affiliated
transaction, such as an agreement, contract or arrangement among
the Partnership and its general partners and their affiliates,
must be:
|
|
|
|
|
on terms no less favorable to the Partnership than those
generally being provided to or available from unrelated third
parties; or
|
|
|
|
fair and reasonable 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).
|
Fertilizer GP
intends to limit the liability of the Partnerships general
partners regarding the Partnerships
obligations.
Fertilizer GP intends to limit the liability of the
Partnerships general partners under contractual
arrangements so that the other party has recourse only to the
Partnerships assets and not against the Partnerships
general partners or their assets. The partnership agreement
provides that any action taken by Fertilizer GP to limit the
general partners liability or the Partnerships
liability is not a breach of Fertilizer GPs fiduciary
duties, even if the Partnership could have obtained terms that
are more favorable without the limitation on liability.
The
Partnership may choose not to retain separate counsel for
itself.
The attorneys, independent accountants and others who perform
services for the Partnership will be retained by Fertilizer GP
or its affiliates. Attorneys, independent accountants and others
who perform services for the Partnership are selected by
Fertilizer GP or the conflicts committee and may perform
services for Fertilizer GP and its affiliates. The Partnership
may retain separate counsel for itself in the event of a
conflict of interest between a general partner and its
affiliates, on the one hand, and the Partnership or the holders
of common units, on the other, depending on the nature of the
conflict, although it does not intend to do so in most cases.
Fertilizer GP,
as managing general partner, has the power and authority to
conduct the Partnerships business (subject to our
specified approval rights).
Under the partnership agreement, Fertilizer GP, as managing
general partner, has full power and authority to do all things,
other than those items that require unit holder approval or our
approval or with respect to which it has sought conflicts
committee approval, on such terms as it determines to be
243
necessary or appropriate to conduct the Partnerships
business including, but not limited to, the following (subject
to our specified approval rights):
|
|
|
|
|
the making of any expenditures, the lending or borrowing of
money, the assumption or guarantee of, or other contracting for,
indebtedness and other liabilities, the issuance of evidences of
indebtedness, including indebtedness that is convertible into
securities of the Partnership, and the incurring of any other
obligations;
|
|
|
|
the making of tax, regulatory and other filings, or rendering of
periodic or other reports to governmental or other agencies
having jurisdiction over the Partnerships business or
assets;
|
|
|
|
the acquisition, disposition, mortgage, pledge, encumbrance,
hypothecation or exchange of any or all of the
Partnerships assets or the merger or other combination of
the Partnership with or into another person;
|
|
|
|
the negotiation, execution and performance of any contracts,
conveyances or other instruments;
|
|
|
|
the distribution of partnership cash;
|
|
|
|
the selection and dismissal of employees and agents, outside
attorneys, accountants, consultants and contractors and the
determination of their compensation and other terms of
employment or hiring;
|
|
|
|
the maintenance of insurance for the Partnerships benefit
and the benefit of its partners;
|
|
|
|
the formation of, or acquisition of an interest in, and the
contribution of property and the making of loans to, any further
limited or general partnerships, joint ventures, corporations,
limited liability companies or other relationships;
|
|
|
|
the control of any matters affecting the Partnerships
rights and obligations, including the bringing and defending of
actions at law or in equity and otherwise engaging in the
conduct of litigation, arbitration or mediation and the
incurring of legal expense and the settlement of claims and
litigation;
|
|
|
|
the indemnification of any person against liabilities and
contingencies to the extent permitted by law;
|
|
|
|
the purchase, sale or other acquisition or disposition of the
Partnerships securities, or the issuance of additional
options, rights, warrants and appreciation rights relating to
the Partnerships securities; and
|
|
|
|
the entering into of agreements with any affiliates to render
services to the Partnership or to itself in the discharge of its
duties as our managing general partner.
|
The
partnership agreement limits the fiduciary duties of the
managing general partner to the Partnership and to other unit
holders.
The Partnerships general partners are accountable to the
Partnership and its unit holders as a fiduciary. Fiduciary
duties owed to unit holders by the general partners are
prescribed by law and the partnership agreement. The Delaware
Limited Partnership Act provides that Delaware limited
partnerships may, in their partnership agreements, restrict or
expand the fiduciary duties owed by the general partner to
partners and the partnership.
The partnership agreement contains various provisions
restricting the fiduciary duties that might otherwise be owed by
Fertilizer GP. The Partnership has adopted these provisions to
allow the Partnerships general partners or their
affiliates to engage in transactions with the Partnership that
would otherwise be prohibited by state law fiduciary standards
and to take into account the interests of other parties in
addition to the Partnerships interests when resolving
conflicts of interest. Without such modifications, such
transactions could result in violations of the
Partnerships general partners
244
state law fiduciary duty standards. We believe this is
appropriate and necessary because (1) the board of
directors of Fertilizer GP, the Partnerships managing
general partner, has both fiduciary duties to manage the
Partnerships managing general partner in a manner
beneficial to its owners and fiduciary duties to manage the
Partnership in a manner beneficial to unit holders (including
CVR Energy) and (2) we, in our capacity of general partner,
have both duties to exercise our special GP rights in a manner
beneficial to our stockholders and fiduciary duties to exercise
such rights in a manner beneficial to all of the
Partnerships unit holders. Without these modifications,
the Partnerships general partners ability to make
decisions involving conflicts of interest would be restricted.
The modifications to the fiduciary standards enable the
Partnerships general partners to take into consideration
all parties involved in the proposed action, so long as the
resolution is fair and reasonable to the
Partnership. These modifications disadvantage the common unit
holders because they restrict the rights and remedies that would
otherwise be available to unit holders for actions that, without
those limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty,
as described below, and permit the Partnerships general
partners to take into account the interests of third parties in
addition to the Partnerships interests when resolving
conflicts of interest.
The following is a summary of the material restrictions of the
fiduciary duties owed by the managing general partner:
|
|
|
|
|
State law fiduciary duty standards are generally considered to
include an obligation to act in good faith and with due care and
loyalty. The duty of care, in the absence of a provision in a
partnership agreement providing otherwise, would generally
require a general partner to act for the partnership in the same
manner as a prudent person would act on his own behalf. The duty
of loyalty, in the absence of a provision in a partnership
agreement providing otherwise, would generally prohibit a
general partner of a Delaware limited partnership from taking
any action or engaging in any transaction where a conflict of
interest is present.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement contains provisions that waive or
consent to conduct by the Partnerships general partners
and their affiliates that might otherwise raise issues as to
compliance with fiduciary duties or applicable law. For example,
the partnership agreement provides that when either of the
general partners is acting in its capacity as a general partner,
as opposed to in its individual capacity, it must act in
good faith and will not be subject to any other
standard under applicable law. In addition, when either of the
general partners is acting in its individual capacity, as
opposed to in its capacity as a general partner, it may act
without any fiduciary obligation to the Partnership or the unit
holders whatsoever. These standards reduce the obligations to
which the Partnerships general partners would otherwise be
held.
|
|
|
|
The partnership agreement generally provides that affiliated
transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not
involving a vote of unit holders and that are not approved by
the conflicts committee of the board of directors of the
Partnerships managing general partner must be (1) on
terms no less favorable to the Partnership than those generally
being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or
(2) fair and reasonable 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).
|
|
|
|
If the Partnerships managing general partner does not seek
approval from the conflicts committee or the common unit holders
and its board of directors determines that the resolution or
course of action taken with respect to the conflict of interest
satisfies either of the standards set forth in the bullet points
above, then it will be presumed that, in making its decision,
the board of directors of the managing general partner, which
may include board members affected by the conflict of interest,
acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on
behalf of any partner or the partnership, the person bringing or
prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming
such presumption. These standards reduce the obligations to
which the Partnerships managing general partner would
otherwise be held.
|
245
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the other more specific provisions limiting the
obligations of the Partnerships general partners, the
partnership agreement further provides that the
Partnerships general partners and their officers and
directors will not be liable for monetary damages to the
Partnership or its partners for errors of judgment or for any
acts or omissions unless there has been a final and
non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction
determining that the general partner or its officers and
directors acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful
misconduct.
|
Under the partnership agreement, the Partnership will indemnify
its general partners and their respective officers, directors
and managers, to the fullest extent permitted by law, against
liabilities, costs and expenses incurred by such general
partners or these other persons. The Partnership must provide
this indemnification unless there has been a final and
non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction
determining that these persons acted in bad faith or engaged in
fraud or willful misconduct. The Partnership also must provide
this indemnification for criminal proceedings unless the general
partner or these other persons acted with knowledge that their
conduct was unlawful. Thus, the Partnerships general
partners could be indemnified for their negligent acts if they
meet the requirements set forth above. To the extent that these
provisions purport to include indemnification for liabilities
arising under the Securities Act, in the opinion of the SEC such
indemnification is contrary to public policy and therefore
unenforceable. See Risk Factors Risks Related
to the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold
Our Interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business The
partnership agreement limits the fiduciary duties of the
managing general partner and restricts the remedies available to
us for actions taken by the managing general partner that might
otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
Other
Intercompany Agreements
In connection with the formation of the Partnership, we will
enter into several other agreements with the Partnership which
will govern the business relations among us, the Partnership and
the managing general partner following this offering.
Feedstock and
Shared Services Agreement
We will enter into a feedstock and shared services agreement
with the Partnership under which the two parties will provide
feedstock and other services to one another. These feedstocks
and services will be utilized in the respective production
processes of the refinery and the fertilizer plant. Feedstocks
provided under the agreement will include, among others,
hydrogen, high-pressure steam, nitrogen, instrument air, oxygen
and natural gas.
The Partnership will be obligated to provide us with all of our
net hydrogen requirements from time to time. Such hydrogen will
need to meet certain specifications and will be at a price based
on an ammonia price of $300 per short ton, to be adjusted under
certain circumstances. After a date to be determined by the
Partnership (which will be no earlier than December 1,
2007), the Partnership will have the right to reduce the amount
of hydrogen it is obligated to provide to us pursuant to the
terms of the agreement. The agreement specifies a hydrogen
reduction date of no earlier than December 1, 2007 (as
determined by the Partnership) because we anticipate that after
that date our continuous catalytic reformer unit will be online
and generating hydrogen in amounts which should be sufficient
for our needs in most circumstances. Prior to the hydrogen
reduction date, the hydrogen price will be subject to a 30%
discount. For the period beyond the hydrogen reduction date, the
agreement will provide hydrogen supply and pricing terms for
circumstances where the refinery requires more hydrogen than it
can generate by itself.
The agreement will provide that both parties must deliver
high-pressure steam to one another under agreed upon
circumstances. We must use commercially reasonable efforts to
provide high-pressure steam to the Partnership for purposes of
allowing the Partnership to commence and recommence operation of
the fertilizer plant from time to time, and also for use at the
BOC air
246
separation plant adjacent to our own facility. We will not be
required to provide such high-pressure steam if doing so would
have a material adverse effect on the refinerys
operations. Also, the Partnership must make available to us any
high-pressure steam produced by the fertilizer plant that is not
required for the operation of the fertilizer plant. The price
for such high pressure steam will be calculated using a formula
that is based on steam flow and the price of natural gas as
published in Inside F.E.R.C.s Gas Market
Report under the heading Prices of Spot Gas
delivered to Pipelines for Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. for Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.
The Partnership will also be obligated to make available to us
any nitrogen produced by the BOC air separation plant that is
not required for the operation of the fertilizer plant, as
determined in a commercially reasonable manner by the
Partnership. The price for the nitrogen will be based on a cost
of $0.035 cents per kilowatt hour, as adjusted to reflect
changes in the Partnerships electric bill.
The agreement will also provide that both we and the Partnership
must deliver instrument air to one another in some
circumstances. The Partnership must make instrument air
available for purchase by us at a minimum flow rate, to the
extent produced by the BOC air separation plant and available to
the Partnership. The price for such instrument air will be
$18,000 per month, prorated according to the number of days of
use per month, subject to certain adjustments, including
adjustments to reflect changes in the Partnerships
electric bill. To the extent that instrument air is not
available from the BOC air separation plant and is available
from us, we will be required to make instrument air available to
the Partnership for purchase at a price of $18,000 per month,
prorated according to the number of days of use per month,
subject to certain adjustments, including adjustments to reflect
changes in our electric bill.
With respect to oxygen requirements, the Partnership will be
obligated to provide us with oxygen produced by the BOC air
separation plant and made available to the Partnership to the
extent that such oxygen is not required for operation of the
fertilizer plant. The oxygen will be required to meet certain
specifications and will be sold at a fixed price as provided in
the agreement.
The agreement also addresses the means by which the Partnership
and we obtain natural gas. Currently, natural gas is delivered
to both the fertilizer plant and the refinery pursuant to a
contract between us and Atmos Energy. Under the feedstock and
shared services agreement, we will purchase and the Partnership
will reimburse us for, natural gas transportation and natural
gas supplies on behalf of the Partnership. At our request or at
the request of the Partnership, in order to supply the
Partnership with natural gas directly, both parties will be
required to use their commercially reasonable efforts to
(i) add the Partnership as a party to the current contract
with Atmos or reach some other mutually acceptable accommodation
with Atmos whereby both we and the Partnership would each be
able to receive, on an individual basis, natural gas
transportation service from Atmos on similar terms and
conditions as set forth in the current contract, and
(ii) obtain separate natural gas purchasing arrangements so
that we and the Partnership would each purchase natural gas
supplies on their own account.
The agreement will also address the allocation of various other
feedstocks, services and related costs between the parties. Sour
water, water for use in fire emergencies and costs associated
with security services are all allocated between the two parties
by the terms of the agreement. The agreement also requires the
Partnership to reimburse us for certain utility-related
obligations that we owe to Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. pursuant to
a certain processing agreement between Tessenderlo Kerley and
us. The Partnership has a similar agreement with Tessenderlo
Kerley. Otherwise, costs relating to both our and the
Partnerships existing agreements with Tessenderlo Kerley
are allocated equally between the two parties except in certain
circumstances.
The parties may temporarily suspend the provision of feedstock
or services pursuant to the terms of the agreement if repairs or
maintenance are necessary on applicable facilities.
Additionally, the agreement will impose minimum insurance
requirements on the parties and their affiliates. The agreement
will also provide for mediation in the case of disputes arising
under the agreement.
247
The agreement will have an initial term of 20 years, which
will be automatically extended for successive five year renewal
periods. Either party may terminate the agreement by giving
notice no later than three years prior to a renewal date. The
agreement will also be terminable by mutual consent of the
parties, or if one party breaches the agreement and does not
cure within applicable cure periods and the breach materially
and adversely affects the ability of the terminating party to
operate its facility. Additionally, the agreement may be
terminated in some circumstances if substantially all of the
operations at the fertilizer plant or the refinery are
permanently terminated, or if either party is subject to a
bankruptcy proceeding, or otherwise becomes insolvent.
Either party will be entitled to assign its rights and
obligations under the agreement to an affiliate under common
control with the assigning party, to a partys lenders for
collateral security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all
or substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning
party related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as
applicable, in each case subject to applicable consent
requirements. The agreement will contain an indemnity provision
whereby each of the parties agrees to indemnify the other party
and its affiliates against liability arising from breach of the
agreement, negligence, or willful misconduct by the indemnifying
party or its affiliates. The indemnification obligation will be
reduced, as applicable, by amounts actually recovered by the
indemnified party from third parties or insurance coverage. The
agreement also contains a provision that prohibits recovery of
lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary,
punitive or consequential damages from either party or certain
affiliates.
Coke Supply
Agreement
We will enter into a coke supply agreement with the Partnership
pursuant to which we will provide pet coke to the Partnership.
This agreement will provide that we must deliver to the
Partnership during each calendar year an annual required amount
of pet coke equal to the lesser of (i) 100 percent of
the pet coke produced at our petroleum refinery or
(ii) 500,000 tons of pet coke. The Partnership will also be
obligated to purchase this annual required amount. If during a
calendar month we produce more than 41,667 tons of pet
coke, then the Partnership will have the option, but not the
obligation, to purchase the excess at the purchase price
provided for in the agreement. If the Partnership declines this
option, we may sell the excess to a third party.
The price which the Partnership will pay for the pet coke will
be based on the lesser of a coke price derived from the price
received by the Partnership for UAN (subject to a UAN based
price ceiling and floor) or a coke index price but in no event
will the pet coke price be less than zero. The Partnership will
also pay any taxes associated with the sale, purchase,
transportation, delivery, storage or consumption of the pet
coke. The Partnership will be entitled to offset any amount
payable for the pet coke against any amount due from us under
the feedstock and shared services agreement between the parties.
If the Partnership fails to pay an invoice on time, the
Partnership will pay interest on the outstanding amount payable
at a rate of three percent above the prime rate.
In the event we deliver pet coke to the Partnership on a short
term basis and such pet coke is off-specification on more than
20 days in any calendar year, there will be a price
adjustment to compensate the Partnership and/or capital
contributions will be made to the Partnership to allow it to
modify its equipment to process the pet coke received. If we
determine that there will be a change in pet coke quality on a
long term basis, then we will be required to notify the
Partnership of such change with at least three years
notice. The Partnership will then determine the appropriate
changes necessary to its fertilizer plant in order to process
such off-specification coke. We will compensate the Partnership
for the cost of making such modifications and/or adjust the
price of pet coke on a mutually agreeable commercially
reasonable basis.
The terms of the coke supply agreement provide benefits both to
our petroleum business as well as to the nitrogen fertilizer
business. The cost of the pet coke supplied by our refinery to
the fertilizer facility in most cases will be lower than the
price which the fertilizer business otherwise would pay to third
parties. The cost to the fertilizer business will be lower both
because the actual price paid will be
248
lower and because the fertilizer business will pay
significantly reduced transportation costs (since the pet coke
is supplied by an adjacent facility which will involve no
freight or tariff costs). In addition, because the cost paid by
the fertilizer facility will be formulaically related to the
price received for UAN (subject to a UAN based price floor and
ceiling), the nitrogen fertilizer business will enjoy lower pet
coke costs during periods of lower revenues regardless of the
prevailing pet coke market.
In return for the refinery receiving a potentially lower price
for coke in periods when the coke price is impacted by lower UAN
prices, our refinery enjoys the following benefits associated
with the disposition of a low value
by-product
of the refining process:
|
|
|
|
|
we avoid the capital cost and operating expenses associated with
coke handling;
|
|
|
|
we enjoy flexibility in our refinerys crude slate and
operations as a result of not being required to meet a specific
coke quality (which most other pet coke users would otherwise
require);
|
|
|
|
we avoid the administration, credit risk and marketing fees
associated with selling coke; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
we obtain a contractual right of first refusal to a secure and
reliable long-term source of hydrogen from the fertilizer
business to back up the refinerys own internal hydrogen
production. This beneficial redundancy could only otherwise be
achieved through significant capital investment. Hydrogen is
required by the refinery to remove sulfur from diesel fuel and
gasoline and if hydrogen is not available to the refinery for
even short periods of the time, it would have a significant
negative financial consequence to the refinery.
|
The Partnership may be obligated to provide security for its
payment obligations under the agreement if in our sole judgment
there is a material adverse change in the financial condition or
liquidity of the Partnership or in the Partnerships
ability to make payments. This security shall not exceed an
amount equal to 21 times the average daily dollar value of pet
coke purchased by the Partnership from us for the 90 day
period preceding the date on which we give notice to the
Partnership that we have deemed that a material adverse change
has occurred. Unless otherwise agreed by us and the Partnership,
the Partnership can provide such security by means of a standby
or documentary letter of credit, prepayment, a surety
instrument, or a combination of the foregoing. If such security
is not provided by the Partnership, we may require the
Partnership to pay for future deliveries of pet coke on a
cash-on-delivery basis, failing which we may suspend delivery of
pet coke until such security is provided and terminate the
agreement upon 30 days prior written notice.
Additionally, the Partnership may terminate the agreement within
60 days of providing security, so long as the Partnership
provides five days prior written notice.
The agreement will have an initial term of 20 years, which
will be automatically extended for successive five year renewal
periods. Either party may terminate the agreement by giving
notice no later than three years prior to a renewal date. The
agreement will also be terminable by mutual consent of the
parties, or if a party breaches the agreement and does not cure
within applicable cure periods. Additionally, the agreement may
be terminated in some circumstances if substantially all of the
operations at the fertilizer plant or the refinery are
permanently terminated, or if either party is subject to a
bankruptcy proceeding or otherwise becomes insolvent. The
agreement also provides for mediation in the case of disputes
arising under the agreement.
Either party may assign its rights and obligations under the
agreement to an affiliate under common control with the
assigning party, to a partys lenders for collateral
security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all or
substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning party
related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as applicable, in
each case subject to applicable consent requirements.
The agreement will contain an indemnity provision whereby each
of the parties agrees to indemnify the other party and its
affiliates against liability arising from breach of the
agreement, negligence, or willful misconduct by the indemnifying
party or its affiliates. The indemnification obligation will be
reduced, as applicable, by amounts actually recovered by the
indemnified party from third parties or insurance coverage. The
agreement also contains a provision that prohibits recovery of
249
lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary,
punitive or consequential damages from either party or certain
affiliates.
Raw Water and
Facilities Sharing Agreement
We will enter into a raw water and facilities sharing agreement
with the Partnership which will (i) provide for the
allocation of raw water resources between the refinery and the
fertilizer plant and (ii) provide for the management of the
water intake system (consisting primarily of a water intake
structure, water pumps, meters, and a short run of piping
between the intake structure and the origin of the separate
pipes that transport the water to each facility) which draws raw
water from the Verdigris River for both our facility and the
fertilizer plant. This agreement will provide that a water
management team consisting of one representative from each party
to the agreement will manage the Verdigris River water intake
system. The water intake system is owned and operated by us.
Both companies will have an undivided one-half interest in the
water rights which will allow the water to be removed from the
Verdigris River for use at our facility and the fertilizer plant.
The agreement will provide that both the fertilizer plant and
the refinery will be entitled to receive sufficient amounts of
water from the Verdigris River each day to enable them to
conduct their businesses at their appropriate operational
levels. However, if the amount of water available from the
Verdigris River is insufficient to satisfy the operational
requirements of both facilities, then such water shall be
allocated between the two facilities on a prorated basis. This
prorated basis will be determined by calculating the percentage
of water used by each facility over the two calendar years prior
to the shortage, making appropriate adjustments for any
operational outages involving either of the two facilities.
Costs associated with operation of the water intake system and
administration of water rights will be allocated on a prorated
basis, calculated by us based on the percentage of water used by
each facility during the calendar year in which such costs are
incurred. However, in certain circumstances, such as where one
party bears direct responsibility for the modification or repair
of the water pumps, that party alone will bear all costs
associated with such activity. Additionally, the Partnership
must reimburse us for electricity required to operate the water
pumps on a prorated basis that is calculated monthly.
Either we or the Partnership will be entitled to terminate the
agreement by giving at least three years prior written
notice. Between the time that notice is given and the
termination date, the parties must cooperate to allow the
Partnership to build its own water intake system on the
Verdigris River to be used for supplying water to the fertilizer
plant. We will be required to grant easements and access over
our property so that the Partnership can construct and utilize
such new water pumps, provided that no such easements or access
over our property shall have a material adverse affect on our
business or operations at the refinery. The Partnership will
bear all costs and expenses for such construction if it is the
party that terminated the original water sharing agreement. If
we terminate the original water sharing agreement, the
Partnership may either install a new water intake system at its
own expense, or require us to sell the existing water intake
system to the Partnership for a price equal to the depreciated
book value of the water intake system as of the date of transfer.
Either party will be able to assign its rights and obligations
under the agreement to an affiliate under common control with
the assigning party, to a partys lenders for collateral
security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all or
substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning party
related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as applicable, in
each case subject to applicable consent requirements. The
agreement provides for mediation in the case of disputes arising
under the agreement and the parties may also obtain injunctive
relief to enforce their rights under the agreement. The
agreement will contain an indemnity provision whereby each of
the parties agrees to indemnify the other party and its
affiliates against liability arising from breach of the
agreement, negligence, or willful misconduct by the indemnifying
party or its affiliates. The indemnification obligation will be
reduced, as applicable, by amounts actually recovered by the
indemnified party from third parties or insurance
250
coverage. The agreement also contains a provision that prohibits
recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental,
exemplary, punitive or consequential damages from either party
or certain affiliates.
The term of the agreement is perpetual unless (1) the
agreement is terminated by either party upon three years
prior written notice in the manner described above or
(2) the agreement is otherwise terminated by the mutual
written consent of the parties.
Real Estate
Transactions
We will transfer ownership of certain parcels of land to the
partnership, enter into a cross easement agreement with the
Partnership, and enter into a lease with the Partnership as
described below:
Land Transfer. We will transfer
ownership of certain parcels of land, including land that the
fertilizer plant is situated on, to the Partnership so that the
Partnership will be able to operate the fertilizer plant on its
own land.
Cross Easement Agreement. We will enter
into a new cross easement agreement with the Partnership so that
both we and the Partnership will be able to access and utilize
each others land in certain circumstances in order to
operate our respective businesses. The agreement will grant
easements for the benefit of both parties and will establish
easements for operational facilities, pipelines, equipment,
access, and water rights, among other easements. The intent of
the agreement is to structure easements which provides
flexibility for both parties to develop their respective
properties, without depriving either party of the benefits
associated with the continuous reasonable use of the other
parties property.
The agreement provides that facilities located on each
parties property will generally be owned and maintained by
the property-owning party; provided, however, that in certain
specified cases where a facility that benefits one party is
located on the other partys property, the benefited party
will have the right to use, and will be responsible for
operating and maintaining, the overlapping facility.
The easements granted under the agreement will be non-exclusive
to the extent that future grants of easements do not interfere
with easements granted under the agreement. The duration of the
easements granted under the agreement will vary, and some will
be perpetual. Easements pertaining to certain facilities that
are required to carry out the terms of our other agreements with
the Partnership will terminate upon the termination of such
related agreements. We will grant a water rights easement to the
Partnership which will be perpetual in duration. See
Raw Water and Facilities Sharing
Agreement.
The agreement will contain an indemnity provision whereby each
of the parties agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
other party against liability arising from negligence or willful
misconduct by the indemnifying party. The agreement also
requires the parties to carry minimum amounts of employers
liability insurance, commercial general liability insurance, and
other types of insurance. Additionally, mortgages and title
insurance policies of both of the parties will need to be
amended to reflect our transfer of property to the Partnership
and the entering into of the easement agreement. Mortgages will
be subordinated to the agreement in order to prevent a
foreclosure from terminating the agreement. The agreement
provides for mediation in the case of disputes arising under the
agreement. If either party transfers its fee simple ownership
interest in the real property governed by the agreement, the new
owner of the real property will be deemed to have assumed all of
the obligations of the transferring party under the agreement,
except that the transferring party will retain liability for all
obligations under the agreement which arose prior to the date of
transfer.
Lease Agreement. We will enter into a
5-year lease
agreement with the Partnership under which we will lease certain
office and laboratory space to the Partnership.
251
Environmental
Agreement
We will enter into an environmental agreement with the
Partnership which will provide for certain indemnification and
access rights in connection with environmental matters affecting
the refinery and the fertilizer plant. Generally, both we and
the Partnership will agree to indemnify and defend each other
and each others affiliates against liabilities associated
with certain hazardous materials and violations of environmental
laws which are a result of or caused by the others actions
or business operations. This obligation will extend to
indemnification for liabilities arising out of off-site disposal
of certain hazardous materials. Indemnification obligations of
the parties will be reduced by applicable amounts recovered by
an indemnified party from third parties or from insurance
coverage.
To the extent that one partys property experiences
environmental contamination due to the activities of the other
party and the contamination is known at the time the agreement
was entered into, the contaminating party will be required to
implement all government-mandated environmental activities
relating to the contamination, or else indemnify the
property-owning party for expenses incurred in connection with
implementing such measures.
To the extent that liability arises from environmental
contamination that is caused by us but is also commingled with
environmental contamination caused by the Partnership, we may
elect in our sole discretion and at our own cost and expense to
perform government-mandated environmental activities relating to
such liability, subject to certain conditions and provided that
we will not waive any rights to indemnification or compensation
otherwise provided for in the agreement.
The agreement will also address situations in which a
partys responsibility to implement such
government-mandated environmental activities as described above
may be hindered by the property-owning partys creation of
capital improvements on the property. If a contaminating party
bears such responsibility but the property-owning party desires
to implement a planned and approved capital improvement project
on its property, the parties must meet and attempt to develop a
soil management plan together. If the parties are unable to
agree on a soil management plan 30 days after receiving
notice, the property-owning party may proceed with its own
commercially reasonable soil management plan. The contaminating
party will be responsible for the costs of disposing of
hazardous materials pursuant to such plan.
If the property-owning party needs to do work that is not a
planned and approved capital improvement project but is
necessary to protect the environment, health, or the integrity
of the property, other procedures will be implemented. If the
contaminating party still bears responsibility to implement
government-mandated environmental activities relating to the
property and the property-owning party discovers contamination
caused by the other party during work on the capital improvement
project, the property-owning party will give the contaminating
party prompt notice after discovery of the contamination, and
will allow the contaminating party to inspect the property. If
the contaminating party accepts responsibility for the
contamination, it may proceed with government-mandated
environmental activities relating to the contamination, and it
will be responsible for the costs of disposing hazardous
materials relating to the contamination. The contaminating party
will be responsible for the costs of disposing of hazardous
materials pursuant to such plan. If the contaminating party does
not accept responsibility for such contamination or fails to
diligently proceed with government-mandated environmental
activities related to the contamination, then the contaminating
party must indemnify and reimburse the property-owning party
upon the property-owning partys demand for costs and
expenses incurred by the property-owning party in proceeding
with such government-mandated environmental activities.
The agreement will also provide for indemnification in the case
of contamination or releases of hazardous materials that are
present but unknown at the time the agreement is entered into to
the extent such contamination or releases are identified in
reasonable detail during the period ending five years after the
date of the agreement. The agreement will further provide for
indemnification in the case of contamination or releases which
occur subsequent to the date the agreement is entered into. If
one party causes such contamination or release on the other
partys property, the latter party must
252
notify the contaminating party, and the contaminating party must
take steps to implement all government-mandated environmental
activities relating to the contamination, or else indemnify the
property-owning party for the costs associated with doing such
work.
The agreement will also grant each party reasonable access to
the other partys property for the purpose of carrying out
obligations under the agreement. However, both parties must keep
certain information relating to the environmental conditions on
the properties confidential. Furthermore, both parties are
prohibited from investigating soil or groundwater conditions
except as required for government-mandated environmental
activities, in responding to an accidental or sudden
contamination of certain hazardous materials, or in connection
with implementation of a comprehensive coke management plan as
discussed below.
Both parties will be required to develop a comprehensive coke
management plan together within 90 days of the execution of
the environmental agreement. The plan will establish procedures
for the management of pet coke and the identification of
significant pet coke-related contamination. Also, the parties
will agree to indemnify and defend one another and each
others affiliates against liabilities arising under the
coke management plan or relating to a failure to comply with or
implement the coke management plan.
Either party will be entitled to assign its rights and
obligations under the agreement to an affiliate under common
control with the assigning party, to a partys lenders for
collateral security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all
or substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning
party related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as
applicable, in each case subject to applicable consent
requirements. The agreement also provides for mediation in the
case of disputes arising under the agreement. The term of the
agreement is for at least 20 years, or for so long as the
feedstock and shared services agreement is in force, whichever
is longer. The agreement also contains a provision that
prohibits recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special,
incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages from
either party or certain of its affiliates.
Omnibus
Agreement
We will enter into an omnibus agreement with the managing
general partner and the Partnership. The following discussion
describes provisions of the omnibus agreement.
Under the omnibus agreement, we will agree not to, and will
cause our controlled affiliates other than the Partnership not
to, engage in, whether by acquisition or otherwise, the
production, transportation or distribution, on a wholesale
basis, of fertilizer in the contiguous United States
(fertilizer restricted business) for so long as we
continue to own at least 50% of the outstanding Partnership
units. The restrictions will not apply to:
|
|
|
|
|
any fertilizer restricted business acquired as part of a
business or package of assets if a majority of the value of the
total assets or business acquired is not attributable to
fertilizer restricted business, as determined in good faith by
our board of directors, as applicable; however, if at any time
we complete such an acquisition, we must, within 365 days
of the closing of the transaction, offer to sell the
fertilizer-related assets to the Partnership for their fair
market value plus any additional tax or other similar costs to
us that would be required to transfer the fertilizer-related
assets to the Partnership separately from the acquired business
or package of assets;
|
|
|
|
|
|
engaging in any fertilizer restricted business subject to the
offer to the Partnership described in the immediately preceding
paragraph pending the managing general partners
determination whether to accept such offer and pending the
closing of any offers the Partnership accepts;
|
|
|
|
|
|
engaging in any fertilizer restricted business if the managing
general partner has previously advised us that the managing
general partners board of directors has elected not to
cause the Partnership or its controlled affiliates to acquire
such businesses; or
|
253
|
|
|
|
|
acquiring up to 9.9% of any class of securities of any
publicly-traded company that engages in any fertilizer
restricted business.
|
Under the omnibus agreement the Partnership will agree not to,
and will cause its controlled affiliates not to, engage in,
whether by acquisition or otherwise, (i) the ownership or
operation within the United States of any refinery with
processing capacity greater than 20,000 barrels per day whose
primary business is producing transportation fuels or
(ii) the ownership or operation outside the United States
of any refinery, regardless of its processing capacity or
primary business (refinery restricted business), in
either case, for so long as we continue to own at least 50% of
the Partnerships outstanding units. The restrictions will
not apply to:
|
|
|
|
|
any refinery restricted business acquired as part of a business
or package of assets if a majority of the value of the total
assets or business acquired is not attributable to refinery
restricted business, as determined in good faith by the managing
general partners board of directors; however, if at any
time the Partnership completes such an acquisition, the
Partnership must, within 365 days of the closing of the
transaction, offer to sell the refinery-related assets to us for
their fair market value plus any additional tax or other similar
costs to the Partnership that would be required to transfer the
refinery-related assets to us separately from the acquired
business or package of assets;
|
|
|
|
|
|
engaging in any refinery restricted business subject to the
offer to us described in the immediately preceding paragraph
pending our determination whether to accept such offer and
pending the closing of any offers we accept;
|
|
|
|
|
|
engaging in any refinery restricted business if we have
previously advised the Partnership that our board of directors
has elected not to cause us to acquire or seek to acquire such
business; or
|
|
|
|
|
|
acquiring up to a 9.9% ownership of any class of securities of
any publicly-traded company that engages in any refinery
restricted business.
|
Under the Omnibus Agreement we will also agree that the
Partnership will have a preferential right to acquire before us
any assets or group of assets that do not constitute
(i) assets used in a refinery restricted business or
(ii) assets used in a fertilizer restricted business. In
determining whether to cause the Partnership to exercise any
preferential right under the Omnibus Agreement, the managing
general partner will be permitted to act in its sole discretion,
without any fiduciary obligation to the Partnership or the unit
holders whatsoever (including us). These obligations will
continue until such time as we cease to own at least 50% of the
Partnerships outstanding units.
Management
Services Agreement
We will enter into a services agreement with the Partnership and
the managing general partner of the Partnership pursuant to
which we will provide certain management and other services to
the Partnership, the managing general partner of the
Partnership, and the Partnerships nitrogen fertilizer
business. Under this agreement, the managing general partner of
the Partnership will engage us to conduct the
day-to-day
business operations of the Partnership and the nitrogen
fertilizer business. The services we will provide under the
agreement include the following services, among others:
|
|
|
|
|
services by our employees in capacities equivalent to the
capacities of corporate executive officers, except that those
who serve in such capacities under the agreement shall serve the
Partnership on a shared, part-time basis only, unless we and the
Partnership agree otherwise;
|
|
|
|
|
|
administrative and professional services, including legal,
accounting services, human resources, insurance, tax, credit,
finance, government affairs and regulatory affairs;
|
|
|
|
|
|
managing the property of the Partnership and Coffeyville
Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, a subsidiary of the
Partnership, in the ordinary course of business;
|
254
|
|
|
|
|
recommending capital raising activities to the board of
directors of the managing general partner of the Partnership,
including the issuance of debt or equity securities, the entry
into credit facilities and other capital market transactions;
|
|
|
|
|
|
managing or overseeing litigation and administrative or
regulatory proceedings, and establishing appropriate insurance
policies for the Partnership, and providing safety and
environmental advice;
|
|
|
|
|
|
recommending the payment of dividends or other distributions or
equity securities; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
managing or providing advice for other projects as may be agreed
by us and the managing general partner of the Partnership from
time to time.
|
As payment for services provided under the agreement, any of the
managing general partner of the Partnership, the Partnership, or
Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC must pay us
(i) all costs incurred by us in connection with the
employment of our employees, other than administrative
personnel, who provide services to the Partnership under the
agreement on a full-time basis, but excluding share-based
compensation; (ii) a prorated share of costs incurred by us
in connection with the employment of our employees, other than
administrative personnel, who provide services to the
Partnership under the agreement on a part-time basis, but
excluding share-based compensation, and such prorated share
shall be determined by us on a commercially reasonable basis,
based on the percent of total working time that such shared
personnel are engaged in performing services for the
Partnership; (iii) a prorated share of certain
administrative costs, including payroll, office costs, services
by outside vendors, other sales, general and administrative
costs and depreciation and amortization; and (iv) various
other administrative costs in accordance with the terms of the
agreement, including travel, insurance, legal and audit
services, government and public relations and bank charges.
Invoices that we submit under the agreement are due and payable
net 15 days.
The Partnership and managing general partner are not required to
pay any compensation, salaries, bonuses or benefits to any of
CVRs employees who provide services to the Partnership on
a full-time or part-time basis; CVR will continue to pay their
compensation. However, personnel performing the actual
day-to-day business and operations of the Partnership at the
plant level will be employed directly by the Partnership and its
subsidiaries, which will bear all personnel costs for these
employees.
Either we or the managing general partner of the Partnership may
temporarily or permanently exclude any particular service from
the scope of the agreement upon 90 days notice. We
also have the right to delegate the performance of some or all
of the services to be provided pursuant to the agreement to one
of our affiliates or any other person or entity, though such
delegation will not relieve us from our obligations under the
agreement. Either we or the managing general partner of the
Partnership may terminate the agreement upon at least
90 days notice, but not more than one years
notice. Furthermore, the managing general partner of the
Partnership may terminate the agreement immediately if we become
bankrupt, or dissolve and commence liquidation or
winding-up.
The agreement may only be amended or modified by written
agreement of all the parties.
In order to facilitate the carrying out of services under the
agreement, we and our affiliates, on the one hand, and the
Partnership, on the other, have granted one another certain
royalty-free, non-exclusive and non-transferable rights to use
one anothers intellectual property under certain
circumstances.
The agreement also contains an indemnity provision whereby the
Partnership, the managing general partner of the Partnership,
and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, as
indemnifying parties, agree to indemnify us and our affiliates
(other than the indemnifying parties themselves) against losses
and liabilities incurred in connection with the performance of
services under the agreement or any breach of this agreement, so
long as such losses or liabilities do not arise from a breach of
the agreement by us or other misconduct on our part, as provided
in the agreement. The agreement also contains a provision
stating that we are an independent contractor
255
under the agreement and nothing in the agreement may be
construed to impose an implied or express fiduciary duty owed by
us, on the one hand, to the recipients of services under the
agreement, on the other hand. The agreement prohibits recovery
of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary,
punitive or consequential damages from us or certain affiliates,
except in cases of gross negligence, willful misconduct, bad
faith, reckless disregard in performance of services under the
agreement, or fraudulent or dishonest acts on our part.
Registration
Rights Agreement
In connection with the formation of the Partnership, we will
enter into a registration rights agreement with the Partnership
upon closing of the transfer of the fertilizer business to the
Partnership, pursuant to which the Partnership may be required
to register the sale of any common units our special units
convert into as well as any common units issuable upon
conversion of any subordinated units our special units convert
into. Under the registration rights agreement, following the
Partnerships initial public offering, if any, we will have
the right to request that the Partnership register the sale of
our common units (and the common units issuable upon conversion
of any subordinated units) on three occasions including
requiring the Partnership to make available shelf registration
statements permitting sales of common units into the market from
time to time over an extended period. In addition, we will have
the ability to exercise certain piggyback registration rights
with respect to our common units if the Partnership elects to
register any of its own equity securities. Our piggyback
registration rights will not apply to any initial offering by
the Partnership. The registration rights agreement will also
include provisions dealing with holdback agreements,
indemnification and contribution, and allocation of expenses.
Financial
Impact of the Intercompany Agreements
The price paid by the nitrogen fertilizer business pursuant to
the coke supply agreement will be based on the price received
for UAN. Historically, the cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) in the nitrogen business was
based on a coke price of $15 per ton beginning with the Initial
Acquisition. This is reflected in the segment data in our
historical financial statements as a cost for the nitrogen
fertilizer business and as revenue for the petroleum business.
If the new terms of the coke supply agreement had been in place
over the past three years, the new coke supply agreement would
have resulted in a decrease in cost of product sold (exclusive
of depreciation and amortization) for the nitrogen fertilizer
business (and a decrease in revenue for the petroleum business)
of $2.9 million, $1.5 million, $0.7 million,
$3.5 million and $0.4 million for the 304 day
period ended December 31, 2004, the 174 day period
ended June 24, 2005, the 233 day period ended
December 31, 2005, the year ended December 31, 2006
and the three months ended March 31, 2007. There would have
been no impact to our consolidated financial statements as
intercompany transactions are eliminated upon consolidation.
In addition, based on managements current estimates, the
management services agreement will result in an annual charge of
approximately $11.5 million to the nitrogen fertilizer
business for its portion of expenses which have been
historically reflected in selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in our
consolidated statement of operations. Historical nitrogen
fertilizer segment operating income would decrease
$4.1 million, increase $0.8 million, decrease
$0.1 million, increase $7.4 million and decrease
$0.7 million for the 304-day period ended December 31,
2004, the 174-day period ended June 23, 2005, the 233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, the year ended
December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31,
2007, respectively, assuming an annualized $11.5 million
charge for the management services in lieu of the historical
allocations of selling, general and administrative expenses. The
petroleum segments operating income would have had
offsetting increases or decreases, as applicable, for these
periods.
The total change to operating income for the nitrogen fertilizer
segment with respect to both the coke supply agreement included
in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization)
256
and the management services agreement included in selling,
general and administrative (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) would be a decrease of $1.2 million, increase
of $2.3 million, increase of $0.6 million, increase of
$10.9 million and a decrease of $0.3 million for the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, the year ended
December 31, 2006 and the three months ended March 31,
2007, respectively.
The feedstock and shared services agreement, the raw water and
facilities sharing agreement, the cross-easement agreement, and
the environmental agreement are not expected to have a
significant impact on the financial results of the nitrogen
fertilizer business. However, the requirement to supply hydrogen
contained in the feedstock and shared services agreement could
result in reduced fertilizer production due to a commitment to
supply hydrogen to the refinery. The feedstock and shared
services agreement requires the refinery to compensate the
nitrogen fertilizer business for the value of production lost
due to the hydrogen supply requirement.
257
DESCRIPTION OF
OUR INDEBTEDNESS AND THE CASH FLOW SWAP
Second Amended and Restated Credit and Guaranty Agreement
On December 28, 2006, Coffeyville Resources, LLC, as the
borrower, and Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc.,
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc., Coffeyville Crude
Transportation, Inc., Coffeyville Pipeline, Inc., Coffeyville
Terminal, Inc., CL JV Holdings, LLC, which we refer to
collectively as Holdings, and certain of their subsidiaries as
guarantors entered into a Second Amended and Restated Credit and
Guaranty Agreement with Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. and
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, as Joint Lead Arrangers and
Joint Bookrunners, Credit Suisse, as Administrative Agent,
Collateral Agent, Funded LC Issuing Bank and Revolving Issuing
Bank, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Syndication
Agent, and ABN Amro Bank N.V., as Documentation Agent.
We intend to amend our Credit Facility prior to the consummation
of this offering in order to permit the transfer of our nitrogen
fertilizer business to the Partnership and the sale of the
managing general partner interest in the Partnership to a new
entity owned by our controlling stockholders and senior
management. In addition, the managing general partner of the
Partnership may, from time to time, seek to raise capital
through a public or private offering of limited partner
interests in the Partnership. If the managing general partner
elects to pursue a public or private offering of limited partner
interests in the Partnership, we expect that any such
transaction would require amendments to our Credit Facility, as
well as the Cash Flow Swap, in order to remove the Partnership
and its subsidiaries as obligors under such instruments. Any
such amendments could result in changes to the Credit
Facilitys pricing, mandatory prepayment provisions,
covenants and other terms and could result in increased interest
costs and require payment by us of additional fees. We have
agreed to use our commercially reasonable efforts to obtain such
amendments if the managing general partner elects to cause the
Partnership to pursue a public or private offering and gives us
at least 90 days written notice. However, we cannot assure
you that we will be able to obtain any such amendment on terms
acceptable to us or at all. If we are not able to amend our
Credit Facility on terms satisfactory to us, we may need to
refinance it with another facility. We will not be considered to
have used our commercially reasonable efforts to
obtain such amendments if we do not effect the requested
modifications due to (i) payment of fees to the lenders or
the swap counterparty, (ii) the costs of this type of
amendment, (iii) an increase in applicable margins or
spreads or (iv) changes to the terms required by the
lenders including covenants, events of default and repayment and
prepayment provisions provided that (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) in
the aggregate are not likely to have a material adverse effect
on us. In order to effect the requested amendments, we may
require that (1) the Partnerships initial public or
private offering generate at least $140 million in net
proceeds to us and (2) the Partnership repay its
$75 million intercompany note due to us in full prior to or
concurrently with the closing of its initial offering.
The following summary of the material terms of the Credit
Facility is only a general description and is not complete and,
as such, is subject to and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the provisions of the Credit Facility.
The Credit Facility provides financing of up to
$1.075 billion, consisting of $775 million of
tranche D term loans, a $150 million revolving credit
facility, and a funded letter of credit facility of
$150 million issued in support of the Cash Flow Swap.
The revolving loan facility of $150.0 million provides for
direct cash borrowings for general corporate purposes on a
short-term basis. Letters of credit issued under the revolving
loan facility are subject to a $75.0 million sub-limit. The
revolving loan commitment expires on December 28, 2012. We
have an option to extend this maturity upon written notice to
our lenders; however, the revolving loan maturity cannot be
extended beyond the final maturity of the term loans, which is
December 28, 2013.
258
The $150.0 million funded letter of credit facility
provides credit support for our obligations under the Cash Flow
Swap. The funded letter of credit facility is fully cash
collateralized by the funding by the lenders of cash into the
credit linked deposit account. This account is held by the
funded letter of credit issuing bank. Contingent upon the
requirements of the Cash Flow Swap, we have the ability to
reduce the funded letter of credit at any time upon written
notice to the lenders. The funded letter of credit facility
expires on December 28, 2010.
Coffeyville Resources, LLC initially entered into a first lien
credit facility and a second lien credit facility on
June 24, 2005 in connection with the acquisition of all of
the subsidiaries of Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC by the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds. The first lien credit
facility consisted of $225 million of term loans,
$50 million of delayed draw term loans, a $100 million
revolving loan facility and a funded letter of credit facility
of $150 million, and the second lien credit facility
included a $275 million term loan. The first lien credit
facility was subsequently amended and restated on June 29,
2006 on substantially the same terms as the original agreement,
as amended. The primary reason for the June 2006 amendment and
restatement was to reduce the applicable margin spreads for
borrowings on the first lien term loans and the funded letter of
credit facility and to make the capital expenditure covenant
less restrictive. On December 28, 2006, Coffeyville
Resources, LLC repaid all indebtedness then outstanding under
the first lien credit facility and second lien credit facility
and entered into the Credit Facility.
Interest Rate and Fees. The
tranche D term loans bear interest at either (a) the
greater of the prime rate and the Federal funds effective rate
plus 0.5%, plus in either case 2.00% or, at the borrowers
option, (b) LIBOR plus 3.00% (with step-downs to the prime
rate/federal funds effective rate plus 1.75% or 1.50% or LIBOR
plus 2.75% or 2.50%, respectively, upon achievement of certain
rating conditions). The revolving loan facility borrowings bear
interest at either (a) the greater of the prime rate and
the Federal funds effective rate plus 0.5%, plus in either case
2.00% or, at the borrowers option, (b) LIBOR plus
3.00% (with step-downs to the prime rate/federal funds effective
rate plus 1.75% or 1.50% or LIBOR plus 2.75% or 2.50%,
respectively, upon achievement of certain rating conditions).
Letters of credit issued under the $75.0 million sub-limit
available under the revolving loan facility are subject to a fee
equal to the applicable margin on revolving LIBOR loans owing to
all revolving lenders and a fronting fee of 0.25% per annum
owing to the issuing lender. Funded letters of credit are
subject to a fee equal to the applicable margin on term LIBOR
loans owing to all funded letter of credit lenders and a
fronting fee of 0.125% per annum owing to the issuing lender.
The borrower is also obligated to pay a fee of 0.10% to the
administrative agent on a quarterly basis based on the average
balance of funded letters of credit outstanding during the
calculation period, for the maintenance of a credit linked
deposit account backstopping funded letters of credit. In
addition to the fees stated above, the Credit Facility requires
the borrower to pay 0.50% in commitment fees on the unused
portion of the revolving loan facility. The interest rate on the
term loans under the Credit Facility on December 31, 2006
was 8.36%.
Prepayments. The Credit Facility
requires the borrower to prepay outstanding loans, subject to
certain exceptions, with:
|
|
|
|
|
100% of the net asset sale proceeds received by Holdings or any
of its subsidiaries from specified asset sales and net
insurance/condemnation proceeds, if the borrower does not
reinvest those proceeds in assets to be used in its business or
to make other certain permitted investments within
12 months or if, within 12 months of receipt, the
borrower does not contract to reinvest those proceeds in assets
to be used in its business or to make other certain permitted
investments within 18 months of receipt, each subject to
certain limitations;
|
|
|
|
100% of the cash proceeds from the incurrence of specified debt
obligations by Holdings or any of its subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
75% of consolidated excess cash flow less 100% of
voluntary prepayments made during the fiscal year; provided that
with respect to any fiscal year commencing with fiscal 2008 this
percentage will be reduced to 50% if the total leverage ratio at
the end of such fiscal year is
|
259
|
|
|
|
|
less than 1.50:1.00 and 25% if the total leverage ratio as of
the end of such fiscal year is less than 1.00:1.00; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% of the cash proceeds received by Parent, Holdings or any
subsidiary of Holdings from any initial public offering or
secondary registered offering of equity interests, until the
aggregate amount of such proceeds is equal to $280 million.
|
Mandatory prepayments will be applied first to the term loan,
second to the swing line loans, third to the revolving loans,
fourth to outstanding reimbursement obligations with respect to
revolving letters of credit and funded letters of credit, and
fifth to cash collateralize revolving letters of credit and
funded letters of credit.
Voluntary prepayments of loans under the Credit Facility are
permitted, in whole or in part, at the borrowers option,
without premium or penalty.
Amortization. The tranche D term
loans are repayable in quarterly installments in a principal
amount equal to the principal amount of the tranche D term
loans outstanding on the quarterly installment date multiplied
by 0.25% for each quarterly installment made prior to
April 1, 2013 and 23.5% for each quarterly installment made
during the period commencing on April 1, 2013 through
maturity on December 28, 2013.
Collateral and Guarantors. All
obligations under the Credit Facility are guaranteed by
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc., Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc., Coffeyville Crude Transportation,
Inc., Coffeyville Terminal, Inc., CL JV Holdings, LLC and their
domestic subsidiaries. Indebtedness under the Credit Facility is
secured by a first priority security interest in substantially
all of Coffeyville Resources, LLCs assets, including a
pledge of all of the capital stock of its domestic subsidiaries
and 65% of all the capital stock of each of its foreign
subsidiaries on a first lien priority basis. We intend to amend
the Credit Facility prior to the consummation of this offering
to include the Partnership, CVR Special GP, LLC and CVR LP, LLC
as guarantors and collateral grantors under the Credit Facility.
Certain Covenants and Events of
Default. The Credit Facility contains
customary covenants. These agreements, among other things,
restrict, subject to certain exceptions, the ability of
Coffeyville Resources, LLC and its subsidiaries to incur
additional indebtedness, create liens on assets, make restricted
junior payments, enter into agreements that restrict subsidiary
distributions, make investments, loans or advances, engage in
mergers, acquisitions or sales of assets, dispose of subsidiary
interests, enter into sale and leaseback transactions, engage in
certain transactions with affiliates and stockholders, change
the business conducted by the credit parties, and enter into
hedging agreements. The Credit Facility provides that
Coffeyville Resources, LLC may not enter into commodity
agreements if, after giving effect thereto, the exposure under
all such commodity agreements exceeds 75% of Actual Production
(the borrowers estimated future production of refined
products based on the actual production for the three prior
months) or for a term of longer than six years from
December 28, 2006. In addition, the borrower may not enter
into material amendments related to any material rights under
the Cash Flow Swap or the management agreements with Goldman,
Sachs & Co. and Kelso & Company, L.P., (or,
following effectiveness of an amendment to the Credit Facility,
the Partnerships limited partnership agreement) without
the prior written approval of the lenders.
260
The Credit Facility requires the borrower to maintain a minimum
interest coverage ratio and a maximum total leverage ratio.
These financial covenants are set forth in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
|
|
|
interest
|
|
Maximum
|
Fiscal quarter ending
|
|
coverage ratio
|
|
leverage ratio
|
|
March 31, 2007
|
|
|
2.25:1.00
|
|
|
4.75:1.00
|
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
2.50:1.00
|
|
|
4.50:1.00
|
September 30, 2007
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
|
|
4.25:1.00
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
|
|
4.00:1.00
|
March 31, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
June 30, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
3.00:1.00
|
September 30, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
2.50:1.00
|
March 31, 2009 and thereafter
|
|
|
3.75:1.00
|
|
|
2.25:1.00 to 12/31/09,
2.00:1.00 thereafter
|
In addition, the Credit Facility also requires the borrower to
maintain a maximum capital expenditures limitation of
$225 million in 2007 (plus the difference between
$260 million and the amount spent on capital expenditures
in 2006), $100 million in 2008, $80 million in 2009,
$80 million in 2010, and $50 million in 2011 and
thereafter. We intend to amend the Credit Facility, prior to the
consummation of this offering to change the capital expenditures
thresholds to $375 million in 2007, $125 million in
2008, $125 million in 2009, $80 million in 2010, and
$50 million in 2011 and thereafter. If the actual amount of
capital expenditures made in any fiscal year is less than the
amount permitted to be made in such fiscal year, the amount of
such difference may be carried forward and used to make capital
expenditures in succeeding fiscal years. The capital
expenditures limitation will not apply to any fiscal year
commencing with fiscal 2009 if the borrower consummates an
initial public offering and obtains a total leverage ratio of
less than or equal to 1.25:1.00 for any quarter commencing with
the quarter ended December 31, 2008. We believe that the
limitations on our capital expenditures imposed by the Credit
Facility should allow us to meet our current capital expenditure
needs. However if future events require us or make it beneficial
for us to make capital expenditures beyond those currently
planned we would need to obtain consent from the lenders under
our Credit Facility.
The Credit Facility also contains customary events of default.
The events of default include the failure to pay interest and
principal when due, including fees and any other amounts owed
under the Credit Facility, a breach of certain covenants under
the Credit Facility, a breach of any representation or warranty
contained in the Credit Facility, any default under any of the
documents entered into in connection with the Credit Facility,
the failure to pay principal or interest or any other amount
payable under other debt arrangements in an aggregate amount of
at least $20 million, a breach or default with respect to
material terms under other debt arrangements in an aggregate
amount of at least $20 million which results in the debt
becoming payable or declared due and payable before its stated
maturity, a breach or default under the Cash Flow Swap that
would permit the holder or holders to terminate the Cash Flow
Swap, events of bankruptcy, judgments and attachments exceeding
$20 million, events relating to employee benefit plans
resulting in liability in excess of $20 million, the
guarantees, collateral documents or the Credit Facility failing
to be in full force and effect or being declared null and void,
any guarantor repudiating its obligations, the failure of the
collateral agent under the Credit Facility to have a lien on any
material portion of the collateral, and any party under the
Credit Facility (other than the agent or lenders under the
Credit Facility) contesting the validity or enforceability of
the Credit Facility.
The Credit Facility also contains an event of default upon the
occurrence of a change of control. Under the Credit Facility, a
change of control means (1) (x) prior to
an initial public offering, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds cease to beneficially own and control at least 35%
on a
261
fully diluted basis of the economic interest in the capital
stock of Parent (Coffeyville Acquisition LLC or CVR Energy or
any entity that owns all of the capital stock of Holdings) and
(y) after a registered initial public offering of the
capital stock of Parent, the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso
Funds cease to beneficially own and control, directly or
indirectly, on a fully diluted basis at least 35% of the
economic and voting interests in the capital stock of Parent,
(2) any person or group other than the Goldman Sachs Funds
and/or the
Kelso Funds (a) acquires beneficial ownership of 35% or
more on a fully diluted basis of the voting
and/or
economic interest in the capital stock of Parent and the
percentage voting
and/or
economic interest acquired exceeds the percentage owned by the
Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds or (b) shall have
obtained the power to elect a majority of the board of Parent,
(3) Parent shall cease to own and control, directly or
indirectly, 100% on a fully diluted basis of the capital stock
of the borrower, (4) Holdings ceases to beneficially own
and control all of the capital stock of the borrower or
(5) the majority of the seats on the board of Parent cease
to be occupied by continuing directors approved by the
then-existing directors.
Qualified IPO. Under the terms of our
Credit Facility, this offering will be deemed a Qualified
IPO if the offering generates at least $250 million
of gross proceeds and we use the proceeds of the offering,
together with cash on hand, to repay at least $275 million
of term loans under the Credit Facility. Assuming that the
initial public offering price is at least $20 per share and that
the total number of shares does not decrease, we expect this
offering to constitute a Qualified IPO. However, it is possible
that due to market conditions or otherwise this offering may
fail to meet the criteria of a Qualified IPO under the Credit
Facility. If this offering is not a Qualified IPO, the interest
margin on LIBOR loans will increase from 3.00% to 3.25%; if this
offering is a Qualified IPO, the interest margin on LIBOR loans
may in the future decrease from 3.00% to 2.75% (if we have
credit ratings of B2/B) or 2.50% (if we have credit ratings
of B1/B+). Interest on base rate loans will similarly be
adjusted. In addition, if the offering is a Qualified IPO,
(1) we will be allowed to borrow an additional
$225 million under the Credit Facility after June 30,
2008 to finance capital enhancement projects if we are in pro
forma compliance with the financial covenants in the Credit
Facility and the rating agencies confirm our ratings,
(2) we will be allowed to pay an additional
$35 million of dividends each year, if our corporate family
ratings are at least B2 from Moodys and B from S&P,
(3) we will not be subject to any capital expenditures
limitations commencing with fiscal 2009 if our total leverage
ratio is less than or equal to 1.25:1 for any quarter commencing
with the quarter ended December 31, 2008, and (4) at
any time after March 31, 2008 we will be allowed to reduce
the Cash Flow Swap to not less than 35,000 barrels a day for
fiscal 2008 and terminate the Cash Flow Swap for any year
commencing with fiscal 2009, so long as our total leverage ratio
is less than or equal to 1.25:1 and we have a corporate family
rating of at least B2 from Moodys and B from S&P.
Other. The Credit Facility is subject
to an intercreditor agreement among the lenders and the provider
of the Cash Flow Swap, which relates to, among other things,
priority of liens, payments and proceeds of sale of collateral.
Cash Flow
Swap
In connection with the Subsequent Acquisition and as required
under our existing credit facilities, Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC entered into a crack spread hedging transaction with J.
Aron. The agreements underlying the transaction were
subsequently assigned from Coffeyville Acquisition LLC to
Coffeyville Resources, LLC on June 24, 2005. See
Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions. The derivative transaction was entered into
for the purpose of managing our exposure to the price
fluctuations in crude oil, heating oil and gasoline markets.
The fixed prices for each product in each calendar quarter are
specified in the applicable swap confirmation. The floating
price for
|
|
|
|
|
crude oil for each quarter equals the average of the closing
settlement price(s) on NYMEX for the Nearby Light Crude Futures
Contract that is first nearby as of any
determination date during that calendar quarter quoted in U.S.
dollars per barrel;
|
262
|
|
|
|
|
unleaded gasoline for each quarter equals the average of the
closing settlement prices on NYMEX for the Unleaded Gasoline
Futures Contract that is first nearby for any
determination period to and including the determination period
ending December 31, 2006 and the average of the closing
settlement prices on NYMEX for Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock
for Oxygen Blending Futures Contract that is first
nearby for each determination period thereafter quoted in
U.S. dollars per gallon; and
|
|
|
|
heating oil for each quarter equals the average of the closing
settlement prices on NYMEX for the Heating Oil Futures Contract
that is first nearby as of any determination date
during such calendar quarter quoted in U.S. dollars per
gallon.
|
The hedge transaction is governed by the standard form 1992
International Swap and Derivatives Association, Inc., or ISDA
Master Agreement, which includes a schedule to the ISDA Master
Agreement setting forth certain specific transaction terms.
Coffeyville Resources, LLCs obligations under the hedge
transaction are:
|
|
|
|
|
guaranteed by Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc.,
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc., Coffeyville Crude
Transportation, Inc. Coffeyville Terminal, Inc., CL JV Holdings,
LLC and their domestic subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
secured by a $150 million funded letter of credit issued
under the Credit Facility in favor of J. Aron; and
|
|
|
|
to the extent J. Arons exposure under the derivative
transaction exceeds $150 million, secured by the same
collateral that secures our Credit Facility.
|
In addition, J. Aron is an additional named insured and loss
payee under certain insurance policies of Coffeyville Resources,
LLC.
The obligations of J. Aron under the derivative transaction are
guaranteed by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The derivative transactions terminate on June 30, 2010.
Prior to the termination date, neither party has a right to
terminate the derivative transaction unless one of the events of
default or termination events under the ISDA Master Agreement
has occurred. In addition to standard events of default and
termination events described in the ISDA Master Agreement, the
schedule to the ISDA Master Agreement provides for the
termination of the derivative transaction if:
|
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville Resources, LLCs obligations under the
derivative transaction cease to be secured as described above
equally and ratably with the security interest granted under the
Credit Facility;
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville Resources, LLCs obligations under the
derivative transaction cease to be guaranteed by Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing, Inc., Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizers, Inc., Coffeyville Crude Transportation, Inc.
Coffeyville Terminal, Inc., CL JV Holdings, LLC and their
domestic subsidiaries; or
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville Resources, LLC fails to maintain a $150 million
funded letter of credit in favor of J. Aron.
|
If a termination event occurs, the derivative transaction will
be cash-settled on the termination date designated by a party
entitled to such designation under the ISDA Master Agreement (to
the extent of the amounts owed to either party on the
termination date, without netting of payments) and no further
payments or deliveries under the derivative transaction will be
required.
Intercreditor matters among J. Aron and the lenders under
the Credit Facility are governed by the Intercreditor Agreement.
J. Arons security interest in the collateral is pari
passu with the security interest in the collateral granted under
the Credit Facility. In addition, pursuant to the Intercreditor
Agreement, J. Aron is entitled to vote together as a class
with the lenders under the Credit Facility
263
with respect to (1) any remedies proposed to be taken by
the holders of the secured obligations with respect to the
collateral, (2) any matters related to a breach, waiver or
modification of the covenants in the Credit Facility that
restrict the granting of liens, the incurrence of indebtedness,
and the ability of Coffeyville Resources, LLC to enter into
derivative transactions for more than 75% of Coffeyville
Resources, LLCs actual production (based on the three
month period preceding the trade date of the relevant
derivative) of refined products or for a term longer than six
years, (3) the maintenance of insurance, and (4) any
matters relating to the collateral. For any of the foregoing
matters, J. Aron is entitled to vote with the lenders under the
Credit Facility as a single class to the extent of the greater
of (x) its exposure under the derivative transaction, less
the amount secured by the letter of credit and
(y) $75 million.
264
DESCRIPTION OF
CAPITAL STOCK
Immediately following the completion of this offering, our
authorized capital stock will consist of 350,000,000 shares
of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, and
50,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.01 per
share, the rights and preferences of which may be established
from time to time by our board of directors. Upon the completion
of this offering, there will be 81,641,591 outstanding shares of
common stock and no outstanding shares of preferred stock. The
following description of our capital stock does not purport to
be complete and is subject to and qualified by our amended and
restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, which are
included as exhibits to the registration statement of which this
prospectus forms a part, and by the provisions of applicable
Delaware law.
Common
Stock
Holders of our common stock are entitled to one vote for each
share on all matters voted upon by our stockholders, including
the election of directors, and do not have cumulative voting
rights. Subject to the rights of holders of any then outstanding
shares of our preferred stock, our common stockholders are
entitled to any dividends that may be declared by our board of
directors. Holders of our common stock are entitled to share
ratably in our net assets upon our dissolution or liquidation
after payment or provision for all liabilities and any
preferential liquidation rights of our preferred stock then
outstanding. Holders of our common stock have no preemptive
rights to purchase shares of our stock. The shares of our common
stock are not subject to any redemption provisions and are not
convertible into any other shares of our capital stock. All
outstanding shares of our common stock are, and the shares of
common stock to be issued in this offering will be, upon payment
therefor, fully paid and nonassessable. The rights, preferences
and privileges of holders of our common stock will be subject to
those of the holders of any shares of our preferred stock we may
issue in the future.
Our common stock will be represented by certificates, unless our
board of directors adopts a resolution providing that some or
all of our common stock shall be uncertificated. Any such
resolution will not apply to any shares of common stock that are
already certificated until such shares are surrendered to us.
Preferred
Stock
Our board of directors may, from time to time, authorize the
issuance of one or more series of preferred stock without
stockholder approval. Subject to the provisions of our amended
and restated certificate of incorporation and limitations
prescribed by law, our board of directors is authorized to adopt
resolutions to issue shares, designate the series, establish the
number of shares, change the number of shares constituting any
series, and provide or change the voting powers, preferences and
relative participating, optional and other special rights, and
any qualifications, limitations or restrictions on shares of our
preferred stock, including dividend rights, terms of redemption,
conversion rights and liquidation preferences, in each case
without any action or vote by our stockholders. We have no
current intention to issue any shares of preferred stock.
One of the effects of undesignated preferred stock may be to
enable our board of directors to discourage an attempt to obtain
control of our company by means of a tender offer, proxy
contest, merger or otherwise. The issuance of preferred stock
may adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders by,
among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
restricting dividends on the common stock;
|
|
|
|
diluting the voting power of the common stock;
|
|
|
|
impairing the liquidation rights of the common stock; or
|
|
|
|
delaying or preventing a change in control without further
action by the stockholders.
|
265
Limitation on
Liability and Indemnification of Officers and
Directors
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation limits the
liability of directors to the fullest extent permitted by
Delaware law. The effect of these provisions is to eliminate the
rights of our company and our stockholders, through
stockholders derivative suits on behalf of our company, to
recover monetary damages against a director for breach of
fiduciary duty as a director, including breaches resulting from
grossly negligent behavior. However, our directors will be
personally liable to us and our stockholders for any breach of
the directors duty of loyalty, for acts or omissions not
in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a
knowing violation of law, under Section 174 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law or for any transaction from which the
director derived an improper personal benefit. In addition, our
amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws
provide that we will indemnify our directors and officers to the
fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. We may enter into
indemnification agreements with our current directors and
executive officers prior to the completion of this offering. We
also maintain directors and officers insurance.
Corporate
Opportunities
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides
that the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds have no
obligation to offer us an opportunity to participate in business
opportunities presented to the Goldman Sachs Funds or the Kelso
Funds or their respective affiliates even if the opportunity is
one that we might reasonably have pursued, and that neither the
Goldman Sachs Funds, the Kelso Funds nor their respective
affiliates will be liable to us or our stockholders for breach
of any duty by reason of any such activities unless, in the case
of any person who is a director or officer of our company, such
business opportunity is expressly offered to such director or
officer in writing solely in his or her capacity as an officer
or director of our company. Stockholders will be deemed to have
notice of and consented to this provision of our certificate of
incorporation.
In addition, the Partnerships limited partnership
agreement provides that the owners of the managing general
partner of the Partnership, which include the Goldman Sachs
Funds and the Kelso Funds, are permitted to engage in separate
businesses which directly compete with the Partnership and are
not required to share or communicate or offer any potential
corporate opportunities to the Partnership even if the
opportunity is one that we might reasonably have pursued. The
agreement provides that the owners of the managing general
partner will not be liable to the Partnership or any partner for
breach of any fiduciary or other duty by reason of the fact that
such person pursued or acquired for itself any corporate
opportunity. See Risk Factors Risks Related to
the Limited Partnership Structure Through Which We Will Hold Our
Interest in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Business The
managing general partner of the Partnership will have a
fiduciary duty to favor the interests of its owners, and these
interests may differ from, or conflict with, our interests and
the interests of our stockholders.
Delaware
Anti-Takeover Law
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides
that we are not subject to Section 203 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law which regulates corporate acquisitions.
This law provides that specified persons who, together with
affiliates and associates, own, or within three years did own,
15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of a corporation may
not engage in business combinations with the corporation for a
period of three years after the date on which the person became
an interested stockholder. The law defines the term
business combination to include mergers, asset sales
and other transactions in which the interested stockholder
receives or could receive a financial benefit on other than a
pro rata basis with other stockholders.
Removal of
Directors; Vacancies
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws
provide that any director or the entire board of directors may
be removed with or without cause by the affirmative vote of the
266
majority of all shares then entitled to vote at an election of
directors. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation
and bylaws also provide that any vacancies on our board of
directors will be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority
of the board of directors then in office, even if less than a
quorum, or by a sole remaining director.
Voting
The affirmative vote of a plurality of the shares of our common
stock present, in person or by proxy will decide the election of
any directors, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the
shares of our common stock present, in person or by proxy will
decide all other matters voted on by stockholders, unless the
question is one upon which, by express provision of law, under
our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, or under
our bylaws, a different vote is required, in which case such
provision will control.
Action by
Written Consent
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws
provide that stockholder action can be taken by written consent
of the stockholders only if the Goldman Sachs Funds and the
Kelso Funds collectively beneficially own more than 35.0% of the
outstanding shares of our common stock.
Ability to
Call Special Meetings
Our bylaws provide that special meetings of our stockholders can
only be called pursuant to a resolution adopted by a majority of
our board of directors or by the chairman of our board of
directors. Special meetings may also be called by the holders
not less than 25% of the outstanding shares of our common stock
if the Goldman Sachs Funds and the Kelso Funds collectively
beneficially own 50% or more of the outstanding shares of our
common stock. Thereafter, stockholders will not be permitted to
call a special meeting or to require our board to call a special
meeting.
Amending Our
Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides
that our certificate of incorporation may be amended by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the board of directors and by
the affirmative vote of the majority of all shares of our common
stock then entitled to vote at any annual or special meeting of
stockholders. In addition, our amended and restated certificate
of incorporation and bylaws provide that our bylaws may be
amended, repealed or new bylaws may be adopted by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the board of directors or by
the affirmative vote of the majority of all shares of our common
stock then entitled to vote at any annual or special meeting of
stockholders.
Advance Notice
Provisions for Stockholders
In order to nominate directors to our board of directors or
bring other business before an annual meeting of our
stockholders, a stockholders notice must be received by
the Secretary of the Company at the principal executive offices
of the Company not less than 120 calendar days before the date
that our proxy statement is released to stockholders in
connection with the previous years annual meeting of
stockholders, subject to certain exceptions contained in our
bylaws. If no annual meeting was held in the previous year, or
if the date of the applicable annual meeting has been changed by
more than 30 days from the date of the previous years
annual meeting, then a stockholders notice, in order to be
considered timely, must be received by the Secretary of the
Company no later than the later of the 90th day prior to
such annual meeting or the tenth day following the day on which
notice of the date of the annual meeting was mailed or public
disclosure of such date was made.
267
Listing
Our common stock has been approved for listing on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol CVI.
Transfer Agent
and Registrar
The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is
American Stock Transfer & Trust Company.
268
SHARES ELIGIBLE FOR FUTURE SALE
Upon the completion of this offering, we will have outstanding
81,641,591 shares of common stock. The 15,500,000 shares
sold in this offering plus any additional shares sold by the
selling stockholders upon exercise of the underwriters
option will be freely tradable without restriction under the
Securities Act, unless purchased by our affiliates
as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities
Act. In general, affiliates include executive officers,
directors and our largest stockholders. Shares of common stock
purchased by affiliates will remain subject to the resale
limitations of Rule 144.
The remaining 66,141,591 shares outstanding prior to this
offering are restricted securities within the meaning of
Rule 144. Restricted securities may be sold in the public
market only if registered or if they qualify for an exemption
from registration under Rules 144, 144(k) or Rule 701
promulgated under the Securities Act, which are summarized below.
Our executive officers and directors and the selling
stockholders will enter into
lock-up
agreements in connection with this offering, generally providing
that they will not offer, sell, contract to sell, or grant any
option to purchase or otherwise dispose of our common stock or
any securities exercisable for or convertible into our common
stock owned by them for a period of 180 days after the date
of this prospectus without the prior written consent of Goldman,
Sachs & Co. and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Despite possible earlier eligibility for sale under the
provisions of Rules 144, 144(k) and 701 under the
Securities Act, any shares subject to a
lock-up
agreement will not be salable until the
lock-up
agreement expires or is waived by Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Taking into account the
lock-up
agreement, and assuming that Coffeyville Acquisition LLC or
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC are not released from their
lock-up
agreements, the 66,114,441 shares held by our affiliates
will be eligible for future sale in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 144 upon the expiration of applicable
Rule 144 holding periods.
In general, under Rule 144 as currently in effect, after
the expiration of
lock-up
agreements, a person who has beneficially owned restricted
securities for at least one year would be entitled to sell
within any three month period a number of shares that does not
exceed the greater of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
one percent of the number of shares of common stock then
outstanding, which will equal approximately 816,416 shares
immediately after this offering; or
|
|
|
|
|
|
the average weekly trading volume of the common stock during the
four calendar weeks preceding the sale.
|
Sales under Rule 144 are also subject to requirements with
respect to
manner-of-sale
requirements, notice requirements and the availability of
current public information about us. Under Rule 144(k), a
person who is not deemed to have been our affiliate at any time
during the three months preceding a sale, and who has
beneficially owned the shares proposed to be sold for at least
two years, is entitled to sell his or her shares without
complying with the
manner-of-sale,
public information, volume limitation, or notice provisions of
Rule 144.
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC
and John J. Lipinski, who collectively hold 66,114,441
shares of our common stock, are parties to registration rights
agreements with us. Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC, who hold 65,861,991 shares
collectively, can request that we register their shares with the
SEC at any time on up to three occasions each, including
pursuant to shelf registration statements. Mr. Lipinski can
piggy back on any registration statement we file with the SEC.
Our non-executive officer employees will own the remaining
27,150 shares. We expect to file a Form S-8
registration statement to allow them to freely resell their
shares.
269
UNITED STATES TAX CONSEQUENCES TO NON-UNITED STATES
HOLDERS
The following is a summary of the material United States federal
income and estate tax consequences of the acquisition, ownership
and disposition of our common stock by a
non-U.S. holder.
As used in this summary, the term
non-U.S. holder
means a beneficial owner of our common stock that is not, for
United States federal income tax purposes:
|
|
|
|
|
an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States
or a former citizen or resident of the United States subject to
taxation as an expatriate;
|
|
|
|
a corporation created or organized in or under the laws of the
United States, any state thereof or the District of Columbia;
|
|
|
|
a partnership;
|
|
|
|
an estate whose income is includible in gross income for
U.S. federal income tax purposes regardless of its
source; or
|
|
|
|
a trust, if (1) a United States court is able to exercise
primary supervision over the trusts administration and one
or more United States persons (within the meaning of
the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the
Code) has the authority to control all of the trusts
substantial decisions, or (2) the trust has a valid
election in effect under applicable U.S. Treasury
regulations to be treated as a United States person.
|
An individual may be treated as a resident of the United States
in any calendar year for United States federal income tax
purposes, instead of a nonresident, by, among other ways, being
present in the United States on at least 31 days in that
calendar year and for an aggregate of at least 183 days
during a three-year period ending in the current calendar year.
For purposes of this calculation, an individual would count all
of the days present in the current year, one-third of the days
present in the immediately preceding year and one-sixth of the
days present in the second preceding year. Residents are taxed
for U.S. federal income purposes as if they were
U.S. citizens.
If an entity or arrangement treated as a partnership or other
type of pass-through entity for U.S. federal income tax
purposes owns our common stock, the tax treatment of a partner
or beneficial owner of such entity may depend upon the status of
the partner or beneficial owner and the activities of the
partnership or entity and by certain determinations made at the
partner or beneficial owner level. Partners and beneficial
owners in such entities that own our common stock should consult
their own tax advisors as to the particular U.S. federal
income and estate tax consequences applicable to them.
This summary does not discuss all of the aspects of
U.S. federal income and estate taxation that may be
relevant to a
non-U.S. holder
in light of the
non-U.S. holders
particular investment or other circumstances. In particular,
this summary only addresses a
non-U.S. holder
that holds our common stock as a capital asset (generally,
investment property) and does not address:
|
|
|
|
|
special U.S. federal income tax rules that may apply to
particular
non-U.S. holders,
such as financial institutions, insurance companies, tax-exempt
organizations, and dealers and traders in securities or
currencies;
|
|
|
|
non-U.S. holders
holding our common stock as part of a conversion, constructive
sale, wash sale or other integrated transaction or a hedge,
straddle or synthetic security;
|
|
|
|
any U.S. state and local or
non-U.S. or
other tax consequences; and
|
|
|
|
the U.S. federal income or estate tax consequences for the
beneficial owners of a
non-U.S. holder.
|
This summary is based on provisions of the Code, applicable
United States Treasury regulations and administrative and
judicial interpretations, all as in effect or in existence on
the date of this prospectus. Subsequent developments in United
States federal income or estate tax law, including
270
changes in law or differing interpretations, which may be
applied retroactively, could have a material effect on the
U.S. federal income and estate tax consequences of
purchasing, owning and disposing of our common stock as set
forth in this summary. Each
non-U.S. holder
should consult a tax advisor regarding the U.S. federal, state,
local and
non-U.S. income
and other tax consequences of acquiring, holding and disposing
of our common stock.
Dividends
We do not anticipate making cash distributions on our common
stock in the foreseeable future. See Dividend
Policy. In the event, however, that we make cash
distributions on our common stock, such distributions will
constitute dividends for United States federal income tax
purposes to the extent paid out of current or accumulated
earnings and profits of the Company. To the extent such
distributions exceed the Companys earnings and profits,
they will be treated first as a return of the stockholders
basis in their common stock to the extent thereof, and then as
gain from the sale of a capital asset. If we make a distribution
that is treated as a dividend and is not effectively connected
with a
non-U.S. holders
conduct of a trade or business in the United States, we will
have to withhold a U.S. federal withholding tax at a rate
of 30%, or a lower rate under an applicable income tax treaty,
from the gross amount of the dividends paid to such
non-U.S. holder.
Non-U.S. holders
should consult their own tax advisors regarding their
entitlement to benefits under a relevant income tax treaty.
In order to claim the benefit of an applicable income tax
treaty, a
non-U.S. holder
will be required to provide a properly executed
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
Form W-8BEN
(or other applicable form) in accordance with the applicable
certification and disclosure requirements. Special rules apply
to partnerships and other pass-through entities and these
certification and disclosure requirements also may apply to
beneficial owners of partnerships and other pass-through
entities that hold our common stock. A
non-U.S. holder
that is eligible for a reduced rate of U.S. federal
withholding tax under an income tax treaty may obtain a refund
or credit of any excess amounts withheld by filing an
appropriate claim for a refund with the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service.
Non-U.S. holders
should consult their own tax advisors regarding their
entitlement to benefits under a relevant income tax treaty and
the manner of claiming the benefits.
Dividends that are effectively connected with a
non-U.S. holders
conduct of a trade or business in the United States and, if
required by an applicable income tax treaty, are attributable to
a permanent establishment maintained by the
non-U.S. holder
in the United States, will be taxed on a net income basis at the
regular graduated rates and in the manner applicable to United
States persons. In that case, we will not have to withhold
U.S. federal withholding tax if the
non-U.S. holder
provides a properly executed U.S. Internal Revenue Service
Form W-8ECI
(or other applicable form) in accordance with the applicable
certification and disclosure requirements. In addition, a
branch profits tax may be imposed at a 30% rate, or
a lower rate under an applicable income tax treaty, on dividends
received by a foreign corporation that are effectively connected
with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States.
Gain on disposition of our common stock
A
non-U.S. holder
generally will not be taxed on any gain recognized on a
disposition of our common stock unless:
|
|
|
|
|
the gain is effectively connected with the
non-U.S. holders
conduct of a trade or business in the United States and, if
required by an applicable income tax treaty, is attributable to
a permanent establishment maintained by the
non-U.S. holder
in the United States; in these cases, the gain will be taxed on
a net income basis at the regular graduated rates and in the
manner applicable to U.S. persons (unless an applicable
income tax treaty provides otherwise) and, if the
non-U.S. holder
is a foreign corporation, the branch profits tax
described above may also apply;
|
271
|
|
|
|
|
the
non-U.S. holder
is an individual who holds our common stock as a capital asset,
is present in the United States for more than 182 days in
the taxable year of the disposition and meets other requirements
(in which case, except as otherwise provided by an applicable
income tax treaty, the gain, which may be offset by
U.S. source capital losses, generally will be subject to a
flat 30% U.S. federal income tax, even though the
non-U.S. holder
is not considered a resident alien under the Code); or
|
|
|
|
we are or have been a U.S. real property holding
corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes at
any time during the shorter of the five-year period ending on
the date of disposition or the period that the
non-U.S. holder
held our common stock.
|
Generally, a corporation is a U.S. real property
holding corporation if the fair market value of its
U.S. real property interests equals or exceeds
50% of the sum of the fair market value of its worldwide real
property interests plus its other assets used or held for use in
a trade or business. We believe that we are not currently, and
we do not anticipate becoming in the future, a U.S. real
property holding corporation. However, because this
determination is made from time to time and is dependent upon a
number of factors, some of which are beyond our control,
including the value of our assets, there can be no assurance
that we will not become a U.S. real property holding corporation.
However, even if we are or have been a U.S. real property
holding corporation, a
non-U.S. holder
which did not beneficially own, actually or constructively, more
than 5% of the total fair market value of our common stock at
any time during the shorter of the five-year period ending on
the date of disposition or the period that our common stock was
held by the
non-U.S. holder
(a non-5% holder) and which is not otherwise taxed
under any other circumstances described above, generally will
not be taxed on any gain realized on the disposition of our
common stock if, at any time during the calendar year of the
disposition, our common stock was regularly traded on an
established securities market within the meaning of the
applicable United States Treasury regulations.
Our common stock has been approved for listing on the New York
Stock Exchange. Although not free from doubt, our common stock
should be considered to be regularly traded on an established
securities market for any calendar quarter during which it is
regularly quoted by brokers or dealers that hold themselves out
to buy or sell our common stock at the quoted price. If our
common stock were not considered to be regularly traded on an
established securities market at any time during the applicable
calendar year, then a non-5% holder would be taxed for
U.S. federal income tax purposes on any gain realized on
the disposition of our common stock on a net income basis as if
the gain were effectively connected with the conduct of a
U.S. trade or business by the non-5% holder during the
taxable year and, in such case, the person acquiring our common
stock from a non-5% holder generally would have to withhold 10%
of the amount of the proceeds of the disposition. Such
withholding may be reduced or eliminated pursuant to a
withholding certificate issued by the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service in accordance with applicable U.S. Treasury
regulations. We urge all
non-U.S. holders
to consult their own tax advisors regarding the application of
these rules to them.
Federal estate tax
Our common stock that is owned or treated as owned by an
individual who is not a U.S. citizen or resident of the
United States (as specially defined for U.S. federal estate
tax purposes) at the time of death will be included in the
individuals gross estate for U.S. federal estate tax
purposes, unless an applicable estate tax or other treaty
provides otherwise and, therefore, may be subject to
U.S. federal estate tax.
Information reporting and backup withholding tax
Dividends paid to a
non-U.S. holder
may be subject to U.S. information reporting and backup
withholding. A
non-U.S. holder
will be exempt from backup withholding if the
non-U.S. holder
provides a properly executed U.S. Internal Revenue Service
Form W-8BEN
or otherwise meets documentary
272
evidence requirements for establishing its status as a
non-U.S. holder
or otherwise establishes an exemption.
The gross proceeds from the disposition of our common stock may
be subject to U.S. information reporting and backup
withholding. If a
non-U.S. holder
sells our common stock outside the United States through a
non-U.S. office
of a
non-U.S. broker
and the sales proceeds are paid to the
non-U.S. holder
outside the United States, then the U.S. backup withholding
and information reporting requirements generally will not apply
to that payment. However, United States information reporting,
but not U.S. backup withholding, will apply to a payment of
sales proceeds, even if that payment is made outside the United
States, if a
non-U.S. holder
sells our common stock through a
non-U.S. office
of a broker that:
|
|
|
|
|
is a United States person;
|
|
|
|
derives 50% or more of its gross income in specific periods from
the conduct of a trade or business in the United States;
|
|
|
|
is a controlled foreign corporation for U.S. federal
income tax purposes; or
|
|
|
|
is a foreign partnership, if at any time during its tax year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
one or more of its partners are United States persons who in the
aggregate hold more than 50% of the income or capital interests
in the partnership; or
|
|
|
|
the foreign partnership is engaged in a U.S. trade or business,
|
unless the broker has documentary evidence in its files that the
non-U.S. holder
is not a United States person and certain other conditions
are met or the
non-U.S. holder
otherwise establishes an exemption.
If a
non-U.S. holder
receives payments of the proceeds of a sale of our common stock
to or through a United States office of a broker, the payment is
subject to both U.S. backup withholding and information
reporting unless the
non-U.S. holder
provides a properly executed U.S. Internal Revenue Service
Form W-8BEN
certifying that the
non-U.S. Holder
is not a United States person or the
non-U.S. holder
otherwise establishes an exemption.
A
non-U.S. holder
generally may obtain a refund of any amounts withheld under the
backup withholding rules that exceed the
non-U.S. holders
U.S. federal income tax liability by filing a refund claim
with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
273
UNDERWRITING
The Company, the selling stockholders and the underwriters to be
subsequently identified will enter into an underwriting
agreement with respect to the shares being offered. Subject to
certain conditions, each underwriter has severally agreed to
purchase the number of shares indicated in the following table.
Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. are
the representatives of the underwriters.
|
|
|
|
|
Underwriters
|
|
Number
of Shares
|
|
|
Goldman, Sachs &
Co.
|
|
|
|
|
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Simmons & Company
International
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
15,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The underwriters are committed to take and pay for all of the
shares being offered, if any are taken, other than the shares
covered by the option described below unless and until this
option is exercised. We expect that the underwriting agreement
will provide that the obligations of the underwriters to take
and pay for the shares are subject to a number of conditions,
including, among others, the accuracy of the Companys
representations and warranties in the underwriting agreement,
completion of the Transactions, listing of the shares, receipt
of specified letters from counsel and the Companys
independent registered public accounting firm, and receipt of
specified officers certificates.
To the extent that the underwriters sell more than
15,500,000 shares, the underwriters have an option to buy
up to an additional 2,325,000 shares from the selling
stockholders to cover such sales. They may exercise that option
for 30 days. If any shares are purchased pursuant to this
option, the underwriters will severally purchase shares in
approximately the same proportion as set forth in the table
above.
The following table shows the per share and total underwriting
discounts and commissions to be paid to the underwriters by the
Company and the selling stockholders. These amounts are shown
assuming both no exercise and full exercise of the
underwriters option to
purchase
additional shares of common stock.
Paid by the Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
Exercise
|
|
|
Full
Exercise
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Paid by the selling stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
Exercise
|
|
|
Full
Exercise
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Shares sold by the underwriters to the public will initially be
offered at the initial public offering price set forth on the
cover of this prospectus. Any shares sold by the underwriters to
securities dealers may be sold at a discount of up to
$ per share from the initial
public offering price. If all of the shares are not sold at the
initial public offering price, the representatives may change
the offering price and the other selling terms.
The Company, its executive officers and directors and the
selling stockholders have agreed with the underwriters, subject
to exceptions, not to dispose of or hedge any of the shares of
common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable for
shares of common stock during the period from the
274
date of this prospectus continuing through the date
180 days after the date of this prospectus, except with the
prior written consent of the representatives. This agreement
does not apply to any existing employee benefit plans or shares
issued in connection with acquisitions or business transactions.
See Shares Eligible for Future Sale for a
discussion of specified transfer restrictions.
The 180-day
restricted period described in the preceding paragraph will be
automatically extended if: (1) during the last 17 days
of the
180-day
restricted period the Company issues an earnings release or
announces material news or a material event; or (2) prior
to the expiration of the
180-day
restricted period, the Company announces that it will release
earnings results during the
15-day
period following the last day of the
180-day
period, in which case the restrictions described in the
preceding paragraph will continue to apply until the expiration
of the
18-day
period beginning on the issuance of the earnings release or the
announcement of the material news or material event.
The underwriters have informed us that they do not presently
intend to release shares or other securities subject to the
lock-up
agreements. Any determination to release any shares subject to
the lock-up
agreements would be based on a number of factors at the time of
any such determination; such factors may include the market
price of the common stock, the liquidity of the trading market
for the common stock, general market conditions, the number of
shares proposed to be sold, and the timing, purpose and terms of
the proposed sale.
At the Companys request, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. has
reserved for sale, at the initial public offering price, up to
5% of the shares offered hereby sold to certain directors,
officers, employees and persons having relationships with the
Company. The number of shares of common stock available for sale
to the general public will be reduced to the extent such persons
purchase such reserved shares. Any reserved shares which are not
so purchased will be offered by the underwriters to the general
public on the same terms as the other shares offered hereby.
Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for the
common stock. The initial public offering price will be
negotiated among the Company, the selling stockholders and the
representatives. The factors to be considered in determining the
initial public offering price of the shares include:
|
|
|
|
|
the history and prospects for our industry;
|
|
|
|
our historical performance, including our net sales, net income,
margins and certain other financial information;
|
|
|
|
estimates of our business potential and earnings prospects;
|
|
|
|
an assessment of our management;
|
|
|
|
investor demand for our shares of common stock;
|
|
|
|
market valuations of companies that we and the representatives
believe to be comparable; and
|
|
|
|
prevailing securities markets at the time of this offering.
|
Our common stock has been approved for listing on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol CVI.
In connection with this offering, the underwriters may purchase
and sell shares of the common stock in the open market. These
transactions may include short sales, stabilizing transactions
and purchases to cover positions created by short sales. Short
sales involve the sale by the underwriters of a greater number
of shares than they are required to purchase in this offering.
Covered short sales are sales made in an amount not
greater than the underwriters option to purchase
additional shares from the selling stockholders in this
offering. The underwriters may close out any covered short
position by either exercising their option to purchase
additional shares or purchasing shares in the open market. In
determining the source of shares to close out the covered short
position, the underwriters will consider, among other things,
the price of shares available for purchase in the open market as
compared to the price at which they may purchase additional
shares pursuant to the option
275
granted to them. Naked short sales are any sales in
excess of that option. The underwriters must close out any naked
short position by purchasing shares in the open market. A naked
short position is more likely to be created if the underwriters
are concerned that there may be downward pressure on the price
of the shares of common stock in the open market after pricing
that could adversely affect investors who purchase in this
offering. Stabilizing transactions consist of various bids for
or purchases of shares of common stock made by the underwriters
in the open market prior to the completion of this offering.
The underwriters may also impose a penalty bid. This occurs when
a particular underwriter repays to the underwriters a portion of
the underwriting discount received by it because the
representatives have repurchased shares sold by or for the
account of that underwriter in stabilizing or short covering
transactions.
Purchases to cover a short position and stabilizing transactions
may have the effect of preventing or retarding a decline in the
market price of the shares of common stock and, together with
the imposition of the penalty bid, may stabilize, maintain or
otherwise affect the market price of the shares of common stock.
As a result, the price of the shares of common stock may be
higher than the price that otherwise might exist in the open
market. If these activities are commenced, they may be
discontinued at any time. These transactions may be effected on
the NYSE, in the
over-the-counter
market or otherwise.
Each underwriter has represented and agreed that:
(a) it has only communicated or caused to be communicated
and will only communicate or cause to be communicated an
invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity
(within the meaning of Section 21 of the FSMA) received by
it in connection with the issue or sale of the shares in
circumstances in which Section 21(1) of the FSMA does not
apply to the Company; and
(b) it has complied and will comply with all applicable
provisions of the FSMA with respect to anything done by it in
relation to the shares in, from or otherwise involving the
United Kingdom.
In relation to each Member State of the European Economic Area
which has implemented the Prospectus Directive (each, a Relevant
Member State), each underwriter has represented and agreed that
with effect from and including the date on which the Prospectus
Directive is implemented in that Relevant Member State (the
Relevant Implementation Date) it has not made and will not make
an offer of shares to the public in that Relevant Member State
prior to the publication of a prospectus in relation to the
shares which has been approved by the competent authority in
that Relevant Member State or, where appropriate, approved in
another Relevant Member State and notified to the competent
authority in that Relevant Member State, all in accordance with
the Prospectus Directive, except that it may, with effect from
and including the Relevant Implementation Date, make an offer of
shares to the public in that Relevant Member State at any time:
(a) to legal entities which are authorized or regulated to
operate in the financial markets or, if not so authorized or
regulated, whose corporate purpose is solely to invest in
securities;
(b) to any legal entity which has two or more of
(1) an average of at least 250 employees during the
last financial year; (2) a total balance sheet of more than
43,000,000 and (3) an annual net turnover of more
than 50,000,000, as shown in its last annual or
consolidated accounts;
(c) to fewer than 100 natural or legal persons (other
than qualified investors as defined in the Prospectus Directive)
subject to obtaining the prior consent of the representatives
for any such offer; or
(d) in any other circumstances which do not require the
publication by the Company of a prospectus pursuant to
Article 3 of the Prospectus Directive.
276
For the purposes of this provision, the expression an
offer of shares to the public in relation to any
shares in any Relevant Member State means the communication in
any form and by any means of sufficient information on the terms
of the offer and the shares to be offered so as to enable an
investor to decide to purchase or subscribe the shares, as the
same may be varied in that Relevant Member State by any measure
implementing the Prospectus Directive in that Relevant Member
State and the expression Prospectus Directive means Directive
2003/71/EC and includes any relevant implementing measure in
each Relevant Member State.
The shares may not be offered or sold by means of any document
other than (i) in circumstances which do not constitute an
offer to the public within the meaning of the Companies
Ordinance (Cap. 32, Laws of Hong Kong), or (ii) to
professional investors within the meaning of the
Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571, Laws of Hong
Kong) and any rules made thereunder, or (iii) in other
circumstances which do not result in the document being a
prospectus within the meaning of the Companies
Ordinance (Cap. 32, Laws of Hong Kong), and no
advertisement, invitation or document relating to the shares may
be issued or may be in the possession of any person for the
purpose of issue (in each case whether in Hong Kong or
elsewhere), which is directed at, or the contents of which are
likely to be accessed or read by, the public in Hong Kong
(except if permitted to do so under the laws of Hong Kong) other
than with respect to shares which are or are intended to be
disposed of only to persons outside Hong Kong or only to
professional investors within the meaning of the
Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571, Laws of Hong
Kong) and any rules made thereunder.
This prospectus has not been registered as a prospectus with the
Monetary Authority of Singapore. Accordingly, this prospectus
and any other document or material in connection with the offer
or sale, or invitation for subscription or purchase, of the
shares may not be circulated or distributed, nor may the shares
be offered or sold, or be made the subject of an invitation for
subscription or purchase, whether directly or indirectly, to
persons in Singapore other than (1) to an institutional
investor under Section 274 of the Securities and Futures
Act, Chapter 289 of Singapore, or the SFA, (2) to a
relevant person, or any person pursuant to Section 275(1A),
and in accordance with the conditions, specified in
Section 275 of the SFA or (3) otherwise pursuant to,
and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable
provision of the SFA.
Where the shares are subscribed or purchased under
Section 275 by a relevant person which is: (a) a
corporation (which is not an accredited investor) the sole
business of which is to hold investments and the entire share
capital of which is owned by one or more individuals, each of
whom is an accredited investor; or (b) a trust (where the
trustee is not an accredited investor) whose sole purpose is to
hold investments and each beneficiary is an accredited investor,
shares, debentures and units of shares and debentures of that
corporation or the beneficiaries rights and interest in
that trust shall not be transferable for 6 months after
that corporation or that trust has acquired the shares under
Section 275 except: (1) to an institutional investor
under Section 274 of the SFA or to a relevant person, or
any person pursuant to Section 275(1A), and in accordance
with the conditions, specified in Section 275 of the SFA;
(2) where no consideration is given for the transfer; or
(3) by operation of law.
The securities have not been and will not be registered under
the Securities and Exchange Law of Japan (the Securities
and Exchange Law) and each underwriter has agreed that it
will not offer or sell any securities, directly or indirectly,
in Japan or to, or for the benefit of, any resident of Japan
(which term as used herein means any person resident in Japan,
including any corporation or other entity organized under the
laws of Japan), or to others for re-offering or resale, directly
or indirectly, in Japan or to a resident of Japan, except
pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of,
and otherwise in compliance with, the Securities and Exchange
Law and any other applicable laws, regulations and ministerial
guidelines of Japan.
The underwriters do not expect sales to discretionary accounts
to exceed five percent of the total number of shares offered.
277
The Company estimates that its share of the total expenses of
this offering, excluding underwriting discounts and commissions,
will be approximately $7.5 million.
The Company and the selling stockholders have agreed to
indemnify the several underwriters against specified
liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act.
Certain of the underwriters and their respective affiliates
have, from time to time, performed, and may in the future
perform, various financial advisory, investment banking,
commercial banking and other services for our company, for which
they received or will receive customary fees and expenses.
Furthermore, certain of the underwriters and their respective
affiliates may, from time to time, enter into arms-length
transactions with us in the ordinary course of their business.
Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. and Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC are joint lead arrangers and joint bookrunners under
our Credit Facility, and Credit Suisse is the administrative
agent and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas is the
syndication agent under our Credit Facility. Goldman Sachs
Credit Partners L.P. is the sole lender under the
$775.0 million term loan facility under the Credit Facility
and, accordingly, will receive all of the net proceeds of this
offering that we use to repay term loans under the Credit
Facility. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Credit Suisse and Citicorp North America, Inc.
are lenders under the $150 million revolving loan facility
under the Credit Facility. To the extent that we use net
proceeds of this offering to repay revolving loans, affiliates
of these underwriters will receive substantially all of such net
proceeds. See Description of Our Indebtedness and the Cash
Flow Swap. If the underwriters exercise their option to
buy additional shares from the selling stockholders, a Goldman,
Sachs & Co. affiliate, one of the selling
stockholders, will receive a portion of the net proceeds
received by the selling stockholders.
Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., as the sole lender under the
term loan facility and a lender under the revolving loan
facility, will receive more than 10% of the net proceeds of the
offering. As a result, Goldman, Sachs & Co., an
affiliate of Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., is deemed to
have a conflict of interest under Rule 2710(h)
of the Conduct Rules of the NASD. In addition, because
affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co. own more than 10%
of the Companys outstanding common stock, Goldman,
Sachs & Co. is deemed to be an affiliate of the
Company under Rule 2720(b)(1) of the NASD Conduct Rules
and, therefore, Goldman, Sachs & Co. is also deemed to
have a conflict of interest under Rule 2720 of the NASD
Conduct Rules. Accordingly, this offering will be made in
compliance with the applicable provisions of Rule 2720 of
the NASD Conduct Rules. Rule 2720 requires that the initial
public offering price can be no higher than that recommended by
a qualified independent underwriter, as defined by
the NASD. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. will serve in that
capacity and will perform due diligence investigations and
review and participate in the preparation of the registration
statement of which this prospectus forms a part.
Goldman, Sachs & Co. also will receive a
$5 million termination fee payable in connection with the
termination of the management agreement. For a description of
other transactions between us and Goldman Sachs & Co. and
its affiliates, including payment of dividends by us to such
affiliates, see Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions and The Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited
Partnership.
LEGAL
MATTERS
The validity of the shares of common stock offered by this
prospectus will be passed upon for our company by Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, New York.
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, New York is acting
as counsel to the underwriters. Debevoise & Plimpton
LLP has in the past provided, and continues to provide, legal
services to Kelso & Company, including relating to
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
278
EXPERTS
The consolidated financial statements of CVR Energy, Inc. and
subsidiaries, which collectively refer to the consolidated
financial statements for the 62 day period ended
March 2, 2004 for the former Farmland Petroleum Division
and one facility within Farmlands eight-plant Nitrogen
Fertilizer Manufacturing and Marketing Division (collectively,
Original Predecessor), the consolidated financial statements for
the 304-day period ended December 31, 2004 and for the
174-day period ended June 23, 2005 for Coffeyville Group
Holdings, LLC and subsidiaries, excluding Leiber Holdings LLC,
as discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, which we refer to as Immediate Predecessor, and the
consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2005
and 2006 and for the 233 day period ended December 31,
2005 and the year ended December 31, 2006 for Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and subsidiaries, which we refer to as
Successor, have been included herein (and in the registration
statement) in reliance upon the report of KPMG LLP, independent
registered public accounting firm, appearing elsewhere herein,
and upon the authority of said firm as experts in accounting and
auditing.
The audit report covering the consolidated financial statements
of CVR Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries noted above contains an
explanatory paragraph that states that as discussed in
note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, effective
March 3, 2004, Immediate Predecessor acquired the net
assets of Original Predecessor in a business combination
accounted for as a purchase, and effective June 24, 2005,
Successor acquired the net assets of Immediate Predecessor in a
business combination accounted for as a purchase. As a result of
these acquisitions, the consolidated financial statements for
the periods after the acquisitions are presented on a different
cost basis than that for the periods before the acquisitions
and, therefore, are not comparable. Furthermore, the audit
report covering the consolidated financial statements of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC noted above contains an emphasis
paragraph that states, as discussed in note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements, Farmland allocated certain
general corporate expenses and interest expense to Original
Predecessor for the 62 day period ended March 2, 2004.
The allocation of these costs is not necessarily indicative of
the costs that would have been incurred if Original Predecessor
had operated as a stand-alone entity.
WHERE YOU CAN
FIND MORE INFORMATION
We have filed with the SEC a registration statement on
Form S-1
under the Securities Act with respect to the common stock. This
prospectus does not contain all of the information set forth in
the registration statement and the exhibits and schedules to the
registration statement. For further information with respect to
us and our common stock, we refer you to the registration
statement and the exhibits and schedules filed as a part of the
registration statement. Statements contained in this prospectus
concerning the contents of any contract or any other document
are not necessarily complete. If a contract or document has been
filed as an exhibit to the registration statement, we refer you
to the copy of the contract or document that has been filed as
an exhibit and reference thereto is qualified in all respects by
the terms of the filed exhibit. The registration statement,
including exhibits and schedules, may be inspected without
charge at the Public Reference Room of the SEC at 100 F Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549, and copies of all or any part
of it may be obtained from that office after payment of fees
prescribed by the SEC. Information on the operation of the
Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
The SEC maintains a web site that contains reports, proxy and
information statements and other information regarding
registrants that file electronically with the SEC at
http://www.sec.gov.
279
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS
The following are definitions of certain industry terms used in
this prospectus.
|
|
|
2-1-1 crack spread |
|
The approximate gross margin resulting from processing two
barrels of crude oil to produce one barrel of gasoline and one
barrel of diesel fuel. |
|
Barrel |
|
Common unit of measure in the oil industry which equates to 42
gallons. |
|
Blendstocks |
|
Various compounds that are combined with gasoline or diesel from
the crude oil refining process to make finished gasoline and
diesel fuel; these may include natural gasoline, FCC unit
gasoline, ethanol, reformate or butane, among others. |
|
|
|
Bonus plan |
|
The CVR GP, LLC Profit Bonus Plan, which the managing general
partner of the MLP intends to adopt prior to the consummation of
this offering, and which will relate to distributions of profit
made by Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC. |
|
|
|
Bonus points |
|
The class of interests to be issued under the bonus plan, which
will represent the opportunity to receive a cash payment when
distributions of profit are made pursuant to the limited
liability company agreement of Coffeyville Acquisition III
LLC. |
|
|
|
bpd |
|
Abbreviation for barrels per day. |
|
Btu |
|
British thermal units: a measure of energy. One Btu of heat is
required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one
degree Fahrenheit. |
|
Bulk sales |
|
Volume sales through third party pipelines, in contrast to
tanker truck quantity sales. |
|
Bulk spot basis |
|
Prompt bulk sales (as compared to outer month sales). |
|
By-products |
|
Products that result from extracting high value products such as
gasoline and diesel fuel from crude oil; these include black
oil, sulfur, propane, pet coke and other products. |
|
Capacity |
|
Capacity is defined as the throughput a process unit is capable
of sustaining, either on a calendar or stream day basis. The
throughput may be expressed in terms of maximum sustainable,
nameplate or economic capacity. The maximum sustainable or
nameplate capacities may not be the most economical. The
economic capacity is the throughput that generally provides the
greatest economic benefit based on considerations such as
feedstock costs, product values and downstream unit constraints. |
|
Catalyst |
|
A substance that alters, accelerates, or instigates chemical
changes, but is neither produced, consumed nor altered in the
process. |
|
Coffeyville supply area |
|
Refers to the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska and
Iowa. |
280
|
|
|
Coker unit |
|
A refinery unit that utilizes the lowest value component of
crude oil remaining after all higher value products are removed,
further breaks down the component into more valuable products
and converts the rest into pet coke. |
|
|
|
Common units |
|
The class of interests issued or to be issued under the limited
liability company agreements governing Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC, Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition III LLC, which provide for voting rights and
have rights with respect to profits and losses of, and
distributions from, the respective limited liability companies |
|
|
|
Corn belt |
|
The primary corn producing region of the United States, which
includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Ohio and Wisconsin. |
|
Crack spread |
|
A simplified calculation that measures the difference between
the price for light products and crude oil. For example, 2-1-1
crack spread is often referenced and represents the approximate
gross margin resulting from processing two barrels of crude oil
to produce one barrel of gasoline and one barrel of diesel fuel. |
|
Crude slate |
|
The mix of different crude types (qualities) being charged to a
crude unit. |
|
Crude slate optimization |
|
The process of determining the most economic crude oils to be
refined based upon the prevailing product values, crude prices,
crude oil yields and refinery process unit operating unit
constraints to maximize profit. |
|
Crude unit |
|
The initial refinery unit to process crude oil by separating the
crude oil according to boiling point under high heat to recover
various hydrocarbon fractions. |
|
Delayed coker |
|
A refinery unit that processes heavy feedstock using high
temperature and produces lighter products and petroleum coke. |
|
Distillates |
|
Primarily diesel fuel, kerosene and jet fuel. |
|
Ethanol |
|
A clear, colorless, flammable oxygenated hydrocarbon. Ethanol is
typically produced chemically from ethylene, or biologically
from fermentation of various sugars from carbohydrates found in
agricultural crops and cellulosic residues from crops or wood.
It is used in the United States as a gasoline octane enhancer
and oxygenate. |
|
Farm belt |
|
Refers to the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. |
|
Feedstocks |
|
Petroleum products, such as crude oil and natural gas liquids,
that are processed and blended into refined products. |
|
Fluid catalytic cracking unit |
|
Converts gas oil from the crude unit or coker unit into
liquefied petroleum gas, distillates and gasoline blendstocks by
applying heat in the presence of a catalyst. |
281
|
|
|
Fluxant |
|
Material added to coke to aid in the removal of coke metal
impurities from the gasifier. The material consists of a mixture
of fly ash and sand. |
|
Heavy crude oil |
|
A relatively inexpensive crude oil characterized by high
relative density and viscosity. Heavy crude oils require greater
levels of processing to produce high value products such as
gasoline and diesel fuel. |
|
Independent refiner |
|
A refiner that does not have crude oil exploration or production
operations. An independent refiner purchases the crude oil used
as feedstock in its refinery operations from third parties. |
|
Light crude oil |
|
A relatively expensive crude oil characterized by low relative
density and viscosity. Light crude oils require lower levels of
processing to produce high value products such as gasoline and
diesel fuel. |
|
Liquefied petroleum gas |
|
Light hydrocarbon material gaseous at atmospheric temperature
and pressure, held in the liquid state by pressure to facilitate
storage, transport and handling. |
|
Magellan Midstream Partners L.P. |
|
A publicly traded company whose business is the transportation,
storage and distribution of refined petroleum products. |
|
Maya |
|
A heavy, sour crude oil from Mexico characterized by an API
gravity of approximately 22.0 and a sulfur content of
approximately 3.3 weight percent. |
|
Modified Solomon complexity |
|
Standard industry measure of a refinerys ability to
process less expensive feedstock, such as heavier and
high-sulfur content crude oils, into value-added products. The
weighted average of the Solomon complexity factors for each
operating unit multiplied by the throughput of each refinery
unit, divided by the crude capacity of the refinery. |
|
MTBE |
|
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, an ether produced from the reaction
of isobutylene and methanol specifically for use as a gasoline
blendstock. The EPA required MTBE or other oxygenates to be
blended into reformulated gasoline. |
|
Naphtha |
|
The major constituent of gasoline fractionated from crude oil
during the refining process, which is later processed in the
reformer unit to increase octane. |
|
Netbacks |
|
Refers to the unit price of fertilizer, in dollars per ton,
offered on a delivered basis and excludes shipment costs. Also
referred to as plant gate price. |
|
|
|
Operating units |
|
Override units granted pursuant to the limited liability company
agreements governing Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC, which vest based on service. |
|
|
|
Override units |
|
The class of interests issued or to be issued under the limited
liability company agreements governing Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC, Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition |
282
|
|
|
|
|
III LLC, which represent profits interests in the respective
limited liability companies. With respect to the override units
issued under the limited liability company agreements of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC, the units are classified as either operating units or value
units. |
|
|
|
PADD I |
|
East Coast Petroleum Area for Defense District which includes
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia. |
|
PADD II |
|
Midwest Petroleum Area for Defense District which includes
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin. |
|
PADD III |
|
Gulf Coast Petroleum Area for Defense District which includes
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas. |
|
PADD IV |
|
Rocky Mountains Petroleum Area for Defense District which
includes Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. |
|
PADD V |
|
West Coast Petroleum Area for Defense District which includes
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington. |
|
Pet coke |
|
A coal-like substance that is produced during the refining
process. |
|
|
|
Phantom performance points |
|
Phantom points granted or to be granted pursuant to the Phantom
Unit Plan I and Phantom Unit Plan II, which vest based on
performance of the investment made by Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, respectively. |
|
|
|
Phantom points |
|
The class of interests to be issued under the Phantom Unit
Plan I, and to be issued under the Phantom Unit
Plan II, which represent or will represent the opportunity
to receive a cash payment when distributions of profit are made
pursuant to the limited liability company agreements of
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II
LLC. Phantom points are classified as either phantom service
points or phantom performance points. |
|
|
|
Phantom service points |
|
Phantom points granted or to be granted pursuant to the Phantom
Unit Plan I and Phantom Unit Plan II, which vest based on
service. |
|
|
|
Phantom Unit Plan I |
|
The Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan
(Plan I), which relates to distributions made by Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC. |
|
|
|
Phantom Unit Plan II |
|
The Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan
(Plan II), which we intend to adopt prior to the
consummation of this offering, and which will relate to
distributions made by Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC. |
283
|
|
|
Profits interests |
|
Interests in the profits of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC,
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition III
LLC, also referred to as override units. |
|
|
|
Rack sales |
|
Sales which are made into tanker truck (versus bulk pipeline
batcher) via either a proprietary or third terminal facility
designed for truck loading. |
|
Recordable incident |
|
An injury, as defined by OSHA. All work-related deaths and
illnesses, and those work-related injuries which result in loss
of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to
another job, or require medical treatment beyond first aid. |
|
Recordable injury rate |
|
The number of recordable injuries per 200,000 hours rate worked. |
|
Refined products |
|
Petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel,
that are produced by a refinery. |
|
Refining margin |
|
A measurement calculated as the difference between net sales and
cost of products sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization). |
|
Reformer unit |
|
A refinery unit that processes naphtha and converts it to
high-octane gasoline by using a platinum/rhenium catalyst. Also
known as a platformer. |
|
Reformulated gasoline |
|
The composition and properties of which meet the requirements of
the reformulated gasoline regulations. |
|
Slag |
|
A glasslike substance removed from the gasifier containing the
metal impurities originally present in the coke. |
|
Slurry |
|
A byproduct of the fluid catalytic cracking process that is sold
for further processing or blending with fuel oil. |
|
Sour crude oil |
|
A crude oil that is relatively high in sulfur content, requiring
additional processing to remove the sulfur. Sour crude oil is
typically less expensive than sweet crude oil. |
|
Spot market |
|
A market in which commodities are bought and sold for cash and
delivered immediately. |
|
Sweet crude oil |
|
A crude oil that is relatively low in sulfur content, requiring
less processing to remove the sulfur. Sweet crude oil is
typically more expensive than sour crude oil. |
|
Syngas |
|
A mixture of gases (largely carbon monoxide and hydrogen) that
results from heating coal in the presence of steam. |
|
Throughput |
|
The volume processed through a unit or a refinery. |
|
Ton |
|
One ton is equal to 2,000 pounds. |
|
Turnaround |
|
A periodically required standard procedure to refurbish and
maintain a refinery that involves the shutdown and inspection of
major processing units and occurs every three to four years. |
|
UAN |
|
UAN is a solution of urea and ammonium nitrate in water used as
a fertilizer. |
284
|
|
|
Utilization |
|
Ratio of total refinery throughput to the rated capacity of the
refinery. |
|
Vacuum unit |
|
Secondary refinery unit to process crude oil by separating
product from the crude unit according to boiling point under
high heat and low pressure to recover various hydrocarbons. |
|
|
|
Value units |
|
Override units granted pursuant to the limited liability company
agreements governing Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC, which vest based on performance of
the investment made by Coffeyville Acquisition LLC or
Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, respectively. |
|
|
|
Wheat belt |
|
The primary wheat producing region of the United States, which
includes Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas. |
|
WTI |
|
West Texas Intermediate crude oil, a light, sweet crude oil,
characterized by an API gravity between 38 and 40 and a sulfur
content of approximately 0.3 weight percent that is used as a
benchmark for other crude oils. |
|
WTS |
|
West Texas Sour crude oil, a relatively light, sour crude oil
characterized by an API gravity of 32-33 degrees and a sulfur
content of approximately 2 weight percent. |
|
Yield |
|
The percentage of refined products that is produced from crude
and other feedstocks. |
285
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
Audited Financial
Statements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-2
|
|
|
|
|
F-3
|
|
|
|
|
F-4
|
|
|
|
|
F-5
|
|
|
|
|
F-8
|
|
|
|
|
F-9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-48
|
|
|
|
|
F-49
|
|
|
|
|
F-50
|
|
|
|
|
F-51
|
|
F-1
When the transactions referred to in note 1 of the notes to
consolidated financial statements have been consummated, we will
be in a position to render the following report:
/s/ KPMG LLP
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors
CVR Energy, Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
CVR Energy, Inc. (the Company), which collectively refers to the
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2005 and
2006 of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and subsidiaries (the
Successor) and the related consolidated statements of
operations, equity, and cash flows for the former Farmland
Industries, Inc. (Farmland) Petroleum Division and one facility
within Farmlands eight-plant Nitrogen Fertilizer
Manufacturing and Marketing Division (collectively, Original
Predecessor) for the 62-day period ended March 2, 2004 and
for Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC and subsidiaries, excluding
Leiber Holdings, LLC, as discussed in note 1 to the
consolidated financial statements (the Immediate Predecessor)
for the 304-day period ended December 31, 2004 and for the
174-day period ended June 23, 2005 and for the Successor
for the 233-day period ended December 31, 2005 and for the
year ended December 31, 2006. These consolidated financial
statements are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
consolidated 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 our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
As discussed in note 3 to the consolidated financial
statements, Farmland allocated certain general corporate expense
and interest expense to the Original Predecessor for the 62-day
period ended March 2, 2004. The allocation of these costs
is not necessarily indicative of the costs that would have been
incurred if the Predecessor had operated as a stand-alone entity.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of the Successor as of December 31, 2005 and 2006
and the results of the Original Predecessors operations
and cash flows for the 62-day period ended March 2, 2004
and the results of the Immediate Predecessors operations
and cash flows for the 304-day period ended December 31,
2004 and for the 174-day period ended June 23, 2005 and the
results of the Successors operations and cash flows for
the 233-day period ended December 31, 2005 and for the year
ended December 31, 2006, in conformity with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles.
As discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, effective March 3, 2004, the Immediate
Predecessor acquired the net assets of the Original Predecessor
in a business combination accounted for as a purchase, and
effective June 24, 2005, the Successor acquired the net
assets of the Immediate Predecessor in a business combination
accounted for as a purchase. As a result of these acquisitions,
the consolidated financial statements for the periods after the
acquisitions are presented on a different cost basis than that
for the periods before the acquisitions and, therefore, are not
comparable.
Kansas City, Missouri
March 19, 2007
except as to note 1, which is as
of ,
2007
F-2
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
64,703,524
|
|
|
$
|
41,919,260
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of
allowance for doubtful accounts of $275,188 and $375,443,
respectively
|
|
|
71,560,052
|
|
|
|
69,589,161
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
154,275,818
|
|
|
|
161,432,793
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
14,709,309
|
|
|
|
18,524,017
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
31,059,748
|
|
|
|
18,888,660
|
|
Income tax receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,099,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
336,308,451
|
|
|
|
342,453,054
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net
of accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
772,512,884
|
|
|
|
1,007,155,873
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
1,008,547
|
|
|
|
638,456
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
Deferred financing costs, net
|
|
|
19,524,839
|
|
|
|
9,128,258
|
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
8,418,297
|
|
|
|
6,328,989
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,221,547,903
|
|
|
$
|
1,449,479,515
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
2,235,973
|
|
|
$
|
5,797,981
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
87,914,833
|
|
|
|
138,911,088
|
|
Personnel accruals
|
|
|
10,796,896
|
|
|
|
24,731,283
|
|
Accrued taxes other than income
taxes
|
|
|
4,841,234
|
|
|
|
9,034,841
|
|
Accrued income taxes
|
|
|
4,939,614
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
96,688,956
|
|
|
|
36,894,802
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
12,029,987
|
|
|
|
8,812,350
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
8,831,937
|
|
|
|
6,017,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
228,279,430
|
|
|
|
230,199,780
|
|
Long-term liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
497,201,527
|
|
|
|
769,202,019
|
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
|
|
7,009,388
|
|
|
|
5,395,105
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
209,523,747
|
|
|
|
284,122,958
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
160,033,333
|
|
|
|
72,806,486
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
873,767,995
|
|
|
|
1,131,526,568
|
|
Minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,326,188
|
|
Management voting common units
subject to redemption, 227,500 and 201,063 units issued and
outstanding in 2005 and 2006, respectively
|
|
|
4,172,350
|
|
|
|
6,980,907
|
|
Less: note receivable from
management unit holder
|
|
|
(500,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total management voting common
units subject to redemption, net
|
|
|
3,672,350
|
|
|
|
6,980,907
|
|
Members equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voting common units, 23,588,500 and
22,614,937 units issued and outstanding in 2005 and 2006,
respectively
|
|
|
114,830,560
|
|
|
|
73,593,326
|
|
Management nonvoting override
units, 2,758,895 and 2,976,353 units issued and outstanding
in 2005 and 2006, respectively
|
|
|
997,568
|
|
|
|
2,852,746
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members equity
|
|
|
115,828,128
|
|
|
|
76,446,072
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$
|
1,221,547,903
|
|
|
$
|
1,449,479,515
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-3
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville Group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farmland Industries
|
|
|
|
Holdings, LLC
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
|
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
62 Days Ended
|
|
|
|
304 Days Ended
|
|
|
174 Days Ended
|
|
|
|
233 Days Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
261,086,529
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,479,893,189
|
|
|
$
|
980,706,261
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,454,259,542
|
|
|
$
|
3,037,567,362
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
221,449,177
|
|
|
|
|
1,244,207,423
|
|
|
|
768,067,178
|
|
|
|
|
1,168,137,217
|
|
|
|
2,443,374,743
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
23,353,462
|
|
|
|
|
116,984,384
|
|
|
|
80,913,862
|
|
|
|
|
85,313,202
|
|
|
|
198,979,983
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
4,649,145
|
|
|
|
|
16,284,084
|
|
|
|
18,341,522
|
|
|
|
|
18,320,030
|
|
|
|
62,600,121
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
432,003
|
|
|
|
|
2,445,961
|
|
|
|
1,128,005
|
|
|
|
|
23,954,031
|
|
|
|
51,004,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
249,883,787
|
|
|
|
|
1,379,921,852
|
|
|
|
868,450,567
|
|
|
|
|
1,295,724,480
|
|
|
|
2,755,959,429
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
11,202,742
|
|
|
|
|
99,971,337
|
|
|
|
112,255,694
|
|
|
|
|
158,535,062
|
|
|
|
281,607,933
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and other
financing costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,058,450
|
)
|
|
|
(7,801,821
|
)
|
|
|
|
(25,007,159
|
)
|
|
|
(43,879,644
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169,652
|
|
|
|
511,687
|
|
|
|
|
972,264
|
|
|
|
3,450,190
|
|
Gain (loss) on derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
546,604
|
|
|
|
(7,664,725
|
)
|
|
|
|
(316,062,111
|
)
|
|
|
94,493,141
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,166,110
|
)
|
|
|
(8,093,754
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,360,306
|
)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
9,345
|
|
|
|
|
52,659
|
|
|
|
(762,616
|
)
|
|
|
|
(563,190
|
)
|
|
|
(899,831
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
|
9,345
|
|
|
|
|
(16,455,645
|
)
|
|
|
(23,811,229
|
)
|
|
|
|
(340,660,196
|
)
|
|
|
29,803,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
11,212,087
|
|
|
|
|
83,515,692
|
|
|
|
88,444,465
|
|
|
|
|
(182,125,134
|
)
|
|
|
311,411,483
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,805,480
|
|
|
|
36,047,516
|
|
|
|
|
(62,968,044
|
)
|
|
|
119,840,160
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
11,212,087
|
|
|
|
$
|
49,710,212
|
|
|
$
|
52,396,949
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119,157,090
|
)
|
|
$
|
191,571,323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited Pro Forma Information
(Note 2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
Diluted earnings per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.26
|
|
Basic weighted average common
shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,563,025
|
|
Diluted weighted average common
shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,580,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-4
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divisional
|
|
|
Voting
|
|
|
Nonvoting
|
|
|
Unearned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Preferred
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the 62 days ended
March 2, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2003
|
|
$
|
58,191,489
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
58,191,489
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
11,212,087
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,212,087
|
|
Net distribution to Farmland
Industries, Inc.
|
|
|
(53,216,357
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53,216,357
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, March 2, 2004
|
|
$
|
16,187,219
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
16,187,219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and the 174 days ended June 23,
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members Equity, March 3,
2004
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Issuance of 63,200,000 preferred
units for cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,200,000
|
|
Issuance of 11,152,941 common units
to management for recourse promissory notes and unearned
compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,100,000
|
|
|
|
(3,037,000
|
)
|
|
|
63,000
|
|
Issuance of 500,000 common units to
management for recourse promissory notes and unearned
compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,047,450
|
|
|
|
(2,044,600
|
)
|
|
|
2,850
|
|
Recognition of earned compensation
expense related to common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,095,609
|
|
|
|
1,095,609
|
|
Dividends on preferred units
($1.50 per unit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(94,686,276
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(94,686,276
|
)
|
Dividends to management on common
units ($0.48 per unit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,301,233
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,301,233
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,971,436
|
|
|
|
7,738,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,710,212
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members Equity,
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,485,160
|
|
|
|
7,584,993
|
|
|
|
(3,985,991
|
)
|
|
|
14,084,162
|
|
Recognition of earned compensation
expense related to common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,985,991
|
|
|
|
3,985,991
|
|
Contributed capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
728,724
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
728,724
|
|
Dividends on preferred units
($0.70 per unit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44,083,323
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44,083,323
|
)
|
Dividends to management on common
units ($0.70 per unit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,128,170
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,128,170
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,239,908
|
|
|
|
8,157,041
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,396,949
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members Equity, June 23,
2005
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,370,469
|
|
|
$
|
7,613,864
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
18,984,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-5
CVR Energy, Inc. and Subsidiaries
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
EQUITY (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management
Voting
|
|
|
Note
Receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Units
|
|
|
from
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject to
Redemption
|
|
|
Unit
Holder
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Dollars
|
|
|
Dollars
|
|
|
Dollars
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005, and the year ended December 31,
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at May 13, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Issuance of 177,500 common units
for cash
|
|
|
177,500
|
|
|
|
1,775,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,775,000
|
|
Issuance of 50,000 common units for
note receivable
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
(500,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment to fair value for
management common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,035,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,035,586
|
|
Net loss allocated to management
common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,138,236
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,138,236
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
227,500
|
|
|
|
4,172,350
|
|
|
|
(500,000
|
)
|
|
|
3,672,350
|
|
Payment of note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
Forgiveness of note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
Adjustment to fair value for
management common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,239,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,239,548
|
|
Prorata reduction of management
common units outstanding
|
|
|
(26,437
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions to management on
common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,119,188
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,119,188
|
)
|
Net income allocated to management
common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,688,197
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,688,197
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
201,063
|
|
|
$
|
6,980,907
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,980,907
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-6
CVR Energy, Inc. and Subsidiaries
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
EQUITY (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management
|
|
|
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvoting
Override
|
|
|
Nonvoting
Override
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voting Common
Units
|
|
|
Operating
Units
|
|
|
Value
Units
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Dollars
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Dollars
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Dollars
|
|
|
Dollars
|
|
|
For the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005, and the year ended December 31,
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at May 13, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Issuance of 23,588,500 common units
for cash
|
|
|
23,588,500
|
|
|
|
235,885,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235,885,000
|
|
Issuance of 919,630 nonvested
operating override units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
919,630
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of 1,839,265 nonvested
value override units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,839,265
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognition of share-based
compensation expense related to override units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
602,381
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
395,187
|
|
|
|
997,568
|
|
Adjustment to fair value for
management common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,035,586
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,035,586
|
)
|
Net loss allocated to common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(118,018,854
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(118,018,854
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
23,588,500
|
|
|
|
114,830,560
|
|
|
|
919,630
|
|
|
|
602,381
|
|
|
|
1,839,265
|
|
|
|
395,187
|
|
|
|
115,828,128
|
|
Issuance of 2,000,000 common units
for cash
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
20,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000,000
|
|
Recognition of share-based
compensation expense related to override units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,160,530
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
694,648
|
|
|
|
1,855,178
|
|
Adjustment to fair value for
management common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,239,548
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,239,548
|
)
|
Prorata reduction of common units
outstanding
|
|
|
(2,973,563
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of 72,492 nonvested
operating override units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,492
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of 144,966 nonvested value
override units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144,966
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions to common unit holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(246,880,812
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(246,880,812
|
)
|
Net income allocated to common units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,883,126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,883,126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
22,614,937
|
|
|
$
|
73,593,326
|
|
|
|
992,122
|
|
|
$
|
1,762,911
|
|
|
|
1,984,231
|
|
|
$
|
1,089,835
|
|
|
$
|
76,446,072
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-7
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville
Group
|
|
|
|
Coffeyville
|
|
|
|
Farmland
Industries
|
|
|
|
Holdings, LLC
|
|
|
|
Acquisition
LLC
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
62 Days
Ended
|
|
|
|
304 Days
Ended
|
|
|
174 Days
Ended
|
|
|
|
233 Days
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Cash flows from operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
11,212,087
|
|
|
|
$
|
49,710,212
|
|
|
$
|
52,396,949
|
|
|
|
$
|
(119,157,090
|
)
|
|
$
|
191,571,323
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income
(loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
432,003
|
|
|
|
|
2,445,961
|
|
|
|
1,128,005
|
|
|
|
|
23,954,031
|
|
|
|
51,004,582
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
190,468
|
|
|
|
(190,468
|
)
|
|
|
|
275,189
|
|
|
|
100,255
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing
costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,332,890
|
|
|
|
812,166
|
|
|
|
|
1,751,041
|
|
|
|
3,336,795
|
|
Loss on disposition of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,188,360
|
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,166,110
|
|
|
|
8,093,754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,360,306
|
|
Forgiveness of note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350,000
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,095,609
|
|
|
|
3,985,991
|
|
|
|
|
997,568
|
|
|
|
6,181,366
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities,
net of effect of acquisition:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
19,635,303
|
|
|
|
|
(23,571,436
|
)
|
|
|
(11,334,177
|
)
|
|
|
|
(34,506,244
|
)
|
|
|
1,870,636
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(6,399,677
|
)
|
|
|
|
20,068,625
|
|
|
|
(59,045,550
|
)
|
|
|
|
1,895,473
|
|
|
|
(7,156,975
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
25,716,107
|
|
|
|
|
(6,758,666
|
)
|
|
|
(937,543
|
)
|
|
|
|
(6,491,633
|
)
|
|
|
(5,383,117
|
)
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
715,132
|
|
|
|
|
(5,379,727
|
)
|
|
|
3,036,659
|
|
|
|
|
(4,651,733
|
)
|
|
|
1,971,859
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(6,759,702
|
)
|
|
|
|
31,059,282
|
|
|
|
16,124,794
|
|
|
|
|
40,655,763
|
|
|
|
5,004,826
|
|
Accrued income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,301,160
|
|
|
|
4,503,574
|
|
|
|
|
(136,398
|
)
|
|
|
(37,038,777
|
)
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
8,319,913
|
|
|
|
|
1,209,008
|
|
|
|
(9,073,050
|
)
|
|
|
|
9,983,132
|
|
|
|
(3,217,637
|
)
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
364,555
|
|
|
|
|
12,967,500
|
|
|
|
1,254,196
|
|
|
|
|
10,499,712
|
|
|
|
15,313,492
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
256,722,289
|
|
|
|
(147,021,001
|
)
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
|
|
(20,057
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1,746,043
|
)
|
|
|
(1,553,184
|
)
|
|
|
|
(538,365
|
)
|
|
|
(1,614,283
|
)
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(689,372
|
)
|
|
|
(297,105
|
)
|
|
|
|
(295,776
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(615,680
|
)
|
|
|
3,803,937
|
|
|
|
|
(98,424,817
|
)
|
|
|
86,770,299
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
53,215,664
|
|
|
|
|
89,785,901
|
|
|
|
12,708,948
|
|
|
|
|
82,532,142
|
|
|
|
186,592,309
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for acquisition of
Original Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(116,599,329
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for acquisition of
Immediate Predecessor, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(685,125,669
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,160,280
|
)
|
|
|
(12,256,793
|
)
|
|
|
|
(45,172,134
|
)
|
|
|
(240,225,392
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(130,759,609
|
)
|
|
|
(12,256,793
|
)
|
|
|
|
(730,297,803
|
)
|
|
|
(240,225,392
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving debt payments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(57,686,789
|
)
|
|
|
(343,449
|
)
|
|
|
|
(69,286,016
|
)
|
|
|
(900,000
|
)
|
Revolving debt borrowings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,743,299
|
|
|
|
492,308
|
|
|
|
|
69,286,016
|
|
|
|
900,000
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term
debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
171,900,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000,000
|
|
|
|
805,000,000
|
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,025,000
|
)
|
|
|
(375,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
(562,500
|
)
|
|
|
(529,437,500
|
)
|
Repayment of capital lease
obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,176,424
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net divisional equity distribution
|
|
|
(53,216,357
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of financing costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,309,917
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,628,315
|
)
|
|
|
(9,363,681
|
)
|
Prepayment penalty on
extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,095,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,500,000
|
)
|
Payment of note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
Issuance of members equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,263,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237,660,000
|
|
|
|
20,000,000
|
|
Distribution of members equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(99,987,509
|
)
|
|
|
(52,211,493
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(250,000,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
financing activities
|
|
|
(53,216,357
|
)
|
|
|
|
93,625,660
|
|
|
|
(52,437,634
|
)
|
|
|
|
712,469,185
|
|
|
|
30,848,819
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents
|
|
|
(693
|
)
|
|
|
|
52,651,952
|
|
|
|
(51,985,479
|
)
|
|
|
|
64,703,524
|
|
|
|
(22,784,264
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents,
beginning of period
|
|
|
2,250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,651,952
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,703,524
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of
period
|
|
$
|
1,557
|
|
|
|
$
|
52,651,952
|
|
|
$
|
666,473
|
|
|
|
$
|
64,703,524
|
|
|
$
|
41,919,260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
33,820,000
|
|
|
$
|
27,040,000
|
|
|
|
$
|
35,593,172
|
|
|
$
|
70,108,638
|
|
Cash paid for interest
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,570,069
|
|
|
$
|
7,287,351
|
|
|
|
$
|
23,578,178
|
|
|
$
|
51,854,047
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrual of construction in progress
additions
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
45,991,429
|
|
Contributed capital through Leiber
tax savings
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
728,724
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
F-8
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
(1) Organization
and Nature of Business and the Acquisitions
General
CVR Energy, Inc. (CVR) was incorporated in Delaware in September
2006. CVR has assumed that concurrent with this offering, a
newly formed direct subsidiary of CVRs will merge with
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. (CRM) and a
separate newly formed direct subsidiary of CVRs will merge
with Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. (CNF) which will
make CRM and CNF directly owned subsidiaries of CVR.
In addition, prior to the consummation of this offering, CVR
intends to transfer Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC
(CRNF), its nitrogen fertilizer business, to a newly created
limited partnership (Partnership) in exchange for a managing
general partner interest (managing GP) and a special general
partner interest (special GP interest). CVR intends to sell the
managing GP interest to an entity owned by its controlling
stockholders and senior management at fair market value prior to
the consummation of this offering.
The fair value of the managing general partner interest was
determined, after consultation with management and a third party
valuation firm, by calculating the projected cash flows due to
the managing general partner under the terms of the
Partnerships limited partnership agreement, subject to an
appropriate discount. The Partnerships cash distributions
were assumed to be flat at expected forward fertilizer prices,
with cash reserves developed in periods of high prices and cash
reserves reduced in periods of lower prices. The
Partnerships projected cash flows utilized for the
valuation were calculated based on estimates of production
volumes and operating costs which were developed by management
based on historical operations and experience. Price projections
were based on information received from Blue Johnson &
Associates, a fertilizer industry consultant in the United
States, which CVR routinely uses for fertilizer market analysis.
In conjunction with CVRs ownership of the special GP
interest, it will initially own all of the interests in the
Partnership (other than the managing general partner interest
and associated IDRs described below) and will initially be
entitled to all cash that is distributed by the Partnership. The
managing GP will not be entitled to participate in Partnership
distributions except in respect of associated incentive
distribution rights, or IDRs, which entitle the managing GP to
receive increasing percentages of the Partnerships
quarterly distributions if the Partnership increases its
distributions above an amount specified in the Partnership
Agreement. The Partnership will not make any distributions with
respect to the IDRs until the Aggregate Adjusted Operating
Surplus, as defined in the Partnership Agreement, generated by
the Partnership during the period from its formation through
June 30, 2009 has been distributed in respect of the
special GP interests, which CVR will hold, and/or the
Partnerships common and subordinated interests (none of
which are yet outstanding, but which would be issued if the
Partnership issues equity in the future). In addition, there
will be no distributions paid on the managing GPs IDRs for
so long as the Partnership or its subsidiaries are guarantors
under CRLLCs Credit Facility.
The Partnership will be primarily managed by the managing GP,
but will be operated by CVRs senior management pursuant to
a management services agreement to be entered into among CVR,
the managing GP, and the Partnership. In addition, CVR will have
approval rights regarding the appointment, termination, and
compensation of the chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of the managing GP, will designate one member of the
board of directors of the managing GP, and will have approval
rights regarding specified major business decisions by the
managing GP.
Successor is a Delaware limited liability company formed
May 13, 2005. Successor, acting through wholly-owned
subsidiaries, is an independent petroleum refiner and marketer
in the mid-
F-9
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
continental United States and a producer and marketer of
upgraded nitrogen fertilizer products in North America.
On June 24, 2005, Successor acquired all of the outstanding
stock of CRM; CNF; Coffeyville Crude Transportation, Inc. (CCT);
Coffeyville Pipeline, Inc. (CP); and Coffeyville Terminal, Inc.
(CT) (collectively, CRIncs) from Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC
(Immediate Predecessor) (the Subsequent Acquisition). As a
result of this transaction, CRIncs ownership increased to 100%
of CL JV Holdings, LLC (CLJV), a Delaware limited liability
company formed on September 27, 2004. CRIncs directly and
indirectly, through CLJV, collectively own 100% of Coffeyville
Resources, LLC (CRLLC) and its wholly owned subsidiaries,
Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC
(CRRM); Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC (CRNF);
Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC (CRCT);
Coffeyville Resources Pipeline, LLC (CRP); and Coffeyville
Resources Terminal, LLC (CRT).
Successor had no financial statement activity during the period
from May 13, 2005 to June 24, 2005, with the exception
of certain crude oil, heating oil, and gasoline option
agreements entered into with a related party (see notes 15
and 16) as of May 16, 2005. These agreements expired
unexercised on June 16, 2005 and resulted in an expense of
$25,000,000 reported in the accompanying consolidated statements
of operations as gain (loss) on derivatives for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005.
Immediate Predecessor was a Delaware limited liability company
formed in October 2003. There was no financial statement
activity until March 3, 2004, when Immediate Predecessor,
acting through wholly owned subsidiaries, acquired the assets of
the former Farmland Industries, Inc. (Farmland) Petroleum
Division and one facility located in Coffeyville, Kansas within
Farmlands eight-plant Nitrogen Fertilizer Manufacturing
and Marketing Division (collectively, Original Predecessor) (the
Initial Acquisition). As of March 3, 2004, Immediate
Predecessor owned 100% of CRIncs, and CRIncs owned 100% of CRLLC
and its wholly owned subsidiaries, CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, CRP, and
CRT. Farmland was a farm supply cooperative and a processing and
marketing cooperative. Original Predecessor operated as a
division of Farmland (Petroleum), and as a plant within a
division of Farmland (Nitrogen Fertilizer). The accompanying
Original Predecessor financial statements principally reflect
the refining, crude oil gathering, and petroleum distribution
operations of Farmland and the only coke gasification plant of
Farmlands nitrogen fertilizer operations.
Since the assets and liabilities of Successor and Immediate
Predecessor (collectively, CVR) were each presented on a new
basis of accounting, the financial information for Successor,
Immediate Predecessor, and Original Predecessor (collectively,
the Entities) is not comparable.
On October 8, 2004, Immediate Predecessor, acting through
its wholly owned subsidiaries, CRM and CNF, contributed 68.7% of
its membership in CRLLC to CLJV, in exchange for a controlling
interest in CLJV. Concurrently, The Leiber Group, Inc., a
company whose majority stockholder is Pegasus Partners II,
L.P., the Immediate Predecessors principal stockholder,
contributed to CLJV its interest in the Judith Leiber business,
which is a designer handbag business, in exchange for a minority
interest in CLJV. The Judith Leiber business is owned through
Leiber Holdings, LLC (LH), a Delaware limited liability company
wholly owned by CLJV. Based on the relative values of the
properties at the time of contribution to CLJV, CRM and CNF
collectively, were entitled to 80.5% of CLJVs net profits
and net losses. Under the terms of CRLLCs credit
agreement, CRLLC was permitted to make tax distributions to its
members, including CLJV, in amounts equal to the tax liability
that would be incurred by CRLLC if its net income were subject
to corporate-level income tax. From the tax distributions CLJV
received from CRLLC as of December 31, 2004 and
June 23, 2005, CLJV contributed $1,600,000 and $4,050,000,
respectively, to LH which is presented as tax expense in the
respective periods in the accompanying consolidated statements
of operations for the reasons discussed below.
F-10
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
On June 23, 2005, as part of the stock purchase agreement,
LH completed a merger with Leiber Merger, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Leiber Group, Inc. As a result of the merger,
the surviving entity was LH. Under the terms of the agreement,
CLJV forfeited all of its ownership in LH to The Leiber Group,
Inc in exchange for LHs interest in CLJV. The result of
this transaction was to effectively redistribute the contributed
businesses back to The Leiber Group, Inc.
The operations of LH and its subsidiaries (collectively, Leiber)
have not been included in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements of the Immediate Predecessor because
Leibers operations were unrelated to, and are not part of,
the ongoing operations of CVR. CLJVs management was not
the same as the Immediate Predecessors, the
Successors, or CVRs, there were no intercompany
transactions between CLJV and the Immediate Predecessor, the
Successor, or CVR, aside from the contributions, and the
Immediate Predecessor only participated in the joint venture for
a short period of time. CLJVs contributions to LH of
$1,600,000 and $4,050,000 have been reflected as a reduction to
accrued income taxes in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets to appropriately reflect the accrued income tax
obligations of Immediate Predecessor as of December 31,
2004 and June 23, 2005, respectively. The tax benefits
received from LH, as a result of losses incurred by LH, have
been reflected as capital contributions in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements of the Immediate Predecessor.
Farmland
Industries, Inc.s Bankruptcy Proceedings and the Initial
Acquisition
On May 31, 2002 (the Petition Date), Farmland Industries,
Inc. and four of its subsidiaries, Farmland Foods, Inc.;
Farmland Pipeline Company, Inc.; Farmland Transportation, Inc.;
and SFA, Inc. (collectively, the Debtors or Farmland), filed
voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code (the Bankruptcy Code) in the
United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Missouri
(the Court). Petroleum and Nitrogen Fertilizer were divisions of
Farmland; therefore, their assets and liabilities were included
in the bankruptcy filings. Farmland continued to manage the
business as
debtor-in-possession
but could not engage in transactions outside the ordinary course
of business without the approval of the Court.
As a result of the filing on May 31, 2002 of petitions
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code by the Debtors, the
accompanying Original Predecessors financial statements
have been prepared in accordance with AICPA Statement of
Position (SOP)
90-7,
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the
Bankruptcy Code, and in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America
applicable to a going concern, which, unless otherwise noted,
assume the realization of assets and the payment of liabilities
in the ordinary course of business.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, on
November 27, 2002 the Debtors filed with the Court a Plan
of Reorganization under which the Debtors liabilities and
equity interests would be restructured. Subsequently, on
July 31, 2003, the Debtors filed with the Court an Amended
Plan of Reorganization (the Amended Plan). The Amended Plan as
filed in effect contemplated that the Debtors would continue in
existence solely for the purpose of liquidating any remaining
assets of the estate, including the Petroleum and Nitrogen
Fertilizer segments. In accordance with the Amended Plan, on
October 10, 2003, the Court entered an order approving the
auction and bid procedures for the sale of the Petroleum
Division and Coffeyville nitrogen fertilizer plant to
subsidiaries of Immediate Predecessor. Through an auction
process conducted by the Court, the assets of Original
Predecessor were sold on March 3, 2004, to Immediate
Predecessor for $106,727,365, including the assumption of
$23,216,554 of liabilities. Immediate Predecessor also paid
transaction costs of $9,871,964, which consisted of legal,
accounting, and advisory fees of $7,371,964 paid to various
parties and a finders fee of $2,500,000 paid to Pegasus
Capital Advisors, L.P. (see note 16). Immediate
Predecessors
F-11
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
primary reason for the purchase was the belief that long-term
fundamentals for the refining industry were strengthening and
the capital requirement was within its desired investment range.
The cost of the Initial Acquisition was financed through
long-term borrowings of approximately $60.7 million and the
issuance of preferred units of approximately $63.2 million.
The allocation of the purchase price at March 3, 2004, the
date of the Initial Acquisition, was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Assets acquired
Inventories
|
|
$
|
100,491,131
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
1,085,598
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment
|
|
|
38,239,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired
|
|
$
|
139,815,883
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities assumed
Deferred revenue
|
|
$
|
9,910,897
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
1,176,424
|
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
|
|
10,846,980
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,282,253
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed
|
|
$
|
23,216,554
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for acquisition of
Original Predecessor
|
|
$
|
116,599,329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Subsequent
Acquisition
On May 15, 2005, Successor and Immediate Predecessor
entered into an agreement whereby Successor acquired 100% of the
outstanding stock of CRIncs with an effective date of
June 24, 2005 for $673,273,440, including the assumption of
$353,084,637 of liabilities. Successor also paid transaction
costs of $12,518,702, which consisted of legal, accounting, and
advisory fees of $5,782,740 paid to various parties, and
transaction fees of $6,000,000 and $735,962 in expenses related
to the acquisition paid to institutional investors (see
note 16). Successors primary reason for the purchase
was the belief that long-term fundamentals for the refining
industry were strengthening and the capital requirement was
within its desired investment range. The cost of the Subsequent
Acquisition was financed through long-term borrowings of
approximately $500 million, short-term borrowings of
approximately $12.6 million, and the issuance of common
units for approximately
F-12
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
$227.7 million. The allocation of the purchase price at
June 24, 2005, the date of the Subsequent Acquisition, is
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Assets acquired
Cash
|
|
$
|
666,473
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
37,328,997
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
156,171,291
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
4,865,241
|
|
Intangibles, contractual agreements
|
|
|
1,322,000
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
3,837,647
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment
|
|
|
750,910,245
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired
|
|
$
|
1,038,876,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities assumed
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
47,259,070
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
16,017,210
|
|
Current income taxes
|
|
|
5,076,012
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
276,888,816
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
7,843,529
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed
|
|
$
|
353,084,637
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for acquisition of
Immediate Predecessor
|
|
$
|
685,792,142
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) Unaudited
Pro Forma Information
Earnings per share is calculated on a pro forma basis, based on
an assumed number of shares outstanding at the time of the
initial public offering. Pro forma earnings per share assumes
that in conjunction with the initial public offering,
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. and Coffeyville
Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. will merge with two of CVRs
direct wholly owned subsidiaries; prior to the completion of
this offering, CVR will effect a 658,619.93 for 1 stock split;
CVR will issue 252,448 shares of its common stock to an
executive officer in exchange for his shares in two of
Successors subsidiaries, CVR will issue 27,150 shares
of its common stock to its employees, CVR will issue
17,500 shares of its common stock to two board of director
members and CVR will issue 15,500,000 shares of common
stock in this offering. No effect has been given to any shares
that might be sold in this offering pursuant to the exercise by
the underwriters of their option. The weighted average shares
outstanding also gives effect to the increase in the number of
shares which, when multiplied by the offering price, would be
sufficient to replace the capital in excess of earnings
withdrawn, as a result of CVR paying dividends for the year
ended December 31, 2006 in excess of earnings for such
period, or 2,921,434 shares.
F-13
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Pro forma earnings per share for the year ended
December 31, 2006 is calculated as follows (unaudited):
|
|
|
|
|
Net income for the year ended
December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
191,571,323
|
|
Pro forma weighted average shares
outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
Existing CVR common shares
|
|
|
100
|
|
Effect of 658,619.93 to 1 stock
split
|
|
|
65,861,893
|
|
Issuance of common shares to
management
in exchange for subsidiary shares
|
|
|
252,448
|
|
Issuance of common shares to
employees
|
|
|
27,150
|
|
Issuance of common shares in this
offering
|
|
|
15,500,000
|
|
Effect of dividends in excess of
earnings
|
|
|
2,921,434
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares
outstanding
|
|
|
84,563,025
|
|
Dilutive securities
issuance of nonvested common shares to board directors
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares
outstanding
|
|
|
84,580,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma basic earnings per share
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
Pro forma dilutive earnings per
share
|
|
$
|
2.27
|
|
(3) Basis
of Presentation
The accompanying Original Predecessor financial statements
reflect an allocation of certain general corporate expenses of
Farmland, including general and corporate insurance, corporate
retirement and benefits, human resources and payroll department
salaries, facility costs, information services, and information
systems support. The costs allocated to the Original Predecessor
were $3,802,996 for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004 and are included in selling,
general, and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation
and amortization). These allocations were based on a variety of
factors dependent on the nature of the costs, including fixed
asset levels, administrative headcount, and production
headcount. The Petroleum Division and Coffeyville nitrogen plant
represented a continually increasing percentage of
Farmlands business as a result of Farmlands
restructuring efforts, which by December 2003 included the
disposition of nearly all Farmlands operating assets with
the exception of the Petroleum Division and Coffeyville nitrogen
plant. As a result, the Petroleum Division and Coffeyville
nitrogen plant were allocated a higher percentage of corporate
cost in the 62-day period ending on March 2, 2004 than in
2003. The costs of these services are not necessarily indicative
of the costs that would have been incurred if Original
Predecessor had operated as a stand-alone entity. Reorganization
expenses for legal and professional fees incurred by Farmland in
connection with the bankruptcy proceedings were not allocated to
the Original Predecessor. In addition, umbrella property
insurance premiums were allocated across Farmlands
divisions based on recoverable values. Property insurance costs
allocated to the Original Predecessor were $357,324 for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004 and are included in direct
operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
All interest expense on secured borrowings was allocated based
on identifiable net assets of each of Farmlands divisions.
Under bankruptcy law, payment of interest on Farmlands
unsecured debt was stayed beginning on the Petition Date.
Accordingly, Farmland did not allocate any interest on its
unsecured borrowings to the Original Predecessor for the
62 days ended March 2, 2004. Management believes all
allocations described above were made on a reasonable basis.
F-14
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Farmland used a centralized approach to cash management and the
financing of its operations. As a result, amounts owed to or by
Farmland are reflected as a component of divisional equity on
the accompanying consolidated statements of equity.
Farmlands divisional equity represents the net investment
Farmland had in the reporting entity.
(4) Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
Principles of
Consolidation
The accompanying CVR consolidated financial statements include
the accounts of CVR Energy, Inc. and its majority-owned direct
and indirect subsidiaries. The minority interest in their
subsidiaries relates to stock that was issued to a related party
on December 28, 2006 (see note 5). All significant
intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in
consolidation.
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
For purposes of the consolidated statements of cash flows, CVR
considers all highly liquid debt instruments with original
maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents.
Accounts
Receivable
CVR grants credit to its customers. Credit is extended based on
an evaluation of a customers financial condition;
generally, collateral is not required. Accounts receivable are
due on negotiated terms and are stated at amounts due from
customers, net of an allowance for doubtful accounts. Accounts
outstanding longer than their contractual payment terms are
considered past due. CVR determines its allowance for doubtful
accounts by considering a number of factors, including the
length of time trade accounts are past due, the customers
ability to pay its obligations to CVR, and the condition of the
general economy and the industry as a whole. CVR writes off
accounts receivable when they become uncollectible, and payments
subsequently received on such receivables are credited to the
allowance for doubtful accounts. At December 31, 2005 and
2006, two customers individually represented greater than 10%
and collectively represented 41% and 29%, respectively, of the
total accounts receivable balance. The largest concentration of
credit for any one customer at December 31, 2005 and 2006
was 28% and 16%, respectively, of the accounts receivable
balance.
Inventories
Inventories consist primarily of crude oil, blending stock and
components, work in progress, fertilizer products, and refined
fuels and by-products. Inventories are valued at the lower of
moving-average cost, which approximates the
first-in,
first-out (FIFO) method, or market for fertilizer products and
at the lower of FIFO cost or market for refined fuels and
by-products for all periods presented. Refinery unfinished and
finished products inventory values were determined using the
ability-to-bare
process, whereby raw materials and production costs are
allocated to
work-in-process
and finished products based on their relative fair values. Other
inventories, including other raw materials, spare parts, and
supplies, are valued at the lower of average cost, which
approximates FIFO, or market. The cost of inventories includes
inbound freight costs.
In connection with the initial distribution of the accompanying
Original Predecessor financial statements for purposes of
effecting a business combination, the Original Predecessor
changed its method of accounting for inventories from the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method to the FIFO method. Management believes
the FIFO method is preferable in the circumstances because the
FIFO method is considered to represent a better matching of
costs with related revenues under current volatile market
conditions. Accordingly, crude oil, blending stock and
components, work in progress, and refined fuels and by-products
are valued at the lower of FIFO cost or market for all years
presented.
F-15
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Prepaid
Expenses and Other Current Assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets consist of prepayments
for crude oil deliveries to the refinery for which title had not
transferred, non-trade accounts receivables, current portions of
prepaid insurance and deferred financing costs, and other
general current assets.
Property,
Plant, and Equipment
Additions to property, plant and equipment, including
capitalized interest and certain costs allocable to construction
and property purchases, are recorded at cost. Capitalized
interest is added to any capital project over $1,000,000 in cost
which is expected to take more than six months to complete.
Depreciation is computed using principally the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The useful
lives are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Asset
|
|
Range
of useful lives, in years
|
|
Improvements to land
|
|
|
15 to 20
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
20 to 30
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
5 to 30
|
|
Automotive equipment
|
|
|
5
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
3 to 7
|
|
Our leasehold improvements are depreciated on the straight-line
method over the shorter of the contractual lease term or the
estimated useful life.
Goodwill and
Intangible Assets
Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of an acquired entity
over the fair value of the assets acquired less liabilities
assumed. Intangible assets are assets that lack physical
substance (excluding financial assets). Goodwill acquired in a
business combination and intangible assets with indefinite
useful lives are not amortized, and intangible assets with
finite useful lives are amortized. Goodwill and intangible
assets not subject to amortization are tested for impairment
annually or more frequently if events or changes in
circumstances indicate the asset might be impaired. CVR uses
November 1 of each year as its annual valuation date for
the impairment test. The annual review of impairment is
performed by comparing the carrying value of the applicable
reporting unit to its estimated fair value, using a combination
of the discounted cash flow analysis and market approach. Our
reporting units are defined as operating segments due to each
operating segment containing only one component. As such all
goodwill impairment testing is done at each operating segment.
Deferred
Financing Costs
Deferred financing costs related to the term debt are amortized
to interest expense using the effective-interest method over the
life of the term debt. Deferred financing costs related to the
revolving loan facility and the funded letters of credit
facility are amortized to interest expense using the
straight-line method through the termination date of each credit
facility.
Planned Major
Maintenance Costs
The direct-expense method of accounting is used for planned
major maintenance activities. Maintenance costs are recognized
as expense when maintenance services are performed. During the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, the Coffeyville nitrogen plant completed
major scheduled turnarounds. Costs of approximately $1,800,000
and $2,570,000 associated with these turnarounds are included in
direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) for the respective periods. The Coffeyville
refinery last completed a
F-16
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
major scheduled turnaround in 2002 and is scheduled for the next
turnaround in 2007. It is estimated that the costs incurred in
2007 related to the scheduled turnaround will be material to the
financial statements. Costs of approximately $3,984,000
associated with the 2007 turnaround and incurred in 2006 were
included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation
and amortization) for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Cost
Classifications
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) includes cost of crude oil, other feedstocks,
blendstocks, pet coke expense and freight and distribution
expenses. Cost of product sold excludes depreciation and
amortization of $0, $211,479, $149,806, $1,061,217 and
$2,147,778 for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) includes direct costs of labor, maintenance and
services, energy and utility costs, environmental compliance
costs as well as chemicals and catalysts and other direct
operating expenses. Direct operating expenses exclude
depreciation and amortization of $432,003, $1,966,175, $906,718,
$22,706,227 and $47,714,060 for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) consist primarily of legal
expenses, treasury, accounting, marketing, human resources and
maintaining the corporate offices in Texas and Kansas. Selling,
general and administrative expenses excludes depreciation and
amortization of $0, $268,306, $71,481, $186,587 and $1,142,744
for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
Income
Taxes
Original Predecessor was not a separate legal entity, and its
operating results were included with the operating results of
Farmland and its subsidiaries in filing consolidated federal and
state income tax returns. As a cooperative, Farmland was subject
to income taxes on all income not distributed to patrons as
qualified patronage refunds, and Farmland did not allocate
income taxes to its divisions. As a result, the accompanying
Original Predecessor financial statements do not reflect any
provision for income taxes.
Successor accounts for income taxes under the provision of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes. SFAS 109 requires the
asset and liability approach for accounting for income taxes.
Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are
recognized for the anticipated future tax consequences
attributable to differences between the financial statement
carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their
respective tax bases. Deferred amounts are measured using
enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the
year those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or
settled.
Impairment of
Long-Lived Assets
CVR accounts for long-lived assets in accordance with SFAS
No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of
Long-Lived Assets. In accordance with SFAS 144, CVR
reviews long-lived assets (excluding goodwill, intangible assets
with indefinite lives, and deferred tax assets) for
F-17
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable.
Recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a
comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated
undiscounted future net cash flows expected to be generated by
the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its
estimated undiscounted future net cash flows, an impairment
charge is recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount
of the assets exceeds their fair value. Assets to be disposed of
are reported at the lower of their carrying value or fair value
less cost to sell. No impairment charges were recognized for any
of the periods presented.
Revenue
Recognition
Sales are recognized when the product is delivered and all
significant obligations of CVR have been satisfied. Deferred
revenue represents customer prepayments under contracts to
guarantee a price and supply of nitrogen fertilizer in
quantities expected to be delivered in the next 12 months
in the normal course of business. Taxes collected from customers
and remitted to governmental authorities are not included in
reported revenues.
Shipping
Costs
Pass-through finished goods delivery costs reimbursed by
customers are reported in net sales, while an offsetting expense
is included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation
and amortization).
Derivative
Instruments and Fair Value of Financial
Instruments
CVR uses futures contracts, options, and forward swap contracts
primarily to reduce the exposure to changes in crude oil prices,
finished goods product prices and interest rates and to provide
economic hedges of inventory positions. These derivative
instruments have not been designated as hedges for accounting
purposes. Accordingly, these instruments are recorded in the
consolidated balance sheets at fair value, and each
periods gain or loss is recorded as a component of gain
(loss) on derivatives in accordance with SFAS No. 133,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities.
Financial instruments consisting of cash and cash equivalents,
accounts receivable, and accounts payable are carried at cost,
which approximates fair value, as a result of the short-term
nature of the instruments. The carrying value of long-term and
revolving debt approximates fair value as a result of the
floating interest rates assigned to those financial instruments.
Share-Based
Compensation
CVR accounts for share-based compensation in accordance with
SFAS No. 123(R), Share-Based Payments. In
accordance with SFAS 123(R), CVR applies a fair-value-based
measurement method in accounting for share-based compensation.
Environmental
Matters
Liabilities related to future remediation costs of past
environmental contamination of properties are recognized when
the related costs are considered probable and can be reasonably
estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently
available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs, and
currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting
environmental liabilities, no offset is made for potential
recoveries. All liabilities are monitored and adjusted as new
facts or changes in law or technology occur. Environmental
expenditures are capitalized at the time of the expenditure when
such costs provide future economic benefits.
F-18
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Use of
Estimates
The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America, using managements best estimates
and judgments where appropriate. These estimates and judgments
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the
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 materially from these estimates and judgments.
New Accounting
Pronouncements
In December 2004, Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB,
issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory Costs, which
clarifies the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility
expense, freight, handling costs, and spoilage. Under
SFAS 151, such items will be recognized as current-period
charges. In addition, SFAS 151 requires that allocation of
fixed production overheads to the costs of conversion be based
on the normal capacity of the production facilities. Successor
adopted SFAS 151 effective January 1, 2006. There was
no impact on our financial position or results of operation as a
result of adopting this standard.
The Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF, reached a consensus on
Issue
No. 04-13,
Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the Same
Counterparty, and the FASB ratified it on September 28,
2005. This Issue addresses accounting matters that arise when
one company both sells inventory to and buys inventory from
another company in the same line of business, specifically, when
it is appropriate to measure purchases and sales of inventory at
fair value and record them in cost of sales and revenues, and
when they should be recorded as an exchange measured at the book
value of the item sold. This Issue is to be applied to new
arrangements entered into in reporting periods beginning after
March 15, 2006. There was not a significant impact on our
financial position or results of operations as a result of
adoption.
In June 2006, the FASB ratified its consensus on EITF Issue
No. 06-3,
How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to
Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income
Statement. EITF
06-3
includes any tax assessed by a governmental authority that is
directly imposed on a revenue-producing transaction between a
seller and a customer and may include sales, use, value added,
and some excise taxes. These taxes should be presented on either
a gross or net basis, and if reported on a gross basis, a
company should disclose amounts on those taxes in interim and
annual financial statements for each period for which an income
statement is presented. The guidance in EITF
06-3 is
effective for all periods beginning after December 15, 2006
and is not expected to significantly affect our financial
position or results of operations.
In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No.
(FIN) 48, Accounting for Uncertain Tax
Positions an interpretation of FASB SFAS No. 109.
FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in
income taxes recognized in an enterprises financial
statements in accordance with SFAS No. 109, Accounting
for Income Taxes, by prescribing a recognition threshold and
measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition
and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken
in a tax return. If a tax position is more likely than not to be
sustained upon examination, then an enterprise would be required
to recognize in its financial statements the largest amount of
benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon
ultimate settlement. FIN 48 also provides guidance on
derecognition, classification, interest and penalties,
accounting in interim periods, disclosures and transition. The
application of FIN 48 is effective for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2006 and is not expected to
have a material impact on our financial position or results of
operations.
F-19
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, which replaces
APB Opinion No. 20, Accounting Changes, and
SFAS No. 3, Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim
Financial Statements. SFAS 154 retained accounting
guidance related to changes in estimates, changes in a reporting
entity and error corrections. However, changes in accounting
principles must be accounted for retrospectively by modifying
the financial statements of prior periods unless it is
impracticable to do so. SFAS 154 is effective for
accounting changes made in fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS 154 did not
have a material impact on our financial position or results of
operations.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued Staff
Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 108, Considering the
Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying
Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements, on
September 13, 2006. SAB 108 was issued to address
diversity in practice in quantifying financial statement
misstatements and the potential under current practice for the
build-up of
improper amounts on the balance sheet. The effects of applying
the guidance issued in SAB 108 are to be reflected in
annual financial statements covering the first fiscal year
ending after November 15, 2006. The initial adoption of
SAB 108 in 2006 did not have an impact on our financial
position or results of operations.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements, which establishes a framework
for measuring fair value in GAAP and expands disclosures about
fair value measurements. SFAS 157 states that fair
value is the price that would be received to sell the
asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price), not the
price that would be paid to acquire the asset or received to
assume the liability (an entry price). The statement is
effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods
within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the
effect that this statement will have on our financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP)
No. AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance
Activities, that disallowed the
accrue-in-advance
method for planned major maintenance activities. Our scheduled
turnaround activities are considered planned major maintenance
activities. Since we do not use the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for our turnaround activities, this FSP has
no impact on our financial statements.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities. Under this standard, an entity is required to
provide additional information that will assist investors and
other users of financial information to more easily understand
the effect of the companys choice to use fair value on its
earnings. Further, the entity is required to display the fair
value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has
chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. This
standard does not eliminate the disclosure requirements about
fair value measurements included in SFAS 157 and
SFAS No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of
Financial Instruments. SFAS 159 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007, and early adoption
is permitted as of January 1, 2007, provided that the
entity makes that choice in the first quarter of 2007 and also
elects to apply the provisions of SFAS 157. We are
currently evaluating the potential adoption impact of that
SFAS 159 will have on our financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.
(5) Members
Equity
Immediate Predecessor issued 63,200,000 voting preferred units
at $1 par value for cash to finance the Initial Acquisition, as
described in note 1. The preferred units were the only
voting units of Immediate Predecessor and, prior to May 10,
2004, had preferential rights to distributions. The preferred
units only had voting preferences and preferences related to the
distributions. The preference required that the holders of
preferred units were to be distributed $63,200,000, plus a
F-20
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
preferred yield equal to 15% per annum compounded monthly,
before any distributions could be made to holders of common
units. Of the 63,200,000 of voting preferred units issued, all
55,500,000 preferred units issued and outstanding were issued to
related parties. Pegasus Partners II, L.P., which held
52,500,000 preferred units, is an affiliate of Pegasus Capital
Advisors, L.P. with whom the Immediate Predecessor entered into
a management services agreement. The remaining 3,000,000 of
preferred units were issued to management members who had
employment agreements with subsidiaries of the Immediate
Predecessor.
Concurrent with the issuance of the preferred units, management
of Immediate Predecessor was issued 11,152,941 nonvoting
restricted common units for recourse promissory notes
aggregating $63,000. Based on the estimated relative fair value
of the restricted common units on March 3, 2004, $3,100,000
was allocated to the common units. Accordingly, unearned
compensation of $3,037,000 was recognized as a contra-equity
balance in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The
holders of these common units were not vested at the date of
issuance. Prior to May 10, 2004, distribution rights were
subordinated to the preferred unit holders, as described above.
On May 10, 2004, the promissory notes were repaid with cash
and an additional 500,000 nonvoting restricted common units were
issued to an officer of Immediate Predecessor for a recourse
promissory note of $2,850. Based on the estimated fair value of
the units on May 10, 2004, unearned compensation of
$2,044,600 was recognized as a contra-equity balance in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Concurrent with the
Subsequent Acquisition at June 23, 2005, as described in
note 1, all of the restricted common units were fully
vested. Immediate Predecessor recognized $1,095,609 and
$3,985,991 in compensation expense for the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004 and the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, respectively, related to earned
compensation.
On May 10, 2004, Immediate Predecessor refinanced its
existing long term-debt with a $150 million term loan and
used the proceeds of the borrowings to repay the outstanding
borrowings under Immediate Predecessors previous credit
facility. The borrowings were also used to distribute a
$99,987,509 dividend, which included the preference payment of
$63,200,000 plus the yield of $1,802,956 to the preferred unit
holders and a $63,000 payment to the common unit holders for
undistributed capital per the LLC agreement. The remaining
$34,921,553 was distributed to the preferred and common unit
holders pro rata according to their ownership percentages, as
determined by the aggregate of the common and preferred units.
On June 23, 2005, immediately prior to the Subsequent
Acquisition (see note 1), the Immediate Predecessor used
available cash balances to distribute a $52,211,493 dividend to
the preferred and common unit holders pro rata according to
their ownership percentages, as determined by the aggregate of
the common and preferred units.
Successor issued 22,766,000 voting common units at $10 par
value for cash to finance the Subsequent Acquisition, as
described in note 1. An additional 50,000 voting common
units at $10 par value were issued to a member of
management for an unsecured recourse promissory note that
accrued interest at 7% and required annual principal and
interest payments through December 2009. The unpaid balance of
the unsecured recourse promissory note and all unpaid interest
was forgiven September 25, 2006 (see note 16).
As required by the term loan agreements to fund certain capital
projects, on September 14, 2005 an additional $10,000,000
capital contribution was received in return for 1,000,000 voting
common units and on May 23, 2006 an additional $20,000,000
capital contribution was received in return for 2,000,000 at
$10 par value (Delayed Draw Capital).
Common units held by management contain put rights held by
management and call rights held by Successor exercisable at fair
value in the event the management member becomes inactive.
F-21
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Accordingly, in accordance with EITF Topic
No. D-98,
Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities,
common units held by management were initially recorded at fair
value at the date of issuance and have been classified in
temporary equity as Management Voting Common Units Subject to
Redemption (Capital Subject to Redemption) in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets.
On November 30, 2006, an amendment to the Second Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC was approved with a pro rata reduction among all
holders of common units in order to effect a total reduction of
the number of outstanding Common Units. This amendment reduced
the number of outstanding Common Units by 11.62%. Because cash
unit holders value and ownership interest before and after
the reallocation is unchanged and since no transfer of value
occurred among the common unit holders, this pro rata reduction
had no accounting consequence. At December 31, 2006,
management held 201,063 of the 22,816,000 voting common units.
On December 28, 2006, Successor refinanced its existing
long term-debt with a $775 million term loan and used the
proceeds of the borrowings to repay the outstanding borrowings
under its previous first and second lien credit facilities, pay
related fees and expenses and pay a distribution of
$250 million to its common unit holders at
December 28, 2006.
The put rights with respect to managements common units,
provide that following their termination of employment, they
have the right to sell all (but not less than all) of their
common units to Coffeyville Acquisition LLC at their Fair
Market Value (as that term is defined in the LLC
Agreement) if they were terminated without Cause, or
as a result of death, Disability or resignation with
Good Reason (each as defined in the LLC Agreement)
or due to Retirement (as that term is defined in the
LLC Agreement). Coffeyville Acquisition LLC has call rights with
respect to the executives common units, so that following
the executives termination of employment, Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC has the right to purchase the common units at
their Fair Market Value if the executive was terminated without
Cause, or as a result of the executives death, Disability
or resignation with Good Reason or due to Retirement. The call
price will be the lesser of the common units Fair Market
Value or Carrying Value (which means the capital contribution,
if any, made by the executive in respect of such interest less
the amount of distributions made in respect of such interest) if
the executive is terminated for Cause or he resigns without Good
Reason. For any other termination of employment, the call price
will be at the Fair Market Value or Carrying Value of such
common units, in the sole discretion of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLCs board of directors. No put or call rights apply to
override units following the executives termination of
employment unless Coffeyville Acquisition LLCs board of
directors (or the compensation committee thereof) determines in
its discretion that put and call rights will apply.
CVR accounts for changes in redemption value of management
common units in the period the changes occur and adjusts the
carrying value of the Capital Subject to Redemption to equal the
redemption value at the end of each reporting period with an
equal and offsetting adjustment to Members Equity. None of
the Capital Subject to Redemption was redeemable at
December 31, 2005 or December 31, 2006.
At December 31, 2005 the Capital Subject to Redemption was
revalued through an independent appraisal process, and the value
was determined to be $18.34 per unit. Accordingly, the
carrying value of the Capital Subject to Redemption increased by
$3,035,586 for the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 with an equal and offsetting
decrease to Members Equity.
At December 31, 2006, the Capital Subject to Redemption was
revalued through an independent appraisal process, and the value
was determined to be $34.72 per unit. The appraisal
utilized a discounted cash flow (DCF) method, a variation of the
income approach, and the guideline public
F-22
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
company method, a variation of the market approach, to determine
the fair value. The guideline public company method utilized a
weighting of market multiples from publicly traded petroleum
refiners and fertilizer manufactures that are comparable to the
Company. The recognition of the value of $34.72 per unit
increased the carrying value of the Capital Subject to
Redemption by $4,239,548 for the year ended December 31,
2006 with an equal and offsetting decrease to Members
Equity. This increase was the result of higher forward market
price assumptions, which were consistent with what was observed
in the market during the period, in the refining business
resulting in increased free cash flow projections utilized in
the DCF method. The market multiples for the public-traded
comparable companies also increased from December 31, 2005,
resulting in increased value of the units.
Concurrent with the Subsequent Acquisition, Successor issued
nonvoting override operating units to certain management members
who hold common units. There were no required capital
contributions for the override operating units.
919,630
override operating units at an adjusted benchmark value of
$11.31 per unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), using the Monte Carlo
method of valuation, the estimated fair value of the override
operating units on June 24, 2005 was $3,604,950. Pursuant
to the forfeiture schedule described below, the Company is
recognizing compensation expense over the service period for
each separate portion of the award for which the forfeiture
restriction lapsed as if the award was, in-substance, multiple
awards. Compensation expense for the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and year ended
December 31, 2006 were $602,381 and $1,157,206,
respectively. Significant assumptions used in the valuation were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated forfeiture rate
|
|
|
None
|
|
Explicit service period
|
|
|
Based on forfeiture schedule below
|
|
Grant-date fair value controlling basis
|
|
|
$5.16 per share
|
|
Marketability and minority interest discounts
|
|
|
$1.24 per share (24% discount)
|
|
Volatility
|
|
|
37%
|
The benchmark value of the originally issued override operating
units was originally set at $10 per unit. Concurrent with
the prorata reduction of common units outstanding at
November 30, 2006, the benchmark amount per each unit was
adjusted to $11.31.
On December 28, 2006, Successor issued additional nonvoting
override operating units to a certain management member who
holds common units. There were no required capital contributions
for the override operating units.
72,492
override operating units at a benchmark value of $34.72 per
unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), a combination of a binomial
model and a probability-weighted expected return method which
utilized the companys cash flow projections resulted in an
estimated fair value of the override operating units on
December 28, 2006 was $472,648. Management believes that
this method is preferable for the valuation of the override
units as it allows a better integration of the cash flows with
other inputs, including the timing of potential exit events that
impact the estimated fair value of the override units. Pursuant
to the forfeiture schedule described below, the Company is
recognizing compensation expense over the service period for
each separate portion of the award for which the forfeiture
restriction lapsed as if the award was, in-substance, multiple
awards.
F-23
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2006
was $3,324. Significant assumptions used in the valuation were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated forfeiture rate
|
|
|
None
|
|
Explicit service period
|
|
|
Based on forfeiture schedule below
|
|
Grant-date fair value controlling basis
|
|
|
$8.15 per share
|
|
Marketability and minority interest discounts
|
|
|
$1.63 per share (20% discount)
|
|
Volatility
|
|
|
41%
|
Override operating units participate in distributions in
proportion to the number of total common, non-forfeited override
operating and participating override value units issued.
Distributions to override operating units will be reduced until
the total cumulative reductions are equal to the benchmark
value. Override operating units are forfeited upon termination
of employment for cause. In the event of all other terminations
of employment, the override operating units are initially
subject to forfeiture with the number of units subject to
forfeiture reducing as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeiture
|
|
Minimum
Period Held
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
2 years
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
3 years
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
4 years
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
5 years
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
On the tenth anniversary of the issuance of override operating
units, such units shall convert into an equivalent number of
override value units.
Concurrent with the Subsequent Acquisition, Successor issued
nonvoting override value units to certain management members who
hold common units. There were no required capital contributions
for the override value units.
1,839,265
override value units at an adjusted benchmark value of
$11.31 per unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), using the Monte Carlo
method of valuation, the estimated fair value of the override
value units on June 24, 2005 was $4,064,776. For the
override value units, CVR is recognizing compensation expense
ratably over the implied service period of 6 years.
Compensation expense for the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006 were $395,187, and $677,463,
respectively. Significant assumptions used in the valuation were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated forfeiture rate
|
|
|
None
|
|
Derived service period
|
|
|
6 years
|
|
Grant-date fair value controlling basis
|
|
|
$2.91 per share
|
|
Marketability and minority interest discounts
|
|
|
$0.70 per share (24% discount)
|
|
Volatility
|
|
|
37%
|
The benchmark value of the originally issued override operating
units was originally set at $10 per unit. Concurrent with
the prorata reduction of common units outstanding at
November 30, 2006, the benchmark amount per each unit was
adjusted to $11.31.
December 28, 2006, Successor issued additional nonvoting
override value units to a certain management member who holds
common units. There were no required capital contributions for
the override value units.
F-24
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
144,966
override value units at a benchmark value of $34.72 per
unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), a combination of a binomial
model and a probability-weighted expected return method which
utilized the Companys cash flow projections resulted in an
estimated fair value of the override value units on
December 28, 2006 of $945,178. Management believes that
this method is preferable for the valuation of the override
units as it allows a better integration of the cash flows with
other inputs, including the timing of potential exit events that
impact the estimated fair value of the override units. For the
override value units, CVR is recognizing compensation expense
ratably over the implied service period of 6 years.
Compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2006
was $17,185. Significant assumptions used in the valuation were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated forfeiture rate
|
|
|
None
|
|
Derived service period
|
|
|
6 years
|
|
Grant-date fair value controlling basis
|
|
|
$8.15 per share
|
|
Marketability and minority interest discounts
|
|
|
$1.63 per share (20% discount)
|
|
Volatility
|
|
|
41%
|
Value units fully participate in cash distributions when the
amount of such cash distributions to certain investors (Current
Common Value) is equal to four times the original contributed
capital of such investors (including the Delayed Draw Capital
required to be contributed pursuant to the long term credit
agreements). If the Current Common Value is less than two times
the original contributed capital of such investors at the time
of a distribution, none of the override value units participate.
In the event the Current Common Value is greater than two times
the original contributed capital of such investors but less than
four times, the number of participating override value units is
the product of 1) the number of issued override value units
and 2) the fraction, the numerator of which is the Current
Common Value minus two times original contributed capital, and
the denominator of which is two times the original contributed
capital. Distributions to participating override value units
will be reduced until the total cumulative reductions are equal
to the benchmark value. On the tenth anniversary of any override
value unit (including any override value unit issued on the
conversion of an override operating unit) the two
times threshold referenced above will become 10
times and the four times threshold referenced
above will become 12 times. Unless the compensation
committee of the board of directors takes an action to prevent
forfeiture, override value units are forfeited upon termination
of employment for any reason except that in the event of
termination of employment by reason of death or disability, all
override value units are initially subject to forfeiture with
the number of units subject to forfeiture reducing as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject to
|
|
|
|
Forfeiture
|
|
Minimum
Period Held
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
2 years
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
3 years
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
4 years
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
5 years
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
F-25
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
At December 31, 2006, there was approximately
$6.2 million of unrecognized compensation expense related
to nonvoting override units. This is expected to be recognized
over a period of five years as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Override
|
|
|
Override
|
|
Year
Ending December 31,
|
|
Operating
Units
|
|
|
Value
Units
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
1,198,045
|
|
|
$
|
883,684
|
|
2008
|
|
|
670,385
|
|
|
|
883,684
|
|
2009
|
|
|
344,178
|
|
|
|
883,684
|
|
2010
|
|
|
102,079
|
|
|
|
883,684
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
385,383
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,314,687
|
|
|
$
|
3,920,119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor, through an indirect subsidiary, has a Phantom Unit
Appreciation Plan whereby directors, employees, and service
providers may be awarded phantom points at the discretion of the
board of directors or the compensation committee. Holders of
service phantom points have rights to receive distributions when
holders of override operating units receive distributions.
Holders of performance phantom points have rights to receive
distributions when holders of override value units receive
distributions. There are no other rights or guarantees, and the
plan expires on July 25, 2015, or at the discretion of the
compensation committee of the board of directors. The total
combined interest of the Phantom Unit Plan and the override
units (combined Profits Interest) cannot exceed 15% of the
notional and aggregate equity interests of the Successor. As of
December 31, 2006, the issued Profits Interest represented
15% of combined common unit interest and Profits Interest of the
Company. The Profits Interest was comprised of 11.1% and 3.9% of
override interest and phantom interest, respectively. In
accordance with SFAS 123(R), using a binomial model and a
probability-weighted expected return method as a method of
valuation, through an independent valuation process, the service
phantom interest was valued at $33.82 per point and the
performance phantom interest was valued at $27.48 per
point. Successor has recorded $95,019 and $10,817,390 in
personnel accruals as of December 31, 2005 and 2006,
respectively. Compensation expense for the
233-day
period ending December 31, 2005 and the year ending
December 31, 2006 related to the Phantom Unit Plan was
$95,019, and $10,722,371, respectively.
At December 31, 2006, there was approximately
$20.3 million of unrecognized compensation expense related
to the Phantom Unit Plan. This is expected to be recognized over
a period of five years.
On December 28, 2006, two of Successors subsidiaries
granted common fractional shares of their stock to an executive
management member (executive) in exchange for $10.00 to each
subsidiary. The shares were fully vested on the date of grant.
Compensation expense in the amount of $4,326,188 was recorded
based upon the fair market value of the stock awarded on the
grant date. The issuance of these shares generated minority
interest on the consolidated balance sheet of Successor at
December 31, 2006. The common fractional shares contain put
rights held by the executive and call rights held by
Successors subsidiaries exercisable at fair market value
in the event the executive becomes inactive.
The put rights provide that following termination of employment,
the executive has the right to sell all (but not less than all)
of their common shares to the subsidiary at their Fair
Market Value (as that term is defined in the
Stockholders Agreement) if terminated without
Cause, or as a result of death,
Disability or resignation with Good
Reason (each defined in the Stockholders Agreement)
or due to Retirement (as that term is defined in the
Stockholders Agreement). The subsidiary has call
F-26
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
rights with respect to the executives common shares in the
subsidiary, so that following the executives termination
of employment, the subsidiary has the right to purchase the
common shares at their Fair Market Value if the executive was
terminated without Cause, or as a result of the executives
death, Disability or resignation with Good Reason or due to
Retirement. The call price will be the lesser of the common
shares Fair Market Value at the time of the transfer or
Carrying Value if the executive is terminated for Cause or he
resigns without Good Reason. For any other termination of
employment, the call price will be at the Fair market Value or
Carrying Value of such common shares in the sole discretion of
the board of the subsidiary.
Because one of the put rights rests outside of the control of
the Company, these shares held by the executive are being
accounted for in accordance with EITF Topic
D-98,
Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities.
Accordingly, CVR will account for changes in the redemption
value of the shares in the period the changes occur and adjust
the carrying value at the end of each reporting period with an
equal and offsetting adjustment to Members Equity. None of
the executives shares in the subsidiaries was redeemable
at December 31, 2006.
(6) Inventories
Inventories consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
$
|
58,513
|
|
|
$
|
59,722
|
|
Raw materials and catalysts
|
|
|
47,437
|
|
|
|
60,810
|
|
In-process inventories
|
|
|
33,397
|
|
|
|
18,441
|
|
Parts and supplies
|
|
|
14,929
|
|
|
|
22,460
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
154,276
|
|
|
$
|
161,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7) Property,
Plant, and Equipment
A summary of costs for property, plant, and equipment is as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Land and improvements
|
|
$
|
9,346
|
|
|
$
|
11,028
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
10,306
|
|
|
|
11,042
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
715,381
|
|
|
|
864,140
|
|
Automotive equipment
|
|
|
3,396
|
|
|
|
4,175
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
271
|
|
|
|
5,364
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
887
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
57,382
|
|
|
|
184,531
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
796,082
|
|
|
|
1,081,167
|
|
Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
23,569
|
|
|
|
74,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
772,513
|
|
|
$
|
1,007,156
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-27
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Capitalized interest recognized as a reduction in interest
expense for the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006 totaled $297,694, $831,264, and
$11,613,211, respectively.
(8) Goodwill
and Intangible Assets
In connection with the Subsequent Acquisition described in
note 1, Successor recorded goodwill of $83,774,885.
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets, provides that goodwill and other intangible assets
with indefinite lives shall not be amortized but shall be tested
for impairment on an annual basis. In accordance with
SFAS 142, Successor completed its annual test for
impairment of goodwill as of November 1, 2005 and 2006.
Based on the results of the test, no impairment of goodwill was
recorded as of December 31, 2005 or 2006. The annual review
of impairment is performed by comparing the carrying value of
the applicable reporting unit to its estimated fair value using
a combination of the discounted cash flow analysis and market
approach. Successors reporting units are defined as
operating segments, as such all goodwill impairment testing is
done at each operating segment.
Contractual agreements with a fair market value of $1,322,000
were acquired in the Subsequent Acquisition described in
note 1. The intangible value of these agreements is
amortized over the life of the agreements through June 2025.
Amortization expense of $313,453 and $370,091 was recorded in
depreciation and amortization for the
233-days
ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
Estimated amortization of the contractual agreements is as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual
|
Year
Ending December 31,
|
|
Agreements
|
|
2007
|
|
|
165
|
|
2008
|
|
|
64
|
|
2009
|
|
|
33
|
|
2010
|
|
|
33
|
|
2011
|
|
|
33
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
638
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9) Deferred
Financing Costs
Deferred financing costs of $6,300,727 were paid in the Initial
Acquisition described in note 1. Additional deferred
financing costs of $10,009,193 were paid with the debt
refinancing on May 10, 2004, as described in notes 5
and 11. The unamortized deferred financing costs of $6,071,110
related to the Initial Acquisition financing were written off
when the related debt was extinguished and refinanced with the
existing credit facility and these costs were included in loss
on extinguishment of debt for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004. A prepayment penalty of $1,095,000 on
the previous credit facility was also paid and expensed and
included in loss on extinguishment of debt for the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004. The unamortized deferred financing
costs of $8,093,754 related to the May 10, 2004 refinancing
were written off when the related debt was extinguished upon the
Subsequent Acquisition described in note 1 and these costs
were included in loss on extinguishment of debt for the
174 days ended June 23, 2005. For the 304 days
ended December 31, 2004 and for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005, amortization of deferred financing costs
reported as
F-28
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
interest expense was $1,332,890 and $812,166, respectively,
using the effective-interest amortization method.
Deferred financing costs of $24,628,315 were paid in the
Subsequent Acquisition described in note 1. Effective
December 28, 2006, the Company amended and restated its
credit agreement with a consortium of banks, additionally
capitalizing $8,462,390 in debt issuance costs. The Company
determined that this amendment and restatement is within the
scope of
EITF 96-19,
Debtors Accounting for Modification or Exchange of Debt
Instruments, as well as
EITF 98-14,
Debtors Accounting for Changes in
Line-of-Credit
or Revolving-Debt Arrangements as the amendment relates to term
loans, a revolving loan facility and a funded facility, each
having a syndicate of different lenders.
As the transactions involved contemporaneous exchanges of cash
between the same debtor and creditor in connection with the
issuance of a new debt obligation and satisfaction of an
existing debt obligation, the Company calculated which portions
of the debt related to certain lenders had substantially
different terms in accordance with the guidance in
EITF 96-19.
Specifically, the Company performed the 10% test specified
under
EITF 96-19
to determine if the modification of the term debt was considered
substantial on a lender by lender basis.
The Company followed the guidance of EITF 98-14 related to
the revolving loan facility and funded facility and prepared a
comparison of the borrowing capacity for each lender in both the
old and new revolving credit facilities and funding facilities.
Based upon this analysis, 72 percent of the unamortized
debt costs related to the old revolving credit facility were
written off and 75 percent of the unamortized debt costs
related to the old funding facility were written off.
In accordance with the above applicable guidance and analysis, a
portion of the unamortized loan costs of $16,959,015 from the
original credit facility as well as additional finance and legal
charges associated with the second amended and restated credit
facility of $901,291 were included in loss on extinguishment of
debt for the year December 31, 2006. The remaining costs
are being amortized over the life of the related debt
instrument. Additionally, a prepayment penalty of $5,500,000 on
the previous credit facility was also paid and expensed and
included in loss on extinguishment of debt for the year ended
December 31, 2006. For the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005 and year ended December 31, 2006,
amortization of deferred financing costs reported as interest
expense totaled $1,751,041 and $3,336,795, respectively using
the effective-interest amortization method for the term debt and
the straight-line method for the letter of credit facility and
revolving loan facility.
Deferred financing costs consisted of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Deferred financing costs
|
|
$
|
24,628
|
|
|
$
|
11,065
|
|
Less accumulated amortization
|
|
|
1,751
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unamortized deferred financing
costs
|
|
|
22,877
|
|
|
|
11,044
|
|
Less current portion
|
|
|
3,352
|
|
|
|
1,916
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,525
|
|
|
$
|
9,128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-29
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Estimated amortization of deferred financing costs is as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
Year
Ending December 31,
|
|
Financing
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
1,916
|
|
2008
|
|
|
1,910
|
|
2009
|
|
|
1,893
|
|
2010
|
|
|
1,878
|
|
2011
|
|
|
1,378
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
2,069
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,044
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10) Other
Long-Term Assets
Other long-term assets consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Prepaid insurance charges
|
|
$
|
2,447
|
|
|
$
|
1,070
|
|
Non-current receivables
|
|
|
4,889
|
|
|
|
4,040
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
1,082
|
|
|
|
1,219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,418
|
|
|
$
|
6,329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current receivables consist of unsettled
mark-to-market
gains on derivatives relating to the interest rate swap
agreements described in notes 15 and 16.
CVR has prepaid an environmental insurance policy that covers
environmental site protection for costs to be incurred beyond
the next twelve months. See note 14 for a further
description of the environmental commitments and contingencies.
Estimated amortization of prepaid insurance is as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid
|
|
Year
Ending December 31,
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
6,197
|
|
2008
|
|
|
292
|
|
2009
|
|
|
292
|
|
2010
|
|
|
292
|
|
2011
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,267
|
|
Less current portion
|
|
|
6,197
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term
|
|
$
|
1,070
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-30
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(11) Long-Term
Debt
At March 3, 2004, Immediate Predecessor entered into an
agreement with a financial institution for a term loan of
$21,900,000 with an interest rate based on the greater of the
Index Rate (the greater of prime or the federal funds rate plus
50 basis points per annum) plus 4.5% or 9% and a
$100,000,000 revolving credit facility with interest at the
borrowers election of either the Index Rate plus 3% or the
LIBOR rate plus 3.5%. Amounts totaling $21,900,000 of the term
loan borrowings and $38,821,970 of the revolving credit facility
were used to finance the Initial Acquisition on March 3,
2004 as described in note 1. Outstanding borrowings on
May 10, 2004 were repaid in connection with the refinancing
described below.
Effective May 10, 2004, Immediate Predecessor entered into
a term loan of $150,000,000 and a $75,000,000 revolving loan
facility with a syndicate of banks, financial institutions, and
institutional lenders. Both loans were secured by substantially
all of the Immediate Predecessors real and personal
property, including receivables, contract rights, general
intangibles, inventories, equipment, and financial assets.
Outstanding borrowings on June 23, 2005 were repaid in
connection with the Subsequent Acquisition as described in note
1.
Effective June 24, 2005, Successor entered into a first
lien credit facility and a guaranty agreement with two banks and
one related party institutional lender (see note 16). The
credit facility was in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$525,000,000, consisting of $225,000,000 Tranche B Term
Loans; $50,000,000 of Delayed Draw Term Loans available for the
first 18 months of the agreement and subject to accelerated
payment terms; a $100,000,000 Revolving Loan Facility; and
a Funded Letters of Credit Facility (Funded Facility) of
$150,000,000. The credit facility was secured by substantially
all of Successors assets. At December 31, 2005,
$224,437,500 of Tranche B Term Loans was outstanding, and
there was no outstanding balance on the Revolving
Loan Facility or the Delayed Draw Term Loans. At
December 31, 2005, Successor had $150,000,000 in Funded
Letters of Credit outstanding to secure payment obligations
under derivative financial instruments (see note 15).
Outstanding borrowings on December 28, 2006 were repaid in
connection with the refinancing described below.
The Term Loans and Revolving Loan Facility provided CVR the
option of a
3-month
LIBOR rate plus 2.5% per annum (rounded up to the next
whole multiple of 1/16 of 1%) or an Index Rate (to be based on
the current prime rate plus 1.5%). Interest was paid quarterly
when using the Index Rate and at the expiration of the LIBOR
term selected when using the LIBOR rate; interest varied with
the Index Rate or LIBOR rate in effect at the time of the
borrowing. The interest rate on December 31, 2005 was
7.06%. The annual fee for the Funded Facility was 2.725% of
outstanding Funded Letters of Credit.
Effective June 24, 2005, Successor entered into a second
lien $275,000,000 term loan and guaranty agreement with a bank
and a related party institutional lender (see
note 16) with the entire amount outstanding at
December 31, 2005. CVR had the option of a
3-month
LIBOR rate plus 6.75% per annum (rounded up to the next
whole multiple of
1/16
of 1%) or an Index Rate (to be based on the current prime rate
plus 5.75%). The interest rate on December 31, 2005 was
11.31%. The loan was secured by a second lien on substantially
all of CVRs assets. Outstanding borrowings on
December 28, 2006 were repaid in connection with the
refinancing described below.
On December 28, 2006, Successor entered into a second
amended and restated credit and guaranty agreement (the credit
and guaranty agreement) with two banks and one related party
institutional lender (see note 16). The credit facility was
in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,075,000,000, consisting
of $775,000,000 Tranche D Term Loans; a $150,000,000
Revolving Loan Facility; and a Funded Facility of
$150,000,000. The credit facility was secured by substantially
F-31
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
all of CVRs assets. At December 31, 2006,
$775,000,000 of Tranche D Term Loans was outstanding, and
there was no outstanding balance on the Revolving
Loan Facility. At December 31, 2006, Successor had
$150,000,000 in Funded Letters of Credit outstanding to secure
payment obligations under derivative financial instruments (see
note 15).
The Term Loan and Revolving Loan Facility provide CVR the
option of a
3-month
LIBOR rate plus 3.0% per annum (rounded up to the next
whole multiple of
1/16
of 1%) or an Index Rate (to be based on the current prime rate
plus 2.0%). Interest is paid quarterly when using the Index Rate
and at the expiration of the LIBOR term selected when using the
LIBOR rate; interest varies with the Index Rate or LIBOR rate in
effect at the time of the borrowing. The interest rate on
December 31, 2006 was 8.36%. The annual fee for the Funded
Facility is 3.225% of outstanding Funded Letters of Credit.
The loan and security agreements contain customary restrictive
covenants applicable to CVR, including limitations on the level
of additional indebtedness, commodity agreements, capital
expenditures, payment of dividends, creation of liens, and sale
of assets. These covenants also require CVR to maintain
specified financial ratios as follows:
First Lien Credit
Facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum
Interest
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
Fiscal
Quarter Ending
|
|
Coverage
Ratio
|
|
|
Leverage
Ratio
|
|
|
March 31, 2007
|
|
|
2.25:1.00
|
|
|
|
4.75:1.00
|
|
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
2.50:1.00
|
|
|
|
4.50:1.00
|
|
September 30, 2007
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
|
|
|
4.25:1.00
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
|
|
|
4.00:1.00
|
|
March 31, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
June 30, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
|
3.00:1.00
|
|
September 30, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
|
2.75:1.00
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
3.25:1.00
|
|
|
|
2.50:1.00
|
|
March 31, 2009 -
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
3.75:1.00
|
|
|
|
2.25:1.00
|
|
March 31, 2010 and thereafter
|
|
|
3.75:1.00
|
|
|
|
2.00:1.00
|
|
Failure to comply with the various restrictive and affirmative
covenants of the loan agreements could negatively affect
CVRs ability to incur additional indebtedness
and/or pay
required distributions. Successor is required to measure its
compliance with these financial ratios and covenants quarterly
and was in compliance with all covenants and reporting
requirements under the terms of the agreement at
December 31, 2006. As required by the debt agreements, CVR
has entered into interest rate swap agreements (as described in
note 15) that are required to be held for the
remainder of the stated term.
Long-term debt consisted of the following at December 31,
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
First lien Tranche D term
loans; principal payments of .25% of the principal balance due
quarterly commencing April 2007, increasing to 23.5% of the
principal balance due quarterly commencing April 2013, with a
final payment of the aggregate remaining unpaid principal
balance due December 2013
|
|
|
|
|
F-32
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Future maturities of long-term debt are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
Ending December 31,
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
5,797,981
|
|
2008
|
|
|
7,663,223
|
|
2009
|
|
|
7,586,878
|
|
2010
|
|
|
7,511,293
|
|
2011
|
|
|
7,436,461
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
739,004,164
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
775,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commencing with fiscal year 2007, CVR shall prepay the loans in
an aggregate amount equal to 75% of Consolidated Excess Cash
Flow (as defined in the credit and guaranty agreement, which
includes a formulaic calculation consisting of many financial
statement items, starting with consolidated Earnings Before
Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization) less 100% of
voluntary prepayments made during that fiscal year. Commencing
with fiscal year 2008, the aggregate amount changes to 50% of
Consolidated Excess Cash Flow provided the total leverage ratio
is less than 1:50:1:00 or 25% of Consolidated Excess Cash Flow
provided the total leverage ratio is less than 1:00:1:00
At December 31, 2006, Successor had $3.2 million in
letters of credit outstanding to collateralize its environmental
obligations and $3.2 million in letters of credit
outstanding to secure transportation services for a crude oil
pipeline. The letters of credit expire in July and August 2007
and March 2007 for the transportation services. These letters of
credit were outstanding against the June 24, 2005 Revolving
Loan Facility. In addition, Successor has a
$6.4 million letter of credit outstanding against the new
Revolving Loan Facility to provide transitional collateral
to the lender that issued the letters of credit under the
June 24, 2005 Credit Facility. The purpose of this
transitional letter of credit is to allow time for Successor to
replace the letters of credit while minimizing the impact to the
respective letter of credit beneficiaries. This transitional
letter of credit expires in August 2007. The fee for the
revolving letters of credit is 3.25%.
The Revolving Loan Facility has a current expiration date
of December 28, 2012. The Funded Facility has a current
expiration date of December 28, 2010.
(12) Benefit
Plans
CVR sponsors two defined-contribution 401(k) plans (the Plans)
for all employees. Participants in the Plans may elect to
contribute up to 50% of their annual salaries, and up to 100% of
their annual income sharing. CVR matches up to 75% of the first
6% of the participants contribution for the nonunion plan
and 50% of the first 6% of the participants contribution
for the union plan. Both plans are administered by CVR and
contributions for the union plan are determined in accordance
with provisions of negotiated labor contracts. Participants in
both Plans are immediately vested in their individual
contributions. Both Plans have a three year vesting schedule for
CVRs matching funds and contain a provision to count
service with any predecessor organization. Successors
contributions under the Plans were $647,054, $661,922, $446,753
and $1,374,914 for the 304 days ended December 31,
2004, the 174 days ended June 23, 2005, the
233 days ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
F-33
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(13) Income
Taxes
Income tax expense (benefit) is summarized below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
229 Days
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Current Federal
|
|
$
|
27,902
|
|
|
$
|
26,145
|
|
|
|
$
|
29,000
|
|
|
$
|
26,096
|
|
State
|
|
|
6,519
|
|
|
|
6,099
|
|
|
|
|
6,457
|
|
|
|
6,974
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current provision
|
|
|
34,421
|
|
|
|
32,244
|
|
|
|
|
35,457
|
|
|
|
33,070
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Federal
|
|
|
(499
|
)
|
|
|
3,083
|
|
|
|
|
(80,500
|
)
|
|
|
69,836
|
|
State
|
|
|
(117
|
)
|
|
|
721
|
|
|
|
|
(17,925
|
)
|
|
|
16,934
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred provision
|
|
|
(616
|
)
|
|
|
3,804
|
|
|
|
|
(98,425
|
)
|
|
|
86,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income taxes
|
|
$
|
33,805
|
|
|
$
|
36,048
|
|
|
|
$
|
(62,968
|
)
|
|
$
|
119,840
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense differed from the expected income tax
(computed by applying the federal income tax rate of 35% to
income before income taxes) as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
304 Days
|
|
|
174 Days
|
|
|
|
229 Days
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Computed expected taxes
|
|
$
|
29,230
|
|
|
$
|
30,956
|
|
|
|
$
|
(63,744
|
)
|
|
$
|
108,994
|
|
Loss on unexercised option
agreements with no tax benefit to Successor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
State taxes, net of federal benefit
|
|
|
4,162
|
|
|
|
4,433
|
|
|
|
|
(7,454
|
)
|
|
|
15,540
|
|
Section 199, manufacturing
deduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(825
|
)
|
|
|
|
(897
|
)
|
|
|
(1,089
|
)
|
Ultra low sulfur diesel credit, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,462
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
413
|
|
|
|
1,484
|
|
|
|
|
377
|
|
|
|
857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax expense
|
|
$
|
33,805
|
|
|
$
|
36,048
|
|
|
|
$
|
(62,968
|
)
|
|
$
|
119,840
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As more fully described in note 15, the loss on unexercised
option agreements of $25,000,000 occurred at Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC, and the tax deduction related to the loss was
passed through to the partners of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
Certain provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
(the Act) are providing federal income tax benefits to the
Company. The Act created the new Internal Revenue Code
section 199 which provides an income tax benefit to
domestic manufacturers. The Company recognized an income tax
benefit related to this manufacturing deduction of approximately
$825,000, $897,000 and $1,089,000 for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005, the 233 days ended December 31,
2005 and the year ended December 31, 2006, respectively.
F-34
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Additionally, the Act allows the Company an accelerated
depreciation deduction of 75% of the qualified capital costs in
the years incurred to meet the EPAs regulations requiring
the phase-in of gasoline sulfur standards. The Act also provides
for a $0.05 per gallon income tax credit on compliant
diesel fuel produced up to an amount equal to the remaining 25%
of the qualified capital costs. The Company recognized a net
income tax benefit of approximately $4,462,000 on a credit of
approximately $6,865,000 related to the production of ultra low
sulfur diesel for the year ended December 31, 2006.
As indicated in note 4 New Accounting
Pronouncements, FIN 48 will apply to fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2006. Successor is currently
evaluating its tax positions, but does not believe that the
adoption of FIN 48 will not have a material effect on its
financial statements.
The income tax effect of temporary differences that give rise to
significant portions of the deferred tax assets and deferred tax
liabilities are summarized below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
109
|
|
|
$
|
150
|
|
Personnel accruals
|
|
|
483
|
|
|
|
5,072
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
560
|
|
|
|
673
|
|
Unrealized derivative losses, net
|
|
|
91,226
|
|
|
|
40,389
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
92,378
|
|
|
|
46,284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment
|
|
|
269,462
|
|
|
|
309,472
|
|
Environmental obligations
|
|
|
1,238
|
|
|
|
1,061
|
|
Other
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
270,842
|
|
|
|
311,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax liabilities
|
|
$
|
(178,464
|
)
|
|
$
|
(265,234
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets,
management considers whether it is more likely than not that
some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be
realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is
dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during
the periods in which those temporary differences become
deductible. Management considers the scheduled reversal of
deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, and
tax planning strategies in making this assessment. Based upon
the level of historical taxable income and projections for
future taxable income over the periods in which the deferred tax
assets are deductible, management believes it is more likely
than not that CVR will realize the benefits of these deductible
differences. Therefore, Successor has not recorded any valuation
allowances against deferred tax assets as of December 31,
2005 or 2006.
F-35
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(14) Commitments
and Contingent Liabilities
The minimum required payments for CVRs lease agreements
and unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
|
Unconditional
|
|
Year
Ending December 31,
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Purchase
Obligations
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
3,892,374
|
|
|
$
|
19,279,245
|
|
2008
|
|
|
3,855,630
|
|
|
|
19,034,729
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2,880,456
|
|
|
|
19,001,745
|
|
2010
|
|
|
1,525,474
|
|
|
|
16,610,265
|
|
2011
|
|
|
853,094
|
|
|
|
14,740,348
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
107,113
|
|
|
|
132,414,592
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,114,141
|
|
|
$
|
221,080,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CVR leases various equipment and real properties under long-term
operating leases. For the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006, lease expense totaled approximately
$518,918, $2,531,823, $1,754,564, $1,737,373 and $3,821,833,
respectively. The lease agreements have various remaining terms.
Some agreements are renewable, at CVRs option, for
additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of
business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire.
CVR licenses a gasification process from a third party
associated with gasifier equipment used in the Nitrogen
Fertilizer segment. The royalty fees for this license are
incurred as the equipment is used and are subject to a cap which
is expected to be paid in full by June 2007. At
December 31, 2006, approximately $1,615,000 was included in
accounts payable for this agreement. Royalty fee expense
reflected in direct operating expenses (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) for the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006 was $1,403,304, $1,042,286, $914,878, and
$2,134,506, respectively.
CRNF has an agreement with the City of Coffeyville pursuant to
which it must make a series of future payments for electrical
generation transmission and city margin. As of December 31,
2006, the remaining obligations of CRNF totaled
$26.1 million through December 31, 2019. Total minimum
committed contractual payments under the agreement will be
$5.7 million for fiscal year 2007 and $1.7 million per
year for each subsequent year.
CRRM has a Pipeline Construction, Operation and Transportation
Commitment Agreement with Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains
Pipeline) pursuant to which Plains Pipeline constructed a crude
oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to Caney, Kansas. The term
of the agreement is 20 years from when the pipeline became
operational on March 1, 2005. Pursuant to the agreement,
CRRM must transport approximately 80,000 barrels per day of
its crude oil requirements for the Coffeyville refinery at a
fixed charge per barrel for the first five years of the
agreement. For the final fifteen years of the agreement, CRRM
must transport all of its non-gathered crude oil up to the
capacity of the Plains Pipeline. The rate is subject to a
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) tariff and is
subject to change on an annual basis per the agreement. Lease
expense associated with this agreement and included in cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
the 174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006 totaled approximately $2,603,066,
$4,372,115, and $8,750,522, respectively.
F-36
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During 1997, Farmland (subsequently assigned to CRP) entered
into an Agreement of Capacity Lease and Operating Agreement with
Williams Pipe Line Company (subsequently assigned to Magellan
Pipe Line Company, L.P. (Magellan)) pursuant to which CRP leases
pipeline capacity in certain pipelines between Coffeyville,
Kansas and Caney, Kansas and between Coffeyville, Kansas and
Independence, Kansas. Pursuant to this agreement, CRP is
obligated to pay a fixed monthly charge to Magellan for annual
leased capacity of 6,300,000 barrels until the scheduled
expiration of the agreement on April 30, 2007. Lease
expense associated with this agreement and included in cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
the 174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006 totaled approximately $232,500, $193,750,
and $503,750, respectively.
During 2005, CRRM amended a Pipeline Capacity Lease Agreement
with
Mid-America
Pipeline Company (MAPL) pursuant to which CRRM leases pipeline
capacity in an outbound MAPL-operated pipeline between
Coffeyville, Kansas and El Dorado, Kansas for the transportation
of natural gas liquids (NGLs) and refined petroleum products.
Pursuant to this agreement, CRRM is obligated to make fixed
monthly lease payments. The agreement also obligates CRRM to
reimburse MAPL a portion of certain permitted costs associated
with obligations imposed by certain governmental laws. Lease
expense associated with this agreement, included in cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
the 174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, totaled approximately $156,271,
$208,316, and $800,000, respectively. The lease expires
September 30, 2011.
During 2005, CRRM entered into a Pipeage Contract with MAPL
pursuant to which CRRM agreed to ship a minimum quantity of NGLs
on an inbound pipeline operated by MAPL between Conway, Kansas
and Coffeyville, Kansas. Pursuant to the contract, CRRM is
obligated to ship 2,000,000 barrels (Minimum Commitment) of
NGLs per year at a fixed rate per barrel through the expiration
of the contract on September 30, 2011. All barrels above
the Minimum Commitment are at a different fixed rate per barrel.
The rates are subject to a tariff approved by the Kansas
Corporation Commission (KCC) and are subject to change
throughout the term of this contract as ordered by the KCC.
Lease expense associated with this contract agreement and
included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) for the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, totaled approximately $172,525 and
$1,612,899, respectively.
During 2004, CRRM entered into a Pipeline Capacity Lease
Agreement with ONEOK Field Services (OFS) and Frontier El Dorado
Refining Company (Frontier) pursuant to which CRRM leases
capacity in pipelines operated by OFS between Conway, Kansas and
El Dorado, Kansas. Prior to the completion of a planned
expansion project specified in the agreement, CRRM will be
obligated to pay a fixed monthly charge which will increase
after the expansion is complete. The lease expires
September 30, 2011. The pipeline was not operational for
its intended usage during 2006, therefore, no lease expense
associated with this agreement was recognized for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
During 2004, CRRM entered into a Transportation Services
Agreement with CCPS Transportation, LLC (CCPS) pursuant to which
CCPS reconfigured an existing pipeline (Spearhead Pipeline) to
transport Canadian sourced crude oil to Cushing, Oklahoma. The
term of the agreement is 10 years from the time the
pipeline becomes operational, which occurred March 1, 2006.
Pursuant to the agreement and pursuant to options for increased
capacity which CRRM has exercised, CRRM is obligated to pay an
incentive tariff, which is a fixed rate per barrel for a minimum
of 10,000 barrels per day. Lease expense associated with
this agreement included in cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) for the year ended
December 31, 2006 totaled approximately $4,608,916.
F-37
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During 2004, CRRM entered into a Terminalling Agreement with
Plains Marketing, LP (Plains) whereby CRRM has the exclusive
storage rights for working storage, blending, and terminalling
services at several Plains tanks in Cushing, Oklahoma. Pursuant
to the agreement, CRRM is obligated to pay a minimum throughput
volume commitment of 29,200,000 barrels per year. This rate
is subject to change annually based on changes in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI-U) and the Producer Price Index (PPI-NG).
Expenses associated with this agreement, included in cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
the 174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, totaled approximately $811,815,
$1,251,087 and $2,406,093, respectively. The agreement expires
December 31, 2009.
During 2005 CRNF entered into an
on-site
product supply agreement with the BOC Group, Inc. Pursuant to
the agreement, which expires in 2020, CRNF pays approximately
$300,000 per month for the supply of oxygen and nitrogen to
the fertilizer operation. Expenses associated with this
agreement, included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) for the year ended
December 31, 2006 totaled approximately $3,520,759.
Effective December 31, 2005, a crude oil Supply agreement
with Supplier A expired and was replaced by a new crude oil
supply agreement with Supplier B (see note 18). Supplier A
has initiated discussions with CRRM concerning alleged certain
crude oil losses and other charges which Supplier A claims were
eligible to be passed through to CRRM under the terms of the
expired agreement. CRRM has offered a settlement with Supplier A
and accordingly has recorded a liability of approximately
$1,245,000 in accounts payable as of December 31, 2006.
During 2006, CRRM entered into a Lease Storage Agreement with
TEPPCO Crude Pipeline, L.P. (TEPPCO) whereby CRRM leases
400,000 barrels of shell capacity at TEPPCOs Cushing
tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma. In September 2006, CRRM
exercised its option to increase the shell capacity leased at
the facility subject to this agreement from 400,000 barrels
to 550,000 barrels. Pursuant to the agreement, CRRM is obligated
to pay a monthly per barrel fee regardless of the number of
barrels of crude oil actually stored at the leased facilities.
The obligation begins once the storage capacity is operational,
which is expected to occur in the first quarter of 2007.
During 2006, CRCT entered into a Pipeline Lease Agreement with
Magellan whereby CRCT leases sixty-two miles of eight inch
pipeline extending from Humboldt, Kansas to CRCTs
facilities located in Broome, Kansas. Pursuant to the lease
agreement, CRCT agrees to operate and maintain the leased
pipeline and agrees to pay Magellan a fixed annual rental in
advance. Expenses associated with this agreement, included in
cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) for the year ended December 31, 2006 totaled
approximately $76,042. The lease agreement expires on
July 31, 2008.
As a result of the adoption of FIN 47, Accounting for
Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, in 2005, CVR
recorded a net asset retirement obligation of $636,000 which was
included in other liabilities at December 31, 2005 and 2006.
From time to time, CVR is involved in various lawsuits arising
in the normal course of business, including matters such as
those described below under, Environmental, Health, and
Safety Matters, and those described above. Liabilities
related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs
are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Management
believes the company has accrued for losses for which it may
ultimately be responsible. It is possible managements
estimates of the outcomes will change within the next year due
to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement
negotiations. In the opinion of management, the ultimate
resolution of any other litigation matters is
F-38
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Environmental,
Health, and Safety (EHS) Matters
CVR is subject to various stringent federal, state, and local
EHS rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters
are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be
reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon
currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific
costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting
EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries.
Such liabilities include estimates of CVRs share of costs
attributable to potentially responsible parties which are
insolvent or otherwise unable to pay. All liabilities are
monitored and adjusted regularly as new facts emerge or changes
in law or technology occur.
CVR owns
and/or
operates manufacturing and ancillary operations at various
locations directly related to petroleum refining and
distribution and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore,
CVR has exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past
and present EHS conditions at some of these locations.
Through an Administrative Order issued to Original Predecessor
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended
(RCRA), CVR is a potential party responsible for conducting
corrective actions at its Coffeyville, Kansas and Phillipsburg,
Kansas facilities. In 2005, Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen
Fertilizers, LLC agreed to participate in the State of Kansas
Voluntary Cleanup and Property Redevelopment Program (VCPRP) to
address a reported release of urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) at the
Coffeyville UAN loading rack. As of December 31, 2005 and
2006, environmental accruals of $8,220,388 and $7,222,754
respectively, were reflected in the consolidated balance sheets
for probable and estimated costs for remediation of
environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Order
and the VCPRP, including amounts totaling $1,211,000 and
$1,827,649, respectively, included in other current liabilities.
The Successor accruals were determined based on an estimate of
payment costs through 2033, which scope of remediation was
arranged with the EPA and are discounted at the appropriate risk
free rates at December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively. The
accruals include estimated closure and post-closure costs of
approximately $1,812,000 and $1,857,000 for two landfills at
December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively. The estimated
future payments for these required obligations are as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Year
Ending December 31,
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
1,828
|
|
2008
|
|
|
904
|
|
2009
|
|
|
493
|
|
2010
|
|
|
341
|
|
2011
|
|
|
341
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
6,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undiscounted total
|
|
|
9,908
|
|
Less amounts representing interest
at 4.83%
|
|
|
2,685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
at December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
7,223
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its
environmental accruals. Based on current information and
regulatory requirements, management believes that the accruals
established for environmental expenditures are adequate.
F-39
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The EPA has issued regulations intended to limit amounts of
sulfur in diesel and gasoline. The EPA has granted Original
Predecessors petition for a technical hardship waiver with
respect to the date for compliance in meeting the
sulfur-lowering standards. Immediate Predecessor and Successor
spent approximately $2 million in 2004, $27 million in
2005, and $79 million in 2006 and, based on information
currently available, CVR anticipates spending approximately
$18 million in 2007, $0.5 million in 2008,
$5 million in 2009, and $20 million in 2010 to comply
with the low-sulfur rules. The entire amounts are expected to be
capitalized.
Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such
expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits.
For the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006 capital expenditures were approximately
$0, $2,563,295, $6,065,713, $20,165,483 and $144,793,610,
respectively, and were incurred to improve the environmental
compliance and efficiency of the operations.
CVR believes it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS
rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS
matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop
in the future will not have a material adverse effect on the
business, financial condition, or results of operations.
(15) Derivative
Financial Instruments
Gain (loss) on derivatives consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
304 Days
Ended
|
|
|
174 Days
Ended
|
|
|
|
233 Days
Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Realized loss on swap agreements
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(59,300,670
|
)
|
|
$
|
(46,768,651
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on swap
agreements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(235,851,568
|
)
|
|
|
126,771,145
|
|
Loss on termination of swap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,000,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain (loss) on other
agreements
|
|
|
(219,096
|
)
|
|
|
(7,664,725
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1,867,513
|
)
|
|
|
8,361,050
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on other
agreements
|
|
|
765,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,697,640
|
)
|
|
|
2,411,340
|
|
Realized gain (loss) on interest
rate swap agreements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(103,731
|
)
|
|
|
4,398,164
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on interest
rate swap agreements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,759,011
|
|
|
|
(679,908
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gain (loss) on derivatives
|
|
$
|
546,604
|
|
|
$
|
(7,664,725
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
(316,062,111
|
)
|
|
$
|
94,493,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CVR is subject to price fluctuations caused by supply
conditions, weather, economic conditions, and other factors and
to interest rate fluctuations. To manage price risk on crude oil
and other inventories and to fix margins on certain future
production, the Entities may enter into various derivative
transactions. In addition, the Successor, as further described
below, entered into certain commodity derivate contracts and an
interest rate swap as required by the long-term debt agreements.
CVR has adopted SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, which imposes
extensive record-keeping requirements in order to designate a
derivative financial instrument as a hedge. CVR holds derivative
instruments, such as exchange-traded crude oil futures, certain
over-the-counter
forward swap agreements, and interest rate swap agreements,
which it
F-40
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
believes provide an economic hedge on future transactions, but
such instruments are not designated as hedges. Gains or losses
related to the change in fair value and periodic settlements of
these derivative instruments are classified as gain (loss) on
derivatives.
At December 31, 2006, Successors Petroleum Segment
held commodity derivative contracts (swap agreements) for the
period from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 with a
related party (see note 16). The swap agreements were
originally executed on June 16, 2005 in conjunction with
the Subsequent Acquisition of the Immediate Predecessor and
required under the terms of the long-term debt agreements. The
notional quantities on the date of execution were
100,911,000 barrels of crude oil; 2,348,802,750 gallons of
unleaded gasoline and 1,889,459,250 gallons of heating oil. The
swap agreements were executed at the prevailing market rate at
the time of execution and Management believes the swap
agreements provide an economic hedge on future transactions. At
December 31, 2006 the notional open amounts under the swap
agreements were 65,656,000 barrels of crude oil;
1,380,876,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline and 1,376,676,000
gallons of heating oil. These positions resulted in unrealized
gains (losses) for the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006 of $(235,851,568), and $126,771,145 using
a valuation method that utilizes quoted market prices and
assumptions for the estimated forward yield curves of the
related commodities in periods when quoted market prices are
unavailable. The Petroleum Segment recorded $(59,300,670), and
$(46,768,651) in realized (losses) on these swap agreements for
the 233-day
period ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Successor entered certain crude oil, heating oil, and gasoline
option agreements with a related party (see notes 1 and
16) as of May 16, 2005. These agreements expired
unexercised on June 16, 2005 and resulted in an expense of
$25,000,000 reported in the accompanying consolidated statements
of operations as gain (loss) on derivatives for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005.
The Petroleum Segment also recorded
mark-to-market
net gains (losses), exclusive of the swap agreements described
above and the interest rate swaps described in the following
paragraph, in gain (loss) on derivatives of $546,604,
$(7,664,725), $(3,565,153), and $10,772,391 for the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively. All of the activity
related to the commodity derivative contracts is reported in the
Petroleum Segment.
At December 31, 2006, Successor held derivative contracts
known as interest rate swap agreements that converted
Successors floating-rate bank debt (see
note 11) into 4.038% fixed-rate debt on a notional
amount of $375,000,000. Half of the agreements are held with a
related party (as described in note 16), and the other half
are held with a financial institution that is a lender under
CVRs long-term debt agreements. The swap agreements carry
the following terms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
Period
Covered
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interest
Rate
|
|
|
December 31, 2006 to
March 30, 2007
|
|
$
|
375 million
|
|
|
|
4.038
|
%
|
March 31, 2007 to
June 29, 2007
|
|
|
325 million
|
|
|
|
4.038
|
%
|
June 29, 2007 to
March 30, 2008
|
|
|
325 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
March 31, 2008 to
March 30, 2009
|
|
|
250 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
March 31, 2009 to
March 30, 2010
|
|
|
180 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
March 31, 2010 to
June 29, 2010
|
|
|
110 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
CVR pays the fixed rates listed above and receives a floating
rate based on three-month LIBOR rates, with payments calculated
on the notional amounts listed above. The notional amounts do
not represent actual amounts exchanged by the parties but
instead represent the amounts on which the
F-41
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
contracts are based. The swap is settled quarterly and marked to
market at each reporting date, and all unrealized gains and
losses are currently recognized in income. Transactions related
to the interest rate swap agreements were not allocated to the
Petroleum or Nitrogen Fertilizer segments.
Mark-to-market
net gains on derivatives and quarterly settlements were
$7,655,280, and $3,718,256 for the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
(16) Related
Party Transactions
Pegasus Partners II, L.P. (Pegasus) was a majority owner of
Immediate Predecessor.
On March 3, 2004, Immediate Predecessor entered into a
management services agreement with an affiliate company of
Pegasus, Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P. (Affiliate) pursuant to
which Affiliate provided Immediate Predecessor with managerial
and advisory services. Amounts totaling approximately $545,000
and $1,000,000 relating to the agreement were expensed in
selling, general, and administrative expenses (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) for the 304 days ended
December 31, 2004 and for the 174 days ended
June 23, 2005, respectively. Immediate Predecessor expensed
approximately $455,000 in selling, general and administrative
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for legal
fees paid on behalf of Affiliate in lieu of the remaining
amounts owed under the management services agreement for the
304 days ended December 31, 2004.
Immediate Predecessor paid Affiliate a $4.0 million
transaction fee upon closing of the Initial Acquisition referred
to in note 1. The transaction fee relates to a
$2.5 million finders fee included in the cost of the
Initial Acquisition and $1.5 million in deferred financing
costs. The deferred financing cost was subsequently written off
in May 2004 as part of the refinancing. In conjunction with the
debt refinancing on May 10, 2004, a $1.25 million fee
was paid to Affiliate as a deferred financing cost and was
subsequently written-off immediately prior to the Subsequent
Acquisition.
GS Capital Partners V Fund, L.P. and related entities
(GS or Goldman Sachs Funds) and Kelso Investment
Associates VII, L.P. and related entity (Kelso or Kelso
Funds) are majority owners of Successor.
Successor paid companies related to GS and Kelso each equal
amounts totaling $6.0 million for transaction fees related
to the Subsequent Acquisition, as well as an additional
$0.7 million paid to GS for reimbursed expenses related to
the Subsequent Acquisition. These expenditures were included in
the cost of the Subsequent Acquisition referred to in
note 1.
An affiliate of GS is one of the lenders in conjunction with the
financing of the Subsequent Acquisition. Successor paid this
affiliate of GS a $22.1 million fee included in deferred
financing costs. For the 233 days ended December 31,
2005, Successor made interest payments of $1.8 million
recorded in interest expense and paid letter of credit fees of
approximately $155,000 recorded in selling, general, and
administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization), to this affiliate of GS. Additionally, a fee in
the amount of $125,000 was paid to this affiliate of GS for
assistance with modification of the credit facility in June 2006.
An affiliate of GS is one of the lenders in conjunction with the
refinancing on December 28, 2006. Successor paid this
affiliate of GS a $8,062,500 million fee and expense
reimbursements of $78,243 included in deferred financing costs.
On June 24, 2005, Successor entered into a management
services agreement with GS and Kelso pursuant to which GS and
Kelso provide Successor with managerial and advisory services.
In consideration for these services, an annual fee of
$1.0 million each is paid to GS and Kelso, plus
reimbursement for any
out-of-pocket
expenses. The agreement has a term ending on the date GS and
Kelso cease to own any interests in Successor. Relating to the
agreement, $1,310,416 and $2,315,937
F-42
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
were expensed in selling, general, and administrative expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the
233 days ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively. In addition, $1,046,575
and $0 were included in other current liabilities and
approximately $78,671 and $0 were included in accounts payable
at December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively.
Successor entered into certain crude oil, heating oil, and
gasoline swap agreements with a subsidiary of GS. The original
swap agreements were entered into on May 16, 2005 (as
described in note 1) and were terminated on
June 16, 2005, resulting in a $25 million loss on
termination of swap agreements for the 233 days ended
December 31, 2005. Additional swap agreements with this
subsidiary of GS were entered into on June 16, 2005, with
an expiration date of June 30, 2010 (as described in
note 15). Amounts totaling $(297,010,762) and $80,002,494
were reflected in gain (loss) on derivatives related to these
swap agreements for the 233 days ended December 31,
2005, and year ended December 31, 2006, respectively. In
addition, the consolidated balance sheet at December 31,
2005 and 2006 includes liabilities of $96,688,956 and
$36,894,802, respectively, included in current payable to swap
counterparty and $160,033,333 and $72,806,486 included in
long-term payable to swap counterparty, respectively.
On June 30, 2005, Successor entered into three
interest-rate swap agreements with the same subsidiary of GS (as
described in note 15). Amounts totaling $3,826,342 and
$1,857,801 were recognized related to these swap agreements for
the 233 days ended December 31, 2005 and year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively, and are reflected in gain
(loss) on derivatives. In addition, the consolidated balance
sheet at December 31, 2005 and 2006 includes $1,441,697 and
$1,533,738 in prepaid expenses and other current assets and
$2,441,216 and $2,014,504 in other long-term assets related to
the same agreements, respectively.
Effective December 30, 2005, Successor entered into a crude
oil supply agreement with a subsidiary of GS (Supplier). This
agreement replaces a similar contract held with an independent
party (see note 18). Both parties will negotiate the cost
of each barrel of crude oil to be purchased from a third party.
Successor will pay Supplier a fixed supply service fee per
barrel over the negotiated cost of each barrel of crude
purchased. The cost is adjusted further using a spread
adjustment calculation based on the time period the crude oil is
estimated to be delivered to the refinery, other market
conditions, and other factors deemed appropriate. The monthly
spread quantity for any delivery month at any time shall not
exceed approximately 3.1 million barrels. The initial term
of the agreement was to December 31, 2006. Successor and
Supplier agreed to extend the term of the Supply Agreement for
an additional 12 month period, January 1, 2007 through
December 31, 2007 and in connection with the extension
amended certain terms and conditions of the Supply Agreement.
$1,290,731 and $1,622,824 were recorded on the consolidated
balance sheet at December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively,
in prepaid expenses and other current assets for prepayment of
crude oil. $31,750,784 and $13,458,977 were recorded in
inventory and accounts payable at December 31, 2006.
Expenses associated with this agreement, included in cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
the year ended December 31, 2006 totaled approximately
$1,591,120,148.
The Company had a note receivable with an executive member of
management. During the period ended December 31, 2006, the
board of directors approved to forgive the note receivable and
related accrued interest receivable. The balance of the note
receivable forgiven was $350,000. Accrued interest receivable
forgiven was approximately $17,989. The total amount was charged
to compensation expense.
F-43
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(17) Business
Segments
CVR measures segment profit as operating income for Petroleum
and Nitrogen Fertilizer, CVRs two reporting segments,
based on the definitions provided in SFAS No. 131,
Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related
Information.
Petroleum
Principal products of the Petroleum Segment are refined fuels,
propane, and petroleum refining by-products including coke. CVR
uses the coke in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer at the
adjacent nitrogen fertilizer plant. For CVR, a $15-per-ton
transfer price is used to record intercompany sales on the part
of the Petroleum Segment and corresponding intercompany cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Segment. The intercompany transactions
are eliminated in the Other Segment. For Original Predecessor,
the coke was transferred from the Petroleum Segment to the
Nitrogen Fertilizer Segment at zero value such that no sales
revenue on the part of the Petroleum Segment or corresponding
cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) for the Nitrogen Fertilizer Segment was recorded.
Because Original Predecessor did not record these transfers in
its segment results and the information to restate these segment
results in Original Predecessor periods is not available,
financial results from those periods have not been restated. As
a result, the results of operations for Original Predecessor
periods are not comparable with those of Immediate Predecessor
or Successor periods. Intercompany sales included in Petroleum
net sales were $0, $4,297,440, $2,444,565, $2,782,455, and
$5,339,715 for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
The principal product of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Segment is
nitrogen fertilizer. Nitrogen fertilizer sales increased
throughout the periods presented as the on stream factor
improved. Intercompany cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) for the coke transfer described
above was $0, $4,300,516, $2,778,079, $2,574,908, and $5,241,927
for the
62-day
period ended March 2, 2004, the
304-day
period ended December 31, 2004, the
174-day
period ended June 23, 2005, the
233-day
period ended December 31, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2006, respectively.
Other
Segment
The Other Segment reflects intercompany eliminations, cash and
cash equivalents, all debt related activities, income tax
activities and other corporate activities that are not allocated
to the operating segments.
F-44
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
62-Day
Period
|
|
|
|
304-Day
Period
|
|
|
174-Day
Period
|
|
|
|
233-Day
Period
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Net sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
241,640,365
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,390,768,126
|
|
|
$
|
903,802,983
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,363,390,142
|
|
|
$
|
2,880,442,544
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
19,446,164
|
|
|
|
|
93,422,503
|
|
|
|
79,347,843
|
|
|
|
|
93,651,855
|
|
|
|
162,464,533
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment elimination
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,297,440
|
)
|
|
|
(2,444,565
|
)
|
|
|
|
(2,782,455
|
)
|
|
|
(5,339,715
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
261,086,529
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,479,893,189
|
|
|
$
|
980,706,261
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,454,259,542
|
|
|
$
|
3,037,567,362
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
217,375,945
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,228,074,299
|
|
|
$
|
761,719,405
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,156,208,301
|
|
|
$
|
2,422,717,768
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
4,073,232
|
|
|
|
|
20,433,642
|
|
|
|
9,125,852
|
|
|
|
|
14,503,824
|
|
|
|
25,898,902
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment elimination
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,300,516
|
)
|
|
|
(2,778,079
|
)
|
|
|
|
(2,574,908
|
)
|
|
|
(5,241,927
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
221,449,177
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,244,207,423
|
|
|
$
|
768,067,178
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,168,137,217
|
|
|
$
|
2,443,374,743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
14,925,611
|
|
|
|
$
|
73,231,607
|
|
|
$
|
52,611,148
|
|
|
|
$
|
56,159,473
|
|
|
$
|
135,296,759
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
8,427,851
|
|
|
|
|
43,752,777
|
|
|
|
28,302,714
|
|
|
|
|
29,153,729
|
|
|
|
63,683,224
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
23,353,462
|
|
|
|
$
|
116,984,384
|
|
|
$
|
80,913,862
|
|
|
|
$
|
85,313,202
|
|
|
$
|
198,979,983
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
271,284
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,522,464
|
|
|
$
|
770,728
|
|
|
|
$
|
15,566,987
|
|
|
$
|
33,016,619
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
160,719
|
|
|
|
|
855,289
|
|
|
|
316,446
|
|
|
|
|
8,360,911
|
|
|
|
17,125,897
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,208
|
|
|
|
40,831
|
|
|
|
|
26,133
|
|
|
|
862,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
432,003
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,445,961
|
|
|
$
|
1,128,005
|
|
|
|
$
|
23,954,031
|
|
|
$
|
51,004,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
7,687,745
|
|
|
|
$
|
77,094,034
|
|
|
$
|
76,654,428
|
|
|
|
$
|
123,044,854
|
|
|
$
|
245,577,550
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
3,514,997
|
|
|
|
|
22,874,227
|
|
|
|
35,267,752
|
|
|
|
|
35,731,056
|
|
|
|
36,842,252
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,076
|
|
|
|
333,514
|
|
|
|
|
(240,848
|
)
|
|
|
(811,869
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
11,202,742
|
|
|
|
$
|
99,971,337
|
|
|
$
|
112,255,694
|
|
|
|
$
|
158,535,062
|
|
|
$
|
281,607,933
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,267,244
|
|
|
$
|
10,790,042
|
|
|
|
$
|
42,107,751
|
|
|
$
|
223,553,105
|
|
Nitrogen fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,697,852
|
|
|
|
1,434,921
|
|
|
|
|
2,017,385
|
|
|
|
13,257,681
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195,184
|
|
|
|
31,830
|
|
|
|
|
1,046,998
|
|
|
|
3,414,606
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
14,160,280
|
|
|
$
|
12,256,793
|
|
|
|
$
|
45,172,134
|
|
|
$
|
240,225,392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-45
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
|
62-Day
Period
|
|
|
|
304-Day
Period
|
|
|
174-Day
Period
|
|
|
|
233-Day
Period
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
145,861,715
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
664,870,240
|
|
|
$
|
907,314,951
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,561,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
425,333,621
|
|
|
|
417,657,093
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(265,527
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131,344,042
|
|
|
|
124,507,471
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
229,157,337
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,221,547,903
|
|
|
$
|
1,449,479,515
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
42,806,422
|
|
|
$
|
42,806,422
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,968,463
|
|
|
|
40,968,463
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
$
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18) Major
Customers and Suppliers
Sales to major customers were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
62-Day
Period
|
|
|
304-Day
Period
|
|
174-Day
Period
|
|
|
233-Day
Period
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
Petroleum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer A
|
|
10%
|
|
|
18%
|
|
17%
|
|
|
16%
|
|
2%
|
Customer B
|
|
25%
|
|
|
10%
|
|
5%
|
|
|
6%
|
|
5%
|
Customer C
|
|
18%
|
|
|
17%
|
|
17%
|
|
|
15%
|
|
15%
|
Customer D
|
|
|
|
|
8%
|
|
14%
|
|
|
17%
|
|
10%
|
Customer E
|
|
9%
|
|
|
15%
|
|
11%
|
|
|
11%
|
|
10%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62%
|
|
|
68%
|
|
64%
|
|
|
65%
|
|
42%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer F
|
|
48%
|
|
|
24%
|
|
16%
|
|
|
10%
|
|
5%
|
Customer G
|
|
0%
|
|
|
5%
|
|
9%
|
|
|
10%
|
|
6%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48%
|
|
|
29%
|
|
25%
|
|
|
20%
|
|
11%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-46
The Petroleum Segment maintains long-term contracts with one
supplier for the purchase of its crude oil. The agreement with
Supplier A expired in December 2005, at which time
Successor entered into a similar arrangement with
Supplier B, a related party (as described in note 16).
Purchases contracted as a percentage of the total cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
each of the periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
62-Day
Period
|
|
|
304-Day
Period
|
|
174-Day
Period
|
|
|
233-Day
Period
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplier A
|
|
34%
|
|
|
68%
|
|
82%
|
|
|
73%
|
|
0%
|
Supplier B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34%
|
|
|
68%
|
|
82%
|
|
|
73%
|
|
67%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Nitrogen Fertilizer Segment maintains long-term contracts
with one supplier. Purchases from this supplier as a percentage
of direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original
Predecessor
|
|
|
Immediate
Predecessor
|
|
|
Successor
|
|
|
62-Day
Period
|
|
|
304-Day
Period
|
|
174-Day
Period
|
|
|
233-Day
Period
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
March 2,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
June 23,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplier
|
|
4%
|
|
|
5%
|
|
4%
|
|
|
5%
|
|
8%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-47
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Note 2)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
41,919,260
|
|
|
$
|
7,607,943
|
|
|
|
2,940,662
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of
allowance for doubtful accounts of $375,443 and $140,109,
respectively
|
|
|
69,589,161
|
|
|
|
25,197,308
|
|
|
|
25,197,308
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
161,432,793
|
|
|
|
184,418,775
|
|
|
|
184,418,775
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
18,524,017
|
|
|
|
19,229,965
|
|
|
|
15,537,031
|
|
Income tax receivable
|
|
|
32,099,163
|
|
|
|
17,210,500
|
|
|
|
12,983,750
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
18,888,660
|
|
|
|
3,765,991
|
|
|
|
3,765,991
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
342,453,054
|
|
|
|
257,430,482
|
|
|
|
244,843,517
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net
of accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
1,007,155,873
|
|
|
|
1,113,555,099
|
|
|
|
1,114,953,618
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
638,456
|
|
|
|
584,081
|
|
|
|
584,081
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
Deferred financing costs, net
|
|
|
9,128,258
|
|
|
|
8,652,412
|
|
|
|
8,652,412
|
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
6,328,989
|
|
|
|
5,368,712
|
|
|
|
5,368,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
1,449,479,515
|
|
|
$
|
1,469,365,671
|
|
|
|
1,458,177,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
5,797,981
|
|
|
$
|
7,720,986
|
|
|
|
4,931,468
|
|
Revolving debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,500,000
|
|
|
|
29,500,000
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
138,911,088
|
|
|
|
194,575,263
|
|
|
|
193,865,048
|
|
Personnel accruals
|
|
|
24,731,283
|
|
|
|
20,220,754
|
|
|
|
20,220,754
|
|
Accrued taxes other than income
taxes
|
|
|
9,034,841
|
|
|
|
7,902,013
|
|
|
|
7,902,013
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
36,894,802
|
|
|
|
131,071,839
|
|
|
|
131,071,839
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
8,812,350
|
|
|
|
13,879,211
|
|
|
|
13,879,211
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
6,017,435
|
|
|
|
22,345,237
|
|
|
|
22,345,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
230,199,780
|
|
|
|
427,215,303
|
|
|
|
423,715,570
|
|
Long-term liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, less current portion
|
|
|
769,202,019
|
|
|
|
767,279,014
|
|
|
|
490,068,532
|
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
|
|
5,395,105
|
|
|
|
5,879,762
|
|
|
|
5,879,762
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
284,122,958
|
|
|
|
227,709,397
|
|
|
|
227,709,397
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
72,806,486
|
|
|
|
107,972,734
|
|
|
|
107,972,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,131,526,568
|
|
|
|
1,108,840,907
|
|
|
|
831,630,425
|
|
Minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
|
4,326,188
|
|
|
|
3,650,441
|
|
|
|
10,600,000
|
|
Management voting common units
subject to redemption, 201,063 units issued and outstanding
in 2006 and 2007, respectively
|
|
|
6,980,907
|
|
|
|
7,101,545
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voting common units,
22,614,937 units issued and outstanding in 2006 and 2007,
respectively
|
|
|
73,593,326
|
|
|
|
(80,901,264
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Management nonvoting override
units, 2,976,353 units issued and outstanding in 2006 and
2007, respectively
|
|
|
2,852,746
|
|
|
|
3,458,739
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members equity
|
|
|
76,446,072
|
|
|
|
(77,442,525
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRO FORMA STOCKHOLDERS
EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value,
350,000,000 shares authorized; 81,641,591 shares
issued and outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
816,416
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191,414,814
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pro forma stockholders
equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192,231,230
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$
|
1,449,479,515
|
|
|
$
|
1,469,365,671
|
|
|
|
1,458,177,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to condensed
consolidated financial statements.
F-48
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
669,727,347
|
|
|
$
|
390,482,819
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
539,538,749
|
|
|
|
303,670,229
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
44,287,963
|
|
|
|
113,411,569
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization)
|
|
|
8,493,544
|
|
|
|
13,149,892
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
12,003,797
|
|
|
|
14,235,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
604,324,053
|
|
|
|
444,467,121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
65,403,294
|
|
|
|
(53,984,302
|
)
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and other
financing costs
|
|
|
(12,206,618
|
)
|
|
|
(11,856,624
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
590,075
|
|
|
|
451,984
|
|
Loss on derivatives
|
|
|
(17,615,311
|
)
|
|
|
(136,959,221
|
)
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
57,615
|
|
|
|
764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(29,174,239
|
)
|
|
|
(148,363,097
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
and minority interest in subsidiaries
|
|
|
36,229,055
|
|
|
|
(202,347,399
|
)
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
14,106,160
|
|
|
|
(47,297,700
|
)
|
Minority interest in (income) loss
of subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
675,747
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
22,122,895
|
|
|
$
|
(154,373,952
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited Pro Forma Information
(Note 2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per common
share
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
$
|
(1.89
|
)
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per common
share
|
|
|
0.27
|
|
|
|
(1.89
|
)
|
Basic weighted average common
shares outstanding
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
Diluted weighted average common
shares outstanding
|
|
|
81,659,091
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial
statements.
F-49
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
22,122,895
|
|
|
$
|
(154,373,952
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income
(loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
12,003,797
|
|
|
|
14,235,431
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(82
|
)
|
|
|
(235,334
|
)
|
Amortization of deferred financing
costs
|
|
|
828,027
|
|
|
|
473,386
|
|
Loss on disposition of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,268
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
454,704
|
|
|
|
605,993
|
|
Minority interest in loss of
subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(675,747
|
)
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
14,265,218
|
|
|
|
44,627,187
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(22,461,422
|
)
|
|
|
(22,985,982
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
1,272,209
|
|
|
|
(703,488
|
)
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
(2,064,719
|
)
|
|
|
923,600
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(16,531,014
|
)
|
|
|
46,538,770
|
|
Accrued income taxes
|
|
|
16,750,737
|
|
|
|
14,888,663
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
(6,266,630
|
)
|
|
|
5,066,861
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(7,714,984
|
)
|
|
|
6,605,784
|
|
Payable to swap counterparty
|
|
|
3,399,919
|
|
|
|
129,343,285
|
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
|
|
|
(360,789
|
)
|
|
|
484,657
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(7,665,577
|
)
|
|
|
(41,290,892
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
8,032,289
|
|
|
|
43,552,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(29,312,829
|
)
|
|
|
(107,363,807
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
|
(29,312,829
|
)
|
|
|
(107,363,807
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving debt borrowings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,500,000
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term
debt
|
|
|
10,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(561,094
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of note receivable
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
9,588,906
|
|
|
|
29,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash
equivalents
|
|
|
(11,691,634
|
)
|
|
|
(34,311,317
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents,
beginning of period
|
|
|
64,703,524
|
|
|
|
41,919,260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of
period
|
|
$
|
53,011,890
|
|
|
$
|
7,607,943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes, net of
refunds (received)
|
|
$
|
5,021,000
|
|
|
$
|
(20,895,471
|
)
|
Cash paid for interest
|
|
$
|
12,278,266
|
|
|
$
|
39,318
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrual of construction in progress
additions including $4,078,661 in capitalized interest
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,204,066
|
|
See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial
statements.
F-50
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited)
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
(1) Organization
and Basis of Presentation
On June 24, 2005, Coffeyville Acquisition LLC (CALLC)
acquired all of the outstanding stock of Coffeyville
Refining & Marketing, Inc. (CRM); Coffeyville Nitrogen
Fertilizers, Inc. (CNF); Coffeyville Crude Transportation, Inc.
(CCT); Coffeyville Pipeline, Inc. (CP); and Coffeyville
Terminal, Inc. (CT) (collectively, CRIncs) (Subsequent
Acquisition). CRIncs collectively own 100% of CL JV Holdings,
LLC (CLJV), and through CLJV they collectively own 100% of
Coffeyville Resources, LLC (CRLLC) and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC (CRRM); Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen
Fertilizers, LLC (CRNF); Coffeyville Resources Crude
Transportation, LLC (CRCT); Coffeyville Resources Pipeline, LLC
(CRP); and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC (CRT).
CALLC, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, acts as an
independent petroleum refiner and marketer in the
mid-continental United States and a producer and marketer of
upgraded nitrogen fertilizer products in North America.
CALLC formed CVR Energy, Inc. as a wholly owned subsidiary in
Delaware in September 2006 in order to effect the initial public
offering. CVR has assumed that concurrent with this offering, a
newly formed direct subsidiary of CVRs will merge with
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc. (CRM) and a
separate newly formed direct subsidiary of CVRs will merge
with Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. (CNF) which will
make CRM and CNF direct wholly owned subsidiaries of CVR.
Prior to the consummation of this offering, CVR intends to
transfer CRNF, its nitrogen fertilizer business, to a newly
created limited partnership (Partnership) in exchange for a
managing general partner interest (managing GP) and a special
general partner interest (special GP interest). CVR intends to
sell the managing GP interest to an entity owned by our
controlling stockholders and senior management at fair market
value prior to the consummation of this offering.
The fair value of the managing general partner interest was
determined, after consultation with management and a third party
valuation firm, by calculating the projected cash flows due to
the managing general partner under the terms of the
Partnerships limited partnership agreement, subject to an
appropriate discount. The Partnerships cash distributions
were assumed to be flat at expected forward fertilizer prices,
with cash reserves developed in periods of high prices and cash
reserves reduced in periods of lower prices. The
Partnerships projected cash flows utilized for the
valuation were calculated based on estimates of production
volumes and operating costs which were developed by management
based on historical operations and experience. Price projections
were based on information received from Blue Johnson &
Associates, a fertilizer industry consultant in the United
States, which CVR routinely uses for fertilizer market analysis.
In conjunction with CVRs ownership of the special GP
interest, it will initially own all of the interests in the
Partnership (other than the managing general partner interest
and associated IDRs described below) and will initially be
entitled to all cash that is distributed by the Partnership. The
managing GP will not be entitled to participate in Partnership
distributions except in respect of associated incentive
distribution rights, or IDRs, which entitle the managing GP to
receive increasing percentages of the Partnerships
quarterly distributions if the Partnership increases its
distributions above an amount specified in the Partnerships
Agreement. The Partnership will not make any distributions with
respect to the IDRs until the Aggregate Adjusted Operating
Surplus, as defined in the Partnership Agreement, generated by
the Partnership during the period from its formation through
June 30, 2009 has been distributed in respect of the
special GP interests, which CVR will hold,
and/or the
Partnerships common and subordinated interests (none of
which are yet outstanding, but which would be issued if the
Partnership issues equity in the future). In addition,
F-51
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
there will be no distributions paid on the managing GP IDRs for
so long as the Partnership or its subsidiaries are guarantors
under CRLLCs Credit Facility.
The Partnership will be primarily managed by the managing GP,
but will be operated by CVRs senior management pursuant to
a management services agreement to be entered into among CVR,
the managing GP, and the Partnership. In addition, CVR will have
approval rights regarding the appointment, termination, and
compensation of the chief executive officer and chief financial
officer of the managing GP, will designate one member of the
board of directors of the managing GP, and will have approval
rights regarding specified major business decisions by the
managing GP.
The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements were prepared in accordance with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
CVR Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries (CVR or the Company). All
significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been
eliminated in consolidation. Certain information and footnotes
required for the complete financial statements under
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles have not been
included pursuant to such rules and regulations. These unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in
conjunction with the December 31, 2006 audited financial
statements and notes thereto of CVR.
In the opinion of the Companys management, the
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements reflect all adjustments (consisting only of normal
recurring adjustments) that are necessary to fairly present the
financial position as of December 31, 2006 and
March 31, 2007, and the results of operations and cash
flows for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and
March 31, 2007.
Results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods
presented are not necessarily indicative of the results that
will be realized for the year ending December 31, 2007 or
any other interim period. The preparation of financial
statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affected the reported amounts of
assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and the disclosure
of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could
differ from those estimates.
(2) Unaudited
Pro Forma Information
Earnings per share is calculated on a pro forma basis, based on
an assumed number of shares outstanding at the time of the
initial public offering. Pro forma earnings per share assumes
that in conjunction with the initial public offering, CRM and
CNF will merge with two of CVRs direct wholly owned
subsidiaries; prior to the completion of this offering, CVR will
effect a 658,619.93 for 1 stock split; CVR will issue
252,448 shares of its common stock to an executive officer
in exchange for his shares in two of CVRs subsidiaries,
CVR will issue 27,150 shares of its common stock to its
employees, CVR will issue 17,500 shares of its common stock
to two board of director members and CVR will issue
15,500,000 shares of common stock in this offering. No
effect has been given to any shares that might be sold in this
offering pursuant to the exercise by the underwriters of their
option. For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the
17,500 nonvested restricted shares of CVR common stock to be
issued to two directors have been excluded from the calculation
of pro forma diluted earnings per share because the inclusion of
such shares in the number of weighted average shares outstanding
would be antidilutive.
F-52
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
Pro forma earnings (loss) per share for the three months ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007 is calculated as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
2006
|
|
|
March 31,
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
22,122,895
|
|
|
$
|
(154,373,952
|
)
|
Pro forma weighted average shares
outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing CVR common shares
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
Effect of 658,619.93 to 1 stock
split
|
|
|
65,861,893
|
|
|
|
65,861,893
|
|
Issuance of common shares to
management
in exchange for subsidiary shares
|
|
|
252,448
|
|
|
|
252,448
|
|
Issuance of common shares to
employees
|
|
|
27,150
|
|
|
|
27,150
|
|
Issuance of common shares in this
offering
|
|
|
15,500,000
|
|
|
|
15,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares
outstanding
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
Dilutive securities
issuance of nonvested common
shares to board directors
|
|
|
17,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares
outstanding
|
|
|
81,659,091
|
|
|
|
81,641,591
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma basic earnings (loss)
per share
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
$
|
(1.89
|
)
|
Pro forma dilutive earnings (loss)
per share
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
$
|
(1.89
|
)
|
The pro forma balance sheet assumes the following transactions
occurred on March 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
The payment of a $10.6 million dividend to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The receipt of gross proceeds of $10.6 million for the sale
of the managing general partner interest in the Partnership,
through sale of the managing general partner, to Coffeyville
Acquisition III LLC at estimated fair market value, as
determined after consultation with management and a third party
valuation firm, resulting in a taxable gain to the Company;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The exchange of the Companys chief executive
officers shares in two of CVRs subsidiaries for
shares of CVR common stock at fair market value, resulting in an
estimated
step-up in
basis in the Companys property, plant, and equipment of
approximately $1.4 million;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issuance of 15,500,000 shares of CVR common stock as a
result of the public offering at an assumed initial offering
price of $20.00 per share, resulting in aggregate gross
proceeds of $310.0 million;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The payment of underwriters discounts and commissions and
estimated offering expenses totaling approximately
$27.65 million of which $3.0 million had been prepaid
as of March 31, 2007 and $0.7 million had been accrued
as of March 31, 2007;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conversion from a partnership structure to a corporate
structure;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The repayment of term debt of $280 million with the net
proceeds of the offering; and
|
F-53
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
The payment of a $10.0 million termination fee in
connection with the termination of the management agreements
payable to Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Kelso &
Company, L.P. in conjunction with the offering.
|
(3) New
Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued Statement on Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)
No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, which establishes
a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements.
SFAS 157 states that fair value is the price
that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the
liability (an exit price), not the price that would be paid to
acquire the asset or received to assume the liability (an entry
price). The statement is effective for financial
statements issued for fiscal years beginning after
November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal
years. We are currently evaluating the effect that this
statement will have on our financial statements.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities. Under this standard, an entity is required to
provide additional information that will assist investors and
other users of financial information to more easily understand
the effect of the companys choice to use fair value on its
earnings. Further, the entity is required to display the fair
value of those assets and liabilities for which the company has
chosen to use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. This
standard does not eliminate the disclosure requirements about
fair value measurements included in SFAS No. 107,
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments.
SFAS 159 is effective for fiscal years beginning after
November 15, 2007. We are currently evaluating the
potential adoption impact that SFAS 159 will have on our
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
(4) Members
Equity
Common units held by management contain put rights held by
management and call rights held by CALLC exercisable at fair
value in the event the management member becomes inactive.
Accordingly, in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force Topic
No. D-98,
Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities,
common units held by management were initially recorded at fair
value at the date of issuance and have been classified in
temporary equity as Management Voting Common Units Subject to
Redemption (capital subject to redemption) in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheets.
The put rights with respect to managements common units
provide that following their termination of employment, they
have the right to sell all (but not less than all) of their
common units to CALLC at their Fair Market Value (as
that term is defined in the LLC Agreement) if they were
terminated without Cause, or as a result of death,
Disability or resignation with Good
Reason (each as defined in the LLC Agreement) or due to
Retirement (as that term is defined in the LLC
Agreement). CALLC has call rights with respect to the
executives common units, so that following the
executives termination of employment, CALLC has the right
to purchase the common units at their Fair Market Value if the
executive was terminated without Cause, or as a result of the
executives death, Disability or resignation with Good
Reason or due to Retirement. The call price will be the lesser
of the common units Fair Market Value or Carrying Value
(which means the capital contribution, if any, made by the
executive in respect of such interest less the amount of
distributions made in respect of such interest) if the executive
is terminated for Cause or he resigns without Good Reason. For
any other termination of employment, the call price will be at
the Fair Market Value or Carrying Value of such common units, in
the sole discretion of CALLCs board of directors. No put
or call rights apply to override units following the
executives termination of employment
F-54
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
unless CALLCs board of directors (or the compensation
committee thereof) determines in its discretion that put and
call rights will apply.
CVR accounts for changes in redemption value of management
common units in the period the changes occur and adjusts the
carrying value of the capital subject to redemption to equal the
redemption value at the end of each reporting period with an
equal and offsetting adjustment to Members Equity. None of
the capital subject to redemption was redeemable at
December 31, 2006 or March 31, 2007.
At March 31, 2007, the capital subject to redemption was
revalued through an independent appraisal process, and the value
was determined to be $35.32 per unit. The appraisal
utilized a discounted cash flow (DCF) method, a variation of the
income approach, and the guideline public company method, a
variation of the market approach, to determine the fair value.
The guideline public company method utilized a weighting of
market multiples from publicly-traded petroleum refiners and
fertilizer manufactures that are comparable to the Company. The
recognition of the value of $35.32 per unit increased the
carrying value of the capital subject to redemption by
$1,481,038 for the three months ended March 31, 2007 with
an equal and offsetting decrease to members equity. This
increase was the result of higher forward market price
assumptions, which were consistent with what was observed in the
market during the period, in the refining business resulting in
increased free cash flow projections utilized in the DCF method.
The market multiples for the public-traded comparable companies
also increased from December 31, 2006, resulting in
increased value of the units.
Concurrent with the Subsequent Acquisition, CALLC issued
nonvoting override operating units to certain management members
holding common units. There were no required capital
contributions for the override operating units.
919,630
override operating units at an adjusted benchmark value of
$11.31 per unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R) Share Based Payments,
using the Monte Carlo method of valuation, the estimated fair
value of the override operating units on June 24, 2005 was
$3,604,950. Pursuant to the forfeiture schedule described below,
the Company is recognizing compensation expense over the service
period for each separate portion of the award for which the
forfeiture restriction lapsed as if the award was, in-substance,
multiple awards. Compensation expense of $285,339 was recognized
for both the three months ending March 31, 2006 and 2007.
Significant assumptions used in the valuation were as follows:
|
|
|
Estimated
forfeiture rate
|
|
None
|
Explicit service
period
|
|
Based on forfeiture schedule below
|
Grant-date fair
value controlling basis
|
|
$5.16 per share
|
Marketability
and minority interest discounts
|
|
$1.24 per share (24% discount)
|
Volatility
|
|
37%
|
On December 28, 2006, CALLC issued additional nonvoting
override operating units to a certain management member who
holds common units. There were no required capital contributions
for the override operating units.
72,492
override operating units at a benchmark value of $34.72 per
unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), a combination of a binomial
model and a probability-weighted expected return method which
utilized the companys cash flow projections resulted in an
estimated fair value of the override operating units on
December 28, 2006 was $472,648. Management believes that
this method is preferable for the valuation of the override
units as it allows a better integration of the cash flows
F-55
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
with other inputs, including the timing of potential exit events
that impact the estimated fair value of the override units.
Pursuant to the forfeiture schedule described below, the Company
is recognizing compensation expense over the service period for
each separate portion of the award for which the forfeiture
restriction lapsed as if the award was, in-substance, multiple
awards. Compensation expense for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 was $99,733. Significant assumptions used in
the valuation were as follows:
|
|
|
Estimated
forfeiture rate
|
|
None
|
Explicit service
period
|
|
Based on forfeiture schedule below
|
Grant-date fair
value controlling basis
|
|
$8.15 per share
|
Marketability
and minority interest discounts
|
|
$1.63 per share (20% discount)
|
Volatility
|
|
41%
|
Override operating units participate in distributions in
proportion to the number of total common, non-forfeited override
operating and participating override value units issued.
Distributions to override operating units will be reduced until
the total cumulative reductions are equal to the benchmark
value. Override operating units are forfeited upon termination
of employment for cause. In the event of all other terminations
of employment, the override operating units are initially
subject to forfeiture with the number of units subject to
forfeiture reducing as follows:
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
|
Period
|
|
Forfeiture
|
Held
|
|
Percentage
|
|
2 years
|
|
75%
|
3 years
|
|
50%
|
4 years
|
|
25%
|
5 years
|
|
0%
|
On the tenth anniversary of the issuance of override operating
units, such units shall convert into an equivalent number of
override value units.
Concurrent with the Subsequent Acquisition, CALLC issued
nonvoting override value units to certain management members who
hold common units. There were no required capital contributions
for the override value units.
1,839,265
override value units at an adjusted benchmark value of
$11.31 per unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), using the Monte Carlo
method of valuation, the estimated fair value of the override
value units on June 24, 2005 was $4,064,776. For the
override value units, CVR is recognizing compensation expense
ratably over the implied service period of 6 years.
Compensation expense of $169,366 was recognized for both the
three months ending March 31, 2006 and 2007. Significant
assumptions used in the valuation were as follows:
|
|
|
Estimated
forfeiture rate
|
|
None
|
Derived service
period
|
|
6 years
|
Grant-date fair
value controlling basis
|
|
$2.91 per share
|
Marketability
and minority interest discounts
|
|
$0.70 per share (24% discount)
|
Volatility
|
|
37%
|
F-56
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
On December 28, 2006, the Company issued additional
nonvoting override value units to a certain management member
who holds common units. There were no required capital
contributions for the override value units.
144,966
override value units at a benchmark value of $34.72 per
unit
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), a combination of a binomial
model and a probability-weighted expected return method which
utilized the Companys cash flow projections resulted in an
estimated fair value of the override value units on
December 28, 2006 of $945,178. Management believes that
this method is preferable for the valuation of the override
units as it allows a better integration of the cash flows with
other inputs, including the timing of potential exit events that
impact the estimated fair value of the override units. For the
override value units, CVR is recognizing compensation expense
ratably over the implied service period of 6 years.
Compensation expense for the three months ended March 31,
2007 was $51,555. Significant assumptions used in the valuation
were as follows:
|
|
|
Estimated
forfeiture rate
|
|
None
|
Derived service
period
|
|
6 years
|
Grant-date fair
value controlling basis
|
|
$8.15 per share
|
Marketability
and minority interest discounts
|
|
$1.63 per share (20% discount)
|
Volatility
|
|
41%
|
Value units fully participate in cash distributions when the
amount of such cash distributions to certain investors (Current
Common Value) is equal to four times the original contributed
capital of such investors (including the Delayed Draw Capital
required to be contributed pursuant to the long term credit
agreements). If the Current Common Value is less than two times
the original contributed capital of such investors at the time
of a distribution, none of the override value units participate.
In the event the Current Common Value is greater than two times
the original contributed capital of such investors but less than
four times, the number of participating override value units is
the product of 1) the number of issued override value units
and 2) the fraction, the numerator of which is the Current
Common Value minus two times original contributed capital, and
the denominator of which is two times the original contributed
capital. Distributions to participating override value units
will be reduced until the total cumulative reductions are equal
to the benchmark value. On the tenth anniversary of any override
value unit (including any override value unit issued on the
conversion of an override operating unit) the two
times threshold referenced above will become 10
times and the four times threshold referenced
above will become 12 times. Unless the compensation
committee of the board of directors takes an action to prevent
forfeiture, override value units are forfeited upon termination
of employment for any reason except that in the event of
termination of employment by reason of death or disability, all
override value units are initially subject to forfeiture with
the number of units subject to forfeiture reducing as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
Subject
to
|
Period
|
|
Forfeiture
|
Held
|
|
Percentage
|
|
2 years
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
3 years
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
4 years
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
5 years
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
F-57
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
At March 31, 2007, there was approximately
$5.6 million of unrecognized compensation expense related
to nonvoting override units. This is expected to be recognized
over a period of five years as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Override
|
|
|
Override
|
|
|
|
Operating
Units
|
|
|
Value
Units
|
|
|
Nine months ending
December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
812,974
|
|
|
$
|
662,763
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2008
|
|
|
670,385
|
|
|
|
883,684
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2009
|
|
|
344,178
|
|
|
|
883,684
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2010
|
|
|
102,079
|
|
|
|
883,684
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
385,383
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,929,616
|
|
|
$
|
3,699,198
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CALLC, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, has a Phantom Unit
Appreciation Plan whereby directors, employees, and service
providers may be awarded phantom points at the discretion of the
board of directors or the compensation committee. Holders of
service phantom points have rights to receive distributions when
holders of override operating units receive distributions.
Holders of performance phantom points have rights to receive
distributions when holders of override value units receive
distributions. There are no other rights or guarantees, and the
plan expires on July 25, 2015, or at the discretion of the
compensation committee of the board of directors. The total
combined interest of the Phantom Unit Plan and the override
units (combined Profits Interest) cannot exceed 15% of the
notional and aggregate equity interests of the Company. As of
March 31, 2007, the issued Profits Interest represented 15%
of combined common unit interest and Profits Interest of the
Company. The Profits Interest was comprised of 11.1% and 3.9% of
override interest and phantom interest, respectively. In
accordance with SFAS 123(R), using a binomial model and a
probability-weighted expected return method as a method of
valuation, through an independent valuation process, the service
phantom interest was valued at $37.30 per point and the
performance phantom interest was valued at $30.67 per
point. CVR has recorded $10,817,390 and $13,953,005 in personnel
accruals as of December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007,
respectively. Compensation expense for the three month ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007 related to the Phantom Unit Plan
was $585,701 and $3,135,615, respectively.
At March 31, 2007 there was approximately
$20.6 million of unrecognized compensation expense related
to the Phantom Unit Plan. This is expected to be recognized over
a period of five years.
(5) Inventories
Inventories consist primarily of crude oil, blending stock and
components, work in progress, fertilizer products, and refined
fuels and by-products. Inventories are valued at the lower of
moving-average cost, which approximates the
first-in,
first-out (FIFO) method, or market for fertilizer products and
at the lower of FIFO cost or market for refined fuels and
by-products for all periods presented. Refinery unfinished and
finished products inventory values were determined using the
ability-to-bare
process, whereby raw materials and production costs are
allocated to
work-in-process
and finished products based on their relative fair values. Other
inventories, including other raw materials, spare parts, and
supplies, are valued at the lower of average cost, which
approximates FIFO, or market. The cost of inventories includes
inbound freight costs.
F-58
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
Inventories consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
$
|
59,722
|
|
|
$
|
57,049
|
|
Raw materials and catalysts
|
|
|
60,810
|
|
|
|
85,921
|
|
In-process inventories
|
|
|
18,441
|
|
|
|
20,683
|
|
Parts and supplies
|
|
|
22,460
|
|
|
|
20,766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
161,433
|
|
|
$
|
184,419
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6) Planned
Major Maintenance Costs
The direct-expense method of accounting is used for planned
major maintenance activities. Maintenance costs are recognized
as expense when maintenance services are performed. The
Coffeyville nitrogen plant last completed a major scheduled
turnaround in the third quarter of 2006. The Coffeyville
refinery started a major scheduled turnaround in February 2007
with completion in April 2007. Costs of approximately
$66,000,000 associated with the 2007 turnaround were included in
direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) for the three months ended March 31, 2007.
(7) Cost
Classifications
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) includes cost of crude oil, other feedstocks,
blendstocks, pet coke expense and freight and distribution
expenses. Cost of product sold excludes depreciation and
amortization of $511,053, and $619,364 for the three months
ended March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) includes direct costs of labor, maintenance and
services, energy and utility costs, environmental compliance
costs as well as chemicals and catalysts and other direct
operating expenses. Direct operating expenses exclude
depreciation and amortization of $11,409,248, and $13,530,107
for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2007,
respectively.
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) consist primarily of legal
expenses, treasury, accounting, marketing, human resources and
maintaining the corporate offices in Texas and Kansas. Selling,
general and administrative expenses excludes depreciation and
amortization of $83,496, and $85,960 for the three months ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
(8) Income
Taxes
In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No.
(FIN) 48, Accounting for Uncertain Tax
Positions an interpretation of FASB SFAS
No. 109. FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprises
financial statements in accordance with SFAS 109, by prescribing
a minimum financial statement recognition threshold and
measurement attribute for a tax position taken or expected to be
taken in a tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on
derecognition, classification, interest and penalties,
accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition.
F-59
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
The Company adopted the provisions of FIN 48 on
January 1, 2007. The adoption of FIN 48 did not affect
the Companys financial position or results of operations.
The Company does not have any unrecognized tax benefits as of
January 1, 2007 or March 31, 2007.
Accordingly, the Company did not accrue or recognize any amounts
for interest or penalties in its financial statements during the
first quarter of 2007. The Company will classify interest to be
paid on an underpayment of income taxes and any related
penalties as income tax expense if it is determined, in a
subsequent period, that a tax position is more likely than not
of being sustained by the taxing authority.
CVR Energy and its Subsidiaries file U.S. federal and
various state income tax returns. The Company has not been
subject to U.S. federal, state and local income tax
examinations by tax authorities for any tax year. The
U.S. federal and state tax years subject to examination are
2004 to 2006.
The Companys effective tax rate for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 was 23.37%, as compared to the
Companys effective tax rate of 38.94% for the three months
ended March 31, 2006. The effective tax rate was lower
primarily due to the federal income tax credit available to
small business refiners related to the production of ultra low
sulfur diesel fuel.
(9) Commitments
and Contingent Liabilities
The minimum required payments for the Companys lease
agreements and unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
Unconditional
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
Purchase
Obligations
|
|
Nine months ending
December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
2,601,617
|
|
|
$
|
18,954,147
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2008
|
|
|
3,888,005
|
|
|
|
20,734,729
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,940,633
|
|
|
|
20,701,745
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2010
|
|
|
1,591,818
|
|
|
|
18,310,265
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2011
|
|
|
857,494
|
|
|
|
16,440,347
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2012
|
|
|
106,038
|
|
|
|
13,772,144
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
2,025
|
|
|
|
132,242,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,987,630
|
|
|
$
|
241,155,825
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company leases various equipment and real properties under
long-term operating leases. For the three month periods ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007, lease expense totaled $900,434,
and $1,007,124, respectively. The lease agreements have various
remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at the
Companys option, for additional periods. It is expected,
in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed
or replaced as they expire.
From time to time, the Company is involved in various lawsuits
arising in the normal course of business, including matters such
as those described below under, Environmental, Health, and
Safety Matters. Liabilities related to such litigation are
recognized when the related costs are probable and can be
reasonably estimated. Management believes the company has
accrued for losses for which it may ultimately be responsible.
It is possible that managements estimates of the outcomes
will change within the next year due to uncertainties inherent
in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of
management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation
matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.
F-60
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
Environmental,
Health, and Safety (EHS) Matters
CVR is subject to various stringent federal, state, and local
EHS rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters
are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be
reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon
currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific
costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting
EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries.
Such liabilities include estimates of the Companys share
of costs attributable to potentially responsible parties which
are insolvent or otherwise unable to pay. All liabilities are
monitored and adjusted regularly as new facts emerge or changes
in law or technology occur.
CVR owns
and/or
operates manufacturing and ancillary operations at various
locations directly related to petroleum refining and
distribution and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore,
CVR has exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past
and present EHS conditions at some of these locations.
Through an Administrative Order issued to Farmland Industries,
Inc. (predecessor entity to CVR) under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA), CVR is a potential party
responsible for conducting corrective actions at its
Coffeyville, Kansas and Phillipsburg, Kansas facilities. In
2005, Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC agreed to
participate in the State of Kansas Voluntary Cleanup and
Property Redevelopment Program (VCPRP) to address a reported
release of urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) at the Coffeyville UAN
loading rack. As of December 31, 2006 and March 31,
2007, environmental accruals of $7,222,754 and $7,057,111,
respectively, were reflected in the consolidated balance sheets
for probable and estimated costs for remediation of
environmental contamination under the RCRA Administrative Order
and the VCPRP, including amounts totaling $1,827,649 and
$1,177,349, respectively, included in other current liabilities.
The accruals were determined based on an estimate of payment
costs through 2033, which scope of remediation was arranged with
the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) and are discounted
at the appropriate risk free rates at December 31, 2006 and
March 31, 2007, respectively. The accruals include
estimated closure and post-closure costs of approximately
$1,857,000 and $1,818,000 for two landfills at December 31,
2006 and March 31, 2007, respectively. The estimated future
payments for these required obligations are as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Nine months ending
December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
958
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2008
|
|
|
999
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2009
|
|
|
894
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2010
|
|
|
562
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2011
|
|
|
341
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2012
|
|
|
760
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
5,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undiscounted total
|
|
|
9,698
|
|
Less amounts representing interest
at 4.77%
|
|
|
2,641
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued environmental liabilities
at March 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
7,057
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In March 2004, a predecessor entity to CVR entered into a
Consent Decree with the EPA and the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment (KDHE) related to Farmland Industries,
Inc.s prior operation of CVRs oil refinery. Under
the Consent Decree, CVR agreed to install controls on certain
process equipment and make certain operational changes at
CVRs refinery. As a result of this agreement to install
certain controls and implement certain operational changes, the
EPA and KDHE agreed not to impose civil penalties, and provided
a release from liability for a prior owners alleged
noncompliance with
F-61
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
the issues addressed by the Consent Decree. Pursuant to the
Consent Decree, in the short term, the Company has increased the
use of catalyst additives to the fluid catalytic cracking unit
at the facility to reduce emissions of
SO2.
The Company will begin adding catalyst to reduce oxides of
nitrogen, or NOx, in 2007. In the long term, the Company will
install controls to minimize both
SO2
and NOx emissions, which under terms of the Consent Decree
require that final controls be in place by January 1, 2011.
In addition, pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Company assumed
certain cleanup obligations at the Coffeyville refinery and the
Phillipsburg terminal. The Company agreed to retrofit certain
heaters at the refinery with Ultra Low NOx burners. All heater
retrofits have been performed and the Company is currently
verifying that the heaters meet the Ultra Low NOx standards
required by the Consent Decree. The Ultra Low NOx heater
technology is in widespread use throughout the industry. There
are other permitting, monitoring, record-keeping and reporting
requirements associated with the Consent Decree. The overall
cost of complying with the Consent Decree is expected to be
approximately $41 million, of which approximately
$35 million is expected to be capital expenditures and
which does not include the cleanup obligations. No penalties are
expected to be imposed as a result of the Consent Decree.
The EPA recently embarked on a petroleum refining initiative
alleging industry-wide noncompliance with four
marquee issues: New Source Review,
flaring, leak detection and repair, and Benzene Waste Operations
NESHAP. The Petroleum Refining Initiative has resulted in many
refiners entering into consent decrees imposing civil penalties
and requiring substantial expenditures for additional or
enhanced pollution control. At this time, management does not
know how, if at all, the Petroleum Refining Initiative will
affect the Company as the current Consent Decree covers some,
but not all, of the marquee issues.
Periodically, the Company receives communications from various
federal, state and local governmental authorities asserting
violation(s) of environmental laws
and/or
regulations. These governmental entities may also propose or
assess fines or require corrective action for these asserted
violations. The Company intends to respond in a timely manner to
all such communications and to take appropriate corrective
action. The Company does not anticipate that any such matters
currently asserted will have a material adverse impact on the
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its
environmental accruals. Based on current information and
regulatory requirements, management believes that the accruals
established for environmental expenditures are adequate.
The EPA has issued regulations intended to limit amounts of
sulfur in diesel and gasoline. The EPA has granted the Company a
petition for a technical hardship waiver with respect to the
date for compliance in meeting the sulfur-lowering standards.
CVR has spent approximately $2 million in 2004,
$27 million in 2005, $79 million in 2006,
$15 million in the first three months of 2007 and, based on
information currently available, anticipates spending
approximately $5 million in the last nine months of 2007,
$2.5 million in 2008, $12 million in 2009, and
$30 million in 2010 to comply with the low-sulfur rules.
The entire amounts are expected to be capitalized.
Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such
expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits.
For the three month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2007,
capital expenditures were $17,038,386 and $50,687,197,
respectively, and were incurred to improve the environmental
compliance and efficiency of the operations.
CVR believes it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS
rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS
matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop
in the future will not have a material adverse effect on the
Companys business, condition, results of operations or
cash flows.
F-62
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
(10) Derivative
Financial Instruments
Loss on derivatives consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
Three Months
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
Realized gain (loss) on swap
agreements
|
|
$
|
1,251,509
|
|
|
$
|
(8,534,341
|
)
|
Unrealized loss on swap agreements
|
|
|
(24,465,639
|
)
|
|
|
(119,703,829
|
)
|
Realized gain (loss) on other
agreements
|
|
|
791,991
|
|
|
|
(2,763,019
|
)
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on other
agreements
|
|
|
642,160
|
|
|
|
(5,331,572
|
)
|
Realized gain on interest rate
swap agreements
|
|
|
653,351
|
|
|
|
1,240,925
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on interest
rate swap agreements
|
|
|
3,511,317
|
|
|
|
(1,867,385
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss on derivatives
|
|
$
|
(17,615,311
|
)
|
|
$
|
(136,959,221
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CVR is subject to price fluctuations caused by supply
conditions, weather, economic conditions, and other factors and
to interest rate fluctuations. To manage price risk on crude oil
and other inventories and to fix margins on certain future
production, CVR may enter into various derivative transactions.
In addition, CALLC, as further described below, entered into
certain commodity derivate contracts and an interest rate swap
as required by the long-term debt agreements.
CVR has adopted SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,
(SFAS 133). SFAS 133 imposes extensive record-keeping
requirements in order to designate a derivative financial
instrument as a hedge. CVR holds derivative instruments, such as
exchange-traded crude oil futures, certain
over-the-counter
forward swap agreements, and interest rate swap agreements,
which it believes provide an economic hedge on future
transactions, but such instruments are not designated as hedges.
Gains or losses related to the change in fair value and periodic
settlements of these derivative instruments are classified as
loss on derivatives.
At March 31, 2007, CVRs Petroleum Segment held
commodity derivative contracts (swap agreements) for the period
from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 with a related
party (see note 11). The swap agreements were originally
executed by CALLC on June 16, 2005 in conjunction with the
Subsequent Acquisition and were required under the terms of the
long-term debt agreements. The notional quantities on the date
of execution were 100,911,000 barrels of crude oil;
1,889,459,250 gallons of heating oil and
2,348,802,750 gallons of unleaded gasoline. The swap
agreements were executed at the prevailing market rate at the
time of execution and Management believes the swap agreements
provide an economic hedge on future transactions. At
March 31, 2007 the notional open amounts under the swap
agreements were 61,278,500 barrels of crude oil;
1,278,973,500 gallons of heating oil and
1,294,723,500 gallons of unleaded gasoline. These positions
resulted in unrealized losses for the three month period ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007 of $24,465,639 and $119,703,829,
respectively, using a valuation method that utilizes quoted
market prices and assumptions for the estimated forward yield
curves of the related commodities in periods when quoted market
prices are unavailable. The Petroleum Segment recorded
$1,251,509 and $(8,534,341) in realized gains (losses) on these
swap agreements for the three months ended March 31, 2006
and 2007, respectively.
The Petroleum Segment also recorded
mark-to-market
net gains (losses) on other commodity derivative contracts,
exclusive of the swap agreements described above and the
interest rate swaps described in the following paragraphs, in
loss on derivatives of $1,434,151, and $(8,094,591), for the
three
F-63
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
month period ended March 31, 2006, and 2007, respectively.
All of the activity related to the commodity derivative
contracts is reported in the Petroleum Segment.
At March 31, 2006 and 2007, CALLC held derivative contracts
known as interest rate swap agreements that converted
CALLCs floating-rate bank debt into 4.038% fixed-rate debt
on a notional amount of $325,000,000. Half of the agreements are
held with a related party (as described in note 11), and
the other half are held with a financial institution that is a
lender under CALLCs long-term debt agreements. The swap
agreements carry the following terms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
Period
Covered
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interest
Rate
|
|
|
March 31, 2007 to
June 29, 2007
|
|
|
325 million
|
|
|
|
4.038
|
%
|
June 29, 2007 to
March 30, 2008
|
|
|
325 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
March 31, 2008 to
March 30, 2009
|
|
|
250 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
March 31, 2009 to
March 30, 2010
|
|
|
180 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
March 31, 2010 to
June 29, 2010
|
|
|
110 million
|
|
|
|
4.195
|
%
|
CVR pays the fixed rates listed above and receives a floating
rate based on three-month LIBOR rates, with payments calculated
on the notional amounts listed above. The notional amounts do
not represent actual amounts exchanged by the parties but
instead represent the amounts on which the contracts are based.
The swap is settled quarterly and marked to market at each
reporting date, and all unrealized gains and losses are
currently recognized in income. Transactions related to the
interest rate swap agreements were not allocated to the
Petroleum or Nitrogen Fertilizer segments.
Mark-to-market
net gains (losses) on derivatives and quarterly settlements were
$4,164,668 and $(626,460) for the three month period ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
(11) Related
Party Transactions
GS Capital Partners V Fund, L.P. and related entities (GS) and
Kelso Investment Associates VII, L.P. and related entity (Kelso)
are majority owners of CALLC.
On June 24, 2005, CALLC entered into a management services
agreement with GS and Kelso pursuant to which GS and Kelso
provide CALLC with managerial and advisory services. In
consideration for these services, an annual fee of
$1.0 million each is paid to GS and Kelso, plus
reimbursement for any
out-of-pocket
expenses. The agreement has a term ending on the date GS and
Kelso cease to own any interests in CALLC or upon termination
payments totaling $10 million ($5 million to each of
GS and Kelso) for services performed by GS and Kelso in respect
of an initial public offering. These payments are contingent
upon an initial public offering. Relating to the agreement,
$493,151 and $537,915 was expensed in selling, general, and
administrative expenses for the three months ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
CALLC entered into certain crude oil, heating oil, and gasoline
swap agreements with a subsidiary of GS. Additional swap
agreements with this subsidiary of GS were entered into on
June 16, 2005, with an expiration date of June 30,
2010 (as described in note 10). Losses totaling $23,214,130
and $128,238,170 were recognized related to these swap
agreements for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and
2007, respectively, and are reflected in loss on derivatives. In
addition, the consolidated balance sheet at December 31,
2006 and March 31, 2007 includes liabilities of $36,894,802
and $131,071,839, respectively, included in current payable to
swap counterparty and $72,806,486 and $107,972,734,
respectively, included in long-term payable to swap counterparty.
F-64
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
On June 30, 2005, CALLC entered into three interest-rate
swap agreements with the same subsidiary of GS (as described in
note 10). Amounts totaling $2,089,435 and $(312,527) were
recognized related to these swap agreements for the three months
ended March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively, and are
reflected in loss on derivatives. In addition, the consolidated
balance sheets at December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007
includes $1,533,738 and $1,050,631 in prepaid expenses and other
current assets and $2,014,504 and $1,556,735 in other long-term
assets related to the same agreements, respectively.
Effective December 30, 2005, the Company entered into a
crude oil supply agreement (Supply Agreement) with a subsidiary
of GS (Supplier). This agreement replaced a similar contract
held with an independent party. Both parties will negotiate the
cost of each barrel of crude oil to be purchased from a third
party. CVR will pay Supplier a fixed supply service fee per
barrel over the negotiated cost of each barrel of crude
purchased. The cost is adjusted further using a spread
adjustment calculation based on the time period the crude oil is
estimated to be delivered to the refinery, other market
conditions, and other factors deemed appropriate. The monthly
spread quantity for any delivery month at any time shall not
exceed approximately 3.1 million barrels. The initial term
of the agreement was to December 31, 2006. CVR and Supplier
agreed to extend the term of the Supply Agreement for an
additional 12 month period, January 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2007 and in connection with the extension
amended certain terms and conditions of the Supply Agreement.
$1,622,824 and $1,815,647 were recorded on the consolidated
balance sheet at December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007,
respectively, in prepaid expenses and other current assets for
prepayment of crude oil. In addition, $31,750,784 and $0 were
recorded in inventory and $13,458,977 and $4,510,202 were
recorded in accounts payable at December 31, 2006 and
March 31, 2007, respectively. Expenses associated with this
agreement, included in cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization) for the three month periods ended
March 31, 2006 and 2007 totaled $314,949,417 and
$176,306,659, respectively. Interest expense associated with
this agreement for the three month period ended March 31,
2006 and 2007 totaled $0 and $(1,029,006), respectively.
(12) Business
Segments
CVR measures segment profit as operating income for Petroleum
and Nitrogen Fertilizer, CVRs two reporting segments,
based on the definitions provided in SFAS No. 131,
Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related
Information.
Petroleum
Principal products of the Petroleum Segment are refined fuels,
propane, and petroleum refining by-products including coke. CVR
uses the coke in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer at the
adjacent nitrogen fertilizer plant. For CVR, a $15-per-ton
transfer price is used to record intercompany sales on the part
of the Petroleum Segment and corresponding intercompany cost of
product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Segment. The intercompany transactions
are eliminated in the Other Segment. Intercompany sales included
in Petroleum net sales were $1,370,595, and $579,780 for the
three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
The principal products of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Segment are
anhydrous ammonia and urea ammonia nitrate solution (UAN).
Intercompany cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) for the coke transfer described above was
$1,383,710, and $849,766 for the three months ended
March 31, 2006, and 2007, respectively.
F-65
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
Other
Segment
The Other Segment reflects intercompany eliminations, cash and
cash equivalents, all debt related activities, income tax
activities and other corporate activities that are not allocated
to the operating segments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
619,604,912
|
|
|
$
|
352,488,278
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
51,493,030
|
|
|
|
38,574,321
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment eliminations
|
|
|
(1,370,595
|
)
|
|
|
(579,780
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
669,727,347
|
|
|
$
|
390,482,819
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of
depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
533,680,513
|
|
|
$
|
298,459,569
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
7,241,946
|
|
|
|
6,060,426
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment eliminations
|
|
|
(1,383,710
|
)
|
|
|
(849,766
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
539,538,749
|
|
|
$
|
303,670,229
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct operating expenses
(exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
30,665,604
|
|
|
$
|
96,673,455
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
13,622,359
|
|
|
|
16,738,114
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
44,287,963
|
|
|
$
|
113,411,569
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
7,801,997
|
|
|
$
|
9,793,908
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
4,189,106
|
|
|
|
4,394,719
|
|
Other
|
|
|
12,694
|
|
|
|
46,804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
12,003,797
|
|
|
$
|
14,235,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
41,618,934
|
|
|
$
|
(63,467,983
|
)
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
24,020,714
|
|
|
|
9,319,190
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(236,354
|
)
|
|
|
164,491
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
65,403,294
|
|
|
$
|
(53,984,302
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
25,460,971
|
|
|
$
|
106,502,177
|
|
Nitrogen fertilizer
|
|
|
2,425,114
|
|
|
|
402,013
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,426,744
|
|
|
|
459,617
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
29,312,829
|
|
|
$
|
107,363,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-66
CVR Energy, Inc.
and Subsidiaries
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
$
|
907,314,951
|
|
|
$
|
1,003,325,328
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
417,657,093
|
|
|
|
411,091,768
|
|
Other
|
|
|
124,507,471
|
|
|
|
54,948,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,449,479,515
|
|
|
$
|
1,469,365,671
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
|
42,806,422
|
|
|
$
|
42,806,422
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
40,968,463
|
|
|
|
40,968,463
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
$
|
83,774,885
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13) Major
Customers and Suppliers
Sales to major customers were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
Petroleum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer A
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
Customer B
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Customer C
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Customer D
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
11
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nitrogen Fertilizer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer E
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
19
|
%
|
Customer F
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Petroleum Segment maintains long-term contracts with one
supplier for the purchase of its crude oil (as described in
note 11). Purchases contracted as a percentage of the total
cost of products sold (exclusive of depreciation and
amortization) for each of the periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
Supplier A
|
|
|
68
|
%
|
|
|
51
|
%
|
F-67
No dealer, salesperson or
other person is authorized to give any information or to
represent anything not contained in this prospectus. You must
not rely on any unauthorized information or representations.
This prospectus is an offer to sell only the shares offered
hereby, but only under circumstances and in jurisdictions where
it is lawful to do so. The information contained in this
prospectus is current only as of its date.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Through and
including ,
2007 (the 25th day after the date of this prospectus), all
dealers that effect transactions in these securities, whether or
not participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a
prospectus. This is in addition to the dealers obligation
to deliver a prospectus when acting as underwriters and with
respect to their unsold allotments or subscriptions.
15,500,000 Shares
CVR Energy, Inc.
Common Stock
PROSPECTUS
Goldman, Sachs &
Co.
Deutsche Bank
Securities
Credit Suisse
Citi
Simmons &
Company
International
PART II
INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS
|
|
Item 13.
|
Other Expenses
of Issuance and Distribution.
|
The following table sets forth the costs and expenses to be paid
by the Registrant in connection with the sale of the shares of
common stock being registered hereby. All amounts are estimates
except for the SEC registration fee, the NASD filing fee and the
New York Stock Exchange listing fee.
|
|
|
|
|
SEC registration fee
|
|
$
|
40,125
|
|
NASD filing fee
|
|
|
38,000
|
|
The New York Stock Exchange
listing fee
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
Accounting fees and expenses
|
|
|
1,850,000
|
|
Legal fees and expenses
|
|
|
3,850,000
|
|
Printing and engraving expenses
|
|
|
1,350,000
|
|
Blue Sky qualification fees and
expenses
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Transfer agent and registrar fees
and expenses
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Miscellaneous expenses
|
|
|
101,875
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
7,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 14.
|
Indemnification
of Directors and Officers.
|
Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
authorizes a court to award, or a corporations board of
directors to grant, indemnity to directors and officers in terms
sufficiently broad to permit such indemnification under certain
circumstances for liabilities (including reimbursement for
expenses incurred) arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the Securities Act).
As permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law, the
Registrants Certificate of Incorporation includes a
provision that eliminates the personal liability of its
directors for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a
director, except for liability:
|
|
|
|
|
for any breach of the directors duty of loyalty to the
Registrant or its stockholders;
|
|
|
|
for acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve
intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law;
|
|
|
|
under section 174 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
regarding unlawful dividends and stock purchases; or
|
|
|
|
for any transaction for which the director derived an improper
personal benefit.
|
As permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law, the
Registrants Bylaws provide that:
|
|
|
|
|
the Registrant is required to indemnify its directors and
officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General
Corporation Law, subject to very limited exceptions;
|
|
|
|
the Registrant may indemnify its other employees and agents to
the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation
Law, subject to very limited exceptions;
|
|
|
|
the Registrant is required to advance expenses, as incurred, to
its directors and officers in connection with a legal proceeding
to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General
Corporation Law, subject to very limited exceptions;
|
|
|
|
the Registrant may advance expenses, as incurred, to its
employees and agents in connection with a legal proceeding; and
|
|
|
|
the rights conferred in the Bylaws are not exclusive.
|
II-1
The Registrant may enter into Indemnity Agreements with each of
its current directors and officers to give these directors and
officers additional contractual assurances regarding the scope
of the indemnification set forth in the Registrants
Certificate of Incorporation and to provide additional
procedural protections. At present, there is no pending
litigation or proceeding involving a director, officer or
employee of the Registrant regarding which indemnification is
sought, nor is the Registrant aware of any threatened litigation
that may result in claims for indemnification.
The indemnification provisions in the Registrants
Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws and any Indemnity
Agreements entered into between the Registrant and each of its
directors and officers may be sufficiently broad to permit
indemnification of the Registrants directors and officers
for liabilities arising under the Securities Act.
CVR Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries are covered by liability
insurance policies which indemnify their directors and officers
against loss arising from claims by reason of their legal
liability for acts as such directors, officers or trustees,
subject to limitations and conditions as set forth in the
policies.
The underwriting agreement to be entered into among the company,
the selling stockholders and the underwriters will contain
indemnification and contribution provisions.
|
|
Item 15. |
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities.
|
We issued 100 shares of common stock to Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC in September 2006. The issuance was exempt from
registration in accordance with Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933.
|
|
Item 16. |
Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
|
(a) The following exhibits are filed herewith:
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
1
|
.1*
|
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement.
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of CVR Energy, Inc.
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated
Bylaws of CVR Energy, Inc.
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate.
|
|
5
|
.1
|
|
Form of opinion of Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP.
|
|
10
|
.1**
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Credit
and Guaranty Agreement, dated as of December 28, 2006,
among Coffeyville Resources, LLC and the other parties thereto.
|
|
10
|
.2**
|
|
Amended and Restated First Lien
Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of December 28,
2006 among Coffeyville Resources, LLC, CL JV Holdings, LLC,
Coffeyville Pipeline, Inc., Coffeyville Refining and Marketing,
Inc., Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc., Coffeyville Crude
Transportation, Inc., Coffeyville Terminal, Inc., Coffeyville
Resources Pipeline, LLC, Coffeyville Resources
Refining & Marketing, LLC, Coffeyville Resources
Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, Coffeyville Resources Crude
Transportation, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC, as
grantors, and Credit Suisse, Cayman Islands Branch, as
collateral agent.
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom
Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan I).
|
|
10
|
.4**
|
|
License Agreement For Use of the
Texaco Gasification Process, Texaco Hydrogen Generation Process,
and Texaco Gasification Power Systems, dated as of May 30,
1997 by and between Texaco Development Corporation and Farmland
Industries, Inc., as amended.
|
|
10
|
.5**
|
|
Swap agreements with J.
Aron & Company.
|
|
10
|
.6**
|
|
Amended and Restated
On-Site
Product Supply Agreement dated as of June 1, 2005, between
The BOC Group, Inc. and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen
Fertilizers, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.7**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.8**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Stanley A. Riemann.
|
II-2
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
10
|
.9**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Kevan A. Vick.
|
|
10
|
.10**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Wyatt E. Jernigan.
|
|
10
|
.11**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and James T. Rens.
|
|
10
|
.12**
|
|
Separation and Consulting
Agreement dated as of November 21, 2005, by and between
Coffeyville Resources, LLC and Philip L. Rinaldi.
|
|
10
|
.13**
|
|
Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated
as of December 23, 2005, as amended, between J.
Aron & Company and Coffeyville Resources Refining and
Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.13.1**
|
|
Amendment Agreement dated as of
December 1, 2006 between J. Aron & Company and
Coffeyville Resources Refining and Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.14**
|
|
Pipeline Construction, Operation
and Transportation Commitment Agreement, dated February 11,
2004, as amended, between Plains Pipeline, L.P. and Coffeyville
Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.15**
|
|
Electric Services Agreement dated
January 13, 2004, between Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen
Fertilizers, LLC and the City of Coffeyville, Kansas.
|
|
10
|
.16**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Robert W. Haugen.
|
|
10
|
.17**
|
|
Stockholders Agreement of
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc., dated as of March 9,
2007, by and among Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc.,
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.18**
|
|
Stockholders Agreement of
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc., dated as of March
9, 2007, by and among Coffeyville Refining & Marketing,
Inc., Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.19**
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of March 9, 2007, between Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc.
and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.20**
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of March 9, 2007, between Coffeyville Refining & Marketing,
Inc. and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.21**
|
|
Recapitalization Agreement, dated
as of September 25, 2006, by and among Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC, Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc.,
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. and CVR Energy, Inc.
|
|
10
|
.22**
|
|
Purchase, Storage and Sale
Agreement for Gathered Crude, dated as of March 20, 2007,
between J. Aron & Company and Coffeyville
Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.23**
|
|
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as
of May 15, 2005 by and between Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
|
|
10
|
.23.1**
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Stock
Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2005 by and between
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
|
|
10
|
.23.2**
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to the Stock
Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2005 by and between
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
Form of Limited Partnership
Agreement of CVR Partners, LP, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR GP, LLC, CVR Special GP, LLC and CVR LP,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
Form of Coke Supply Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
Form of Cross Easement Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
II-3
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
10
|
.27
|
|
Form of Environmental Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.28
|
|
Form of Feedstock and Shared
Services Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.29
|
|
Form of Raw Water and Facilities
Sharing Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.30
|
|
Form of Services Agreement, dated
as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Partners, LP, CVR GP, LLC, and CVR
Energy, Inc.
|
|
10
|
.31
|
|
Form of Omnibus Agreement, dated
as of , 2007 by and
among CVR Energy, Inc., CVR GP, LLC, CVR Special GP, LLC and CVR
Partners, LP.
|
|
10
|
.32
|
|
Form of Coffeyville Resources, LLC
Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan II).
|
|
10
|
.33
|
|
Form of CVR Energy, Inc. 2007 Long
Term Incentive Plan.
|
|
10
|
.33.1
|
|
Form of Nonqualified Stock Option
Agreement.
|
|
10
|
.33.2
|
|
Form of Director Stock Option
Agreement.
|
|
10
|
.33.3
|
|
Form of Director Restricted Stock
Agreement.
|
|
10
|
.34
|
|
Form of Third Amended and Restated
Limited Liability Company Agreement of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC, dated as
of ,
2007.
|
|
10
|
.35
|
|
Form of First Amended and Restated
Limited Liability Company Agreement of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC, dated as
of ,
2007.
|
|
10
|
.36
|
|
Form of Limited Liability Company
Agreement of Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC, dated as
of ,
2007.
|
|
10
|
.37
|
|
Form of Redemption Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and among Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and the Redeemed
Parties signatory thereto.
|
|
10
|
.38
|
|
Form of Stockholders Agreement of
CVR Energy, Inc., dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Energy, Inc., Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
|
|
10
|
.39
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Energy, Inc., Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
|
|
10
|
.40
|
|
Form of Subscription Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between CVR Energy, Inc. and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.41
|
|
Form of Letter Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Energy, Inc., Goldman, Sachs &
Co. and Kelso & Company, L.P.
|
|
10
|
.42
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement, dated as
of , 2007, by and among
the CVR Partners, LP, CVR Energy, Inc. and CVR GP, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.43
|
|
Form of CVR GP, LLC Profit Bonus
Plan.
|
|
10
|
.44
|
|
Form of Contribution, Conveyance
and Assumption Agreement, dated as
of , 2007, by and among
Coffeyville Resources, LLC, CVR GP, LLC, CVR Special GP, LLC,
CVR LP, LLC, and CVR Partners, LP.
|
|
10
|
.45
|
|
Form of Management Registration
Rights Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and between CVR Energy, Inc. and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.46
|
|
Collective Bargaining Agreement,
effective as of March 3, 2004, by and between Coffeyville
Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and various unions
of the Metal Trades Department.
|
|
10
|
.47
|
|
Collective Bargaining Agreement,
effective as of March 3, 2004, by and between Coffeyville
Resources Crude Transportation, LLC and the Paper,
Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers
International Union.
|
II-4
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
21
|
.1**
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of CVR
Energy, Inc.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of KPMG LLP.
|
|
23
|
.2
|
|
Consent of Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson LLP (included in Exhibit 5.1).
|
|
23
|
.3**
|
|
Consent of Blue, Johnson &
Associates.
|
|
24
|
.1**
|
|
Power of Attorney.
|
|
24
|
.2**
|
|
Power of Attorney of Mark Tomkins.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
To be filed by amendment. |
|
** |
|
Previously filed. |
|
|
|
Certain portions of this exhibit have been omitted and
separately filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to a request for confidential treatment. |
(b) None.
The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes to provide to the
underwriters at the closing specified in the underwriting
agreement certificates in such denominations and registered in
such names as required by the underwriters to permit prompt
delivery to each purchaser.
Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the
Securities Act may be permitted to directors, officers and
controlling persons of the Registrant pursuant to the provisions
described in Item 14 above, or otherwise, the Registrant
has been advised that in the opinion of the Securities and
Exchange Commission such indemnification is against public
policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore,
unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification
against such liabilities (other than the payment by the
Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer
or controlling person of the Registrant in the successful
defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such
director, officer or controlling person in connection with the
securities being registered, the Registrant will, unless in the
opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by
controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate
jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is
against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and
will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes that:
(1) For purposes of determining any liability under the
Securities Act, the information omitted from the form of
prospectus filed as part of this Registration Statement in
reliance upon Rule 430A and contained in a form of
prospectus filed by the Registrant pursuant to
Rule 424(b)(1) or (4) or 497(h) under the Securities Act
shall be deemed to be part of this Registration Statement as of
the time it was declared effective; and
(2) For the purpose of determining any liability under the
Securities Act, each
post-effective
amendment that contains a form of prospectus shall be deemed to
be a new registration statement relating to the securities
offered therein, and the offering of such securities at the time
shall be deemed to be the initial bona fide offering thereof.
II-5
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the
Registrant has duly caused this Registration Statement to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized in Sugar Land, State of Texas, on this 5th day
of June, 2007.
CVR ENERGY, INC.
John J. Lipinski
Chief Executive Officer and President
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this
Registration Statement has been signed by the following persons
in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ John
J. Lipinski
John
J. Lipinski
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President
and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
James
T. Rens
|
|
Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Wesley
Clark
|
|
Director
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Scott
Lebovitz
|
|
Director
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
George
E. Matelich
|
|
Director
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Stanley
de J. Osborne
|
|
Director
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Kenneth
A. Pontarelli
|
|
Director
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Mark
Tomkins
|
|
Director
|
|
June 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* By:
|
|
/s/ John J. Lipinski John J. Lipinski, As Attorney-in-Fact
|
|
|
|
|
II-6
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
1
|
.1*
|
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement.
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of CVR Energy, Inc.
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated
Bylaws of CVR Energy, Inc.
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate.
|
|
5
|
.1
|
|
Form of opinion of Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP.
|
|
10
|
.1**
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Credit
and Guaranty Agreement, dated as of December 28, 2006,
among Coffeyville Resources, LLC and the other parties thereto.
|
|
10
|
.2**
|
|
Amended and Restated First Lien
Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of December 28,
2006, among Coffeyville Resources, LLC, CL JV Holdings, LLC,
Coffeyville Pipeline, Inc., Coffeyville Refining and Marketing,
Inc., Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc., Coffeyville Crude
Transportation, Inc., Coffeyville Terminal, Inc., Coffeyville
Resources Pipeline, LLC, Coffeyville Resources
Refining & Marketing, LLC, Coffeyville Resources
Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, Coffeyville Resources Crude
Transportation, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC, as
grantors, and Credit Suisse, as collateral agent.
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom
Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan I).
|
|
10
|
.4**
|
|
License Agreement For Use of the
Texaco Gasification Process, Texaco Hydrogen Generation Process,
and Texaco Gasification Power Systems, dated as of May 30,
1997 by and between Texaco Development Corporation and Farmland
Industries, Inc., as amended.
|
|
10
|
.5**
|
|
Swap agreements with J.
Aron & Company.
|
|
10
|
.6**
|
|
Amended and Restated
On-Site
Product Supply Agreement dated as of June 1, 2005, between
The BOC Group, Inc. and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen
Fertilizers, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.7**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.8**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Stanley A. Riemann.
|
|
10
|
.9**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Kevan A. Vick.
|
|
10
|
.10**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Wyatt E. Jernigan.
|
|
10
|
.11**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and James T. Rens.
|
|
10
|
.12**
|
|
Separation and Consulting
Agreement dated as of November 21, 2005, by and between
Coffeyville Resources, LLC and Philip L. Rinaldi.
|
|
10
|
.13**
|
|
Crude Oil Supply Agreement, dated
as of December 23, 2005, as amended, between
J. Aron & Company and Coffeyville Resources
Refining and Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.13.1**
|
|
Amendment Agreement dated as of
December 1, 2006 between J. Aron & Company and
Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.14**
|
|
Pipeline Construction, Operation
and Transportation Commitment Agreement, dated February 11,
2004, as amended, between Plains Pipeline, L.P. and Coffeyville
Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.15**
|
|
Electric Services Agreement dated
January 13, 2004, between Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen
Fertilizers, LLC and the City of Coffeyville, Kansas.
|
|
10
|
.16**
|
|
Employment Agreement amended as of
December 13, 2006, by and between Coffeyville Resources,
LLC and Robert W. Haugen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
10
|
.17**
|
|
Stockholders Agreement of
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizer, Inc., dated as of March 9,
2007, by and among Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc.,
Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.18**
|
|
Stockholders Agreement of
Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc., dated as of March
9, 2007, by and among Coffeyville Refining & Marketing,
Inc., Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.19**
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of March 9, 2007, by Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. and
John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.20**
|
|
Subscription Agreement, dated as
of March 9, 2007, by Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc.
and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.21**
|
|
Recapitalization Agreement, dated
as of September 25, 2006, by and among Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC, Coffeyville Refining & Marketing, Inc.,
Coffeyville Nitrogen Fertilizers, Inc. and CVR Energy, Inc.
|
|
10
|
.22**
|
|
Purchase, Storage and Sale
Agreement for Gathered Crude, dated as of March 20, 2007,
between J. Aron & Company and Coffeyville Resources
Refining & Marketing, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.23**
|
|
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as
of May 15, 2005 by and between Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
|
|
10
|
.23.1**
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Stock
Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2005 by and between
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
|
|
10
|
.23.2**
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to the Stock
Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2005 by and between
Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC and Coffeyville Acquisition LLC.
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
Form of Limited Partnership
Agreement of CVR Partners, LP, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR GP, LLC, CVR Special GP, LLC and CVR LP,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
Form of Coke Supply Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
Form of Cross Easement Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.27
|
|
Form of Environmental Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.28
|
|
Form of Feedstock and Shared
Services Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.29
|
|
Form of Raw Water and Facilities
Sharing Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining &
Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers,
LLC.
|
|
10
|
.30
|
|
Form of Services Agreement, dated
as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Partners, LP, CVR GP, LLC, and CVR
Energy, Inc.
|
|
10
|
.31
|
|
Form of Omnibus Agreement, dated
as of , 2007 by and
among CVR Energy, Inc., CVR GP, LLC, CVR Special GP, LLC and CVR
Partners, LP.
|
|
10
|
.32
|
|
Form of Coffeyville Resources, LLC
Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan II).
|
|
10
|
.33
|
|
Form of CVR Energy, Inc. 2007 Long
Term Incentive Plan.
|
|
10
|
.33.1
|
|
Form of Nonqualified Stock Option
Agreement.
|
|
10
|
.33.2
|
|
Form of Director Stock Option
Agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
10
|
.33.3
|
|
Form of Director Restricted Stock
Agreement.
|
|
10
|
.34
|
|
Form of Third Amended and Restated
Limited Liability Company Agreement of Coffeyville Acquisition
LLC, dated as
of ,
2007.
|
|
10
|
.35
|
|
Form of First Amended and Restated
Limited Liability Company Agreement of Coffeyville
Acquisition II LLC, dated as
of ,
2007.
|
|
10
|
.36
|
|
Form of Limited Liability Company
Agreement of Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC, dated as
of ,
2007.
|
|
10
|
.37
|
|
Form of Redemption Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and among Coffeyville Acquisition LLC and the Redeemed
Parties signatory thereto.
|
|
10
|
.38
|
|
Form of Stockholders Agreement of
CVR Energy, Inc., dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Energy, Inc., Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
|
|
10
|
.39
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Energy, Inc., Coffeyville Acquisition LLC
and Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC.
|
|
10
|
.40
|
|
Form of Subscription Agreement,
dated as
of ,
2007, by and between CVR Energy, Inc. and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.41
|
|
Form of Letter Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Energy, Inc., Goldman, Sachs &
Co. and Kelso & Company, L.P.
|
|
10
|
.42
|
|
Form of Registration Rights
Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among CVR Partners, LP, CVR Energy, Inc. and CVR
GP, LLC.
|
|
10
|
.43
|
|
Form of CVR GP, LLC Profit Bonus
Plan.
|
|
10
|
.44
|
|
Form of Contribution, Conveyance
and Assumption Agreement, dated as
of ,
2007, by and among Coffeyville Resources, LLC, CVR GP, LLC, CVR
Special GP, LLC, CVR LP, LLC, and CVR Partners, LP.
|
|
10
|
.45
|
|
Form of Management Registration
Rights Agreement, dated as of ,
2007, by and between CVR Energy, Inc. and John J. Lipinski.
|
|
10
|
.46
|
|
Collective Bargaining Agreement,
effective as of March 3, 2004, by and between Coffeyville
Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and various unions of
the Metal Trades Department.
|
|
10
|
.47
|
|
Collective Bargaining Agreement,
effective as of March 3, 2004, by and between Coffeyville
Resources Crude Transportation, LLC and the Paper,
Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International
Union.
|
|
21
|
.1**
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of CVR
Energy, Inc.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of KPMG LLP.
|
|
23
|
.2
|
|
Consent of Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson LLP (included in Exhibit 5.1).
|
|
23
|
.3**
|
|
Consent of Blue, Johnson &
Associates.
|
|
24
|
.1**
|
|
Power of Attorney.
|
|
24
|
.2**
|
|
Power of Attorney of Mark Tomkins.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
To be filed by amendment. |
|
** |
|
Previously filed. |
|
|
|
Certain portions of this exhibit have been omitted and
separately filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to a request for confidential treatment. |