Item 1A.     Risk Factors

You should carefully consider each of the following risks together with the other information contained in this Report and all of the information set forth in our filings with the SEC. If any of the following risks and uncertainties develops into an actual event, our business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In that case, we might not be able to pay distributions on our common units, the trading price of our common units could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Although many of our business risks are comparable to those faced by a corporation engaged in a similar business, limited partner interests are inherently different from the capital stock of a corporation and involve additional risks described below.

Risks Related to Our Business

We may not have sufficient available cash to pay any quarterly distribution on our common units. Furthermore, we are not required to make distributions to holders of our common units on a quarterly basis or otherwise, and may elect to distribute less than all of our available cash.

We may not have sufficient available cash each quarter to enable us to pay any distributions to our common unitholders. Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not require us to pay distributions on a quarterly basis or otherwise. Although our general partner’s current policy is to distribute all of our available cash on a quarterly basis, the board of directors of our general partner may at any time, for any reason, change this policy or decide not to pay cash distributions on a quarterly basis or other basis. The amount of cash we will be able to distribute on our common units principally depends on the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which is directly dependent upon the operating margins we generate, which have been volatile historically. Our operating margins are significantly affected by the market-driven UAN and ammonia prices we are able to charge our customers and our pet coke-based gasification production costs, as well as seasonality, weather conditions, governmental regulation, unscheduled maintenance or downtime at our facilities and global and domestic demand for nitrogen fertilizer products, among other factors. In addition:

13

Table of Contents

The amount of our quarterly cash distributions, if any, will vary significantly both quarterly and annually and will be directly dependent on the performance of our business. Unlike most publicly traded partnerships, we do not have a minimum quarterly distribution or employ structures intended to consistently maintain or increase distributions over time.

We expect our business performance will be more seasonal and volatile, and our cash flows will be less stable, than the business performance and cash flows of most publicly traded partnerships. As a result, our quarterly cash distributions will be volatile and are expected to vary quarterly and annually. Unlike most publicly traded partnerships, we do not have a minimum quarterly distribution or employ structures intended to consistently maintain or increase distributions over time. The amount of our quarterly cash distributions will be directly dependent on the performance of our business, which has been volatile historically as a result of volatile nitrogen fertilizer and natural gas prices, and seasonal and global fluctuations in demand for nitrogen fertilizer products. Because our quarterly distributions will be subject to significant fluctuations directly related to the cash we generate after payment of our fixed and variable expenses, future quarterly distributions paid to our unitholders will vary significantly from quarter to quarter and may be zero. Given the seasonal nature of our business, we expect that our unitholders will have direct exposure to fluctuations in the price of nitrogen fertilizers. In addition, from time to time we make prepaid sales, whereby we receive cash in respect of product to be delivered in a future quarter but do not record revenue in respect of such sales until product is delivered. The cash from prepaid sales increases our operating cash flow in the quarter when the cash is received; however, we do not generate net income or EBITDA in respect of prepaid sales until product is actually delivered.

The board of directors of our general partner may modify or revoke our cash distribution policy at any time at its discretion. Our partnership agreement does not require us to make any distributions at all.

Our general partner’s current policy is to distribute all of the available cash we generate each quarter to unitholders of record on a pro rata basis. However, the board may change such policy at any time at its discretion and could elect not to make distributions for one or more quarters. Our partnership agreement does not require us to make any distributions at all. Any modification or revocation of our cash distribution policy could substantially reduce or eliminate the amounts of distributions to our unitholders.

The nitrogen fertilizer business is, and nitrogen fertilizer prices are, cyclical and highly volatile and have experienced substantial downturns in the past. Cycles in demand and pricing could potentially expose us to significant fluctuations in our operating and financial results, and expose you to substantial volatility in our quarterly cash distributions and material reductions in the trading price of our common units.

We are exposed to fluctuations in nitrogen fertilizer demand in the agricultural industry. These fluctuations historically have had and could in the future have significant effects on prices across all nitrogen fertilizer

14

Table of Contents

products and, in turn, our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations, which could result in significant volatility or material reductions in the price of our common units or an inability to make quarterly cash distributions on our common units.

Nitrogen fertilizer products are commodities, the price of which can be highly volatile. The price of nitrogen fertilizer products depend on a number of factors, including general economic conditions, cyclical trends in end-user markets, supply and demand imbalances, and weather conditions, which have a greater relevance because of the seasonal nature of fertilizer application. If seasonal demand exceeds the projections on which we base production, our customers may acquire nitrogen fertilizer products from our competitors, and our profitability will be negatively impacted. If seasonal demand is less than we expect, we will be left with excess inventory that will have to be stored or liquidated.

Demand for nitrogen fertilizer products is dependent on demand for crop nutrients by the global agricultural industry. Nitrogen-based fertilizers are currently in high demand, driven by a growing world population, changes in dietary habits and an expanded use of corn for the production of ethanol. Supply is affected by available capacity and operating rates, raw material costs, government policies and global trade. A decrease in nitrogen fertilizer prices would have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow and ability to make distributions.

Our internally generated cash flows and other sources of liquidity may not be adequate for our capital needs. As a result, we may not be able to pay any cash distributions to our unitholders and the trading price of our common units may be adversely impacted.

If we cannot generate adequate cash flow or otherwise secure sufficient liquidity to meet our working capital needs or support our short-term and long-term capital requirements, we may be unable to meet our debt obligations, pursue our business strategies or comply with certain environmental standards, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. As of December 31, 2011, we had cash and cash equivalents of $237.0 million and $25.0 million available under our credit facility.

The costs associated with operating our nitrogen fertilizer plant are largely fixed. If nitrogen fertilizer prices fall below a certain level, we may not generate sufficient revenue to operate profitably or cover our costs and our ability to make distributions will be adversely impacted.

Unlike our competitors, whose primary costs are related to the purchase of natural gas and whose costs are therefore largely variable, we have largely fixed costs that are not dependent on the price of natural gas because we use pet coke as the primary feedstock in our nitrogen fertilizer plant. As a result of the fixed cost nature of our operations, downtime, interruptions or low productivity due to reduced demand, adverse weather conditions, equipment failure, a decrease in nitrogen fertilizer prices or other causes can result in significant operating losses, which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

A decline in natural gas prices could impact our relative competitive position when compared to other nitrogen fertilizer producers.

Most nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers rely on natural gas as their primary feedstock, and the cost of natural gas is a large component of the total production cost for natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. The dramatic increase in nitrogen fertilizer prices in recent years has not been the direct result of an increase in natural gas prices, but rather the result of increased demand for nitrogen-based fertilizers due to historically low stocks of global grains and a surge in the prices of corn and wheat, the primary crops in our region. This increase in demand for nitrogen-based fertilizers has created an environment in which nitrogen fertilizer prices have disconnected from their traditional correlation with natural gas prices. A decrease in natural gas prices would benefit our competitors and could disproportionately impact our operations by making us less competitive with natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. A decline in natural gas prices could impair our ability to compete with other nitrogen fertilizer producers who utilize natural gas as their primary feedstock, and therefore

15

Table of Contents

have a material adverse impact on the trading price of our common units. 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 nitrogen fertilizer prices and therefore have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows, and ability to make cash distributions.

Any decline in U.S. agricultural production or limitations on the use of nitrogen fertilizer for agricultural purposes could have a material adverse effect on the sales of nitrogen fertilizer, and on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Conditions in the U.S. agricultural industry significantly impact our operating results. The U.S. agricultural industry can be affected by a number of factors, including weather patterns and field conditions, current and projected grain inventories and prices, domestic and international demand for U.S. agricultural products and U.S. and foreign policies regarding trade in agricultural products.

State and federal governmental policies, including farm and biofuel subsidies and commodity support programs, as well as the prices of fertilizer products, may also directly or indirectly influence the number of acres planted, the mix of crops planted and the use of fertilizers for particular agricultural applications. Developments in crop technology, such as nitrogen fixation (the conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into compounds that plants can assimilate), could also reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and adversely affect the demand for nitrogen fertilizer. In addition, from time to time various state legislatures have considered limitations on the use and application of chemical fertilizers due to concerns about the impact of these products on the environment.

A major factor underlying the current high level of demand for our nitrogen-based fertilizer products is the expanding production of ethanol. A decrease in ethanol production, an increase in ethanol imports or a shift away from corn as a principal raw material used to produce ethanol could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

A major factor underlying the current high level of demand for our nitrogen-based fertilizer products is the expanding production of ethanol in the United States and the expanded use of corn in ethanol production. Ethanol production in the United States is highly dependent upon a myriad of federal and state legislation and regulations, and is made significantly more competitive by various federal and state incentives, mandated production of ethanol pursuant to federal renewable fuel standards, and permitted increases in ethanol percentages in gasoline blends, such as E15, a gasoline blend with 15% ethanol. However, a number of factors, including a continuing “food versus fuel” debate and studies showing that expanded ethanol production may increase the level of greenhouse gases in the environment, have resulted in calls to reduce subsidies for ethanol, allow increased ethanol imports and adopt temporary waivers of the current renewable fuel standard levels, any of which could have an adverse effect on corn-based ethanol production, planted corn acreage and fertilizer demand. Therefore, ethanol incentive programs may not be renewed, or if renewed, they may be renewed on terms significantly less favorable to ethanol producers than current incentive programs. For example, Congress allowed both the 45 cents per gallon ethanol tax credit and the 54 cents per gallon ethanol import tariff to expire on December 31, 2011. Similarly, the EPA’s waivers partially approving the use of E15 could be revised, rescinded or delayed. These actions could have a material adverse effect on ethanol production in the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Further, most ethanol is currently produced from corn and other raw grains, such as milo or sorghum — especially in the Midwest. The current trend in ethanol production research is to develop an efficient method of producing ethanol from cellulose-based biomass, such as agricultural waste, forest residue, municipal solid waste and energy crops (plants grown for use to make biofuels or directly exploited for their energy content). If an efficient method of producing ethanol from cellulose-based biomass is developed, the demand for corn may decrease significantly, which could reduce demand for our nitrogen fertilizer products and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

16

Table of Contents

Nitrogen fertilizer products are global commodities, and we face intense competition from other nitrogen fertilizer producers.

Our business is subject to intense price competition from both U.S. and foreign sources, including competitors operating in the Persian Gulf, the Asia-Pacific region, the Caribbean, Russia and the Ukraine. Fertilizers are global commodities, with little or no product differentiation, and customers make their purchasing decisions principally on the basis of delivered price and availability of the product. Furthermore, in recent years the price of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States has been substantially driven by pricing in the global fertilizer market. We compete with a number of U.S. producers and producers in other countries, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities. Some competitors have greater total resources and are less dependent on earnings from fertilizer sales, which makes them less vulnerable to industry downturns and better positioned to pursue new expansion and development opportunities. Competitors utilizing different corporate structures may be better able to withstand lower cash flows than we can as a limited partnership. Our competitive position could suffer to the extent we are not able to expand our 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, and our ability to make cash distributions.

Adverse weather conditions during peak fertilizer application periods may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions, because our agricultural customers are geographically concentrated.

Our sales of nitrogen fertilizer products to agricultural customers are concentrated in the Great Plains and Midwest states and are seasonal in nature. For example, we generate greater net sales and operating income in the first half of the year, which we refer to as the planting season, compared to the second half of the year. Accordingly, an adverse weather pattern affecting agriculture in these regions or during the planting season could have a negative effect on fertilizer demand, which could, in turn, result in a material decline in our net sales and margins and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. Our quarterly results may vary significantly from one year to the next due largely to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and purchase patterns. In addition, given the seasonal nature of our business, we expect that our distributions will be volatile and will vary quarterly and annually.

Our business is seasonal, which may result in our carrying significant amounts of inventory and seasonal variations in working capital. Our inability to predict future seasonal nitrogen fertilizer demand accurately may result in excess inventory or product shortages.

Our business is seasonal. Farmers tend to apply nitrogen fertilizer during two short application periods, one in the spring and the other in the fall. The strongest demand for our products typically occurs during the planting season. In contrast, we and other nitrogen fertilizer producers generally produce our products throughout the year. As a result, we and our customers generally build inventories during the low demand periods of the year in order to ensure timely product availability during the peak sales seasons. The seasonality of nitrogen fertilizer demand results in our sales volumes and net sales being highest during the North American spring season and our working capital requirements typically being highest just prior to the start of the spring season.

If seasonal demand exceeds our projections, we will not have enough product and our customers may acquire products from our competitors, which would negatively impact our profitability. If seasonal demand is less than we expect, we will be left with excess inventory and higher working capital and liquidity requirements.

The degree of seasonality of our business can change significantly from year to year due to conditions in the agricultural industry and other factors. As a consequence of our seasonality, we expect that our distributions will be volatile and will vary quarterly and annually.

17

Table of Contents

Our operations are dependent on third-party suppliers, including Linde, which owns an air separation plant that provides oxygen, nitrogen and compressed dry air to our gasifiers, and the City of Coffeyville, which supplies us with electricity. A deterioration in the financial condition of a third-party supplier, a mechanical problem with the air separation plant, or the inability of a third-party supplier to perform in accordance with its contractual obligations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.

Our operations depend in large part on the performance of third-party suppliers, including Linde for the supply of oxygen, nitrogen and compressed dry air, and the City of Coffeyville for the supply of electricity. With respect to Linde, our operations could be adversely affected if there were a deterioration in Linde’s financial condition such that the operation of the air separation plant located adjacent to our nitrogen fertilizer plant was disrupted. Additionally, this air separation plant in the past has experienced numerous short-term interruptions, causing interruptions in our gasifier operations. With respect to electricity, we recently settled litigation with the City of Coffeyville regarding the price they sought to charge us for electricity and entered into an amended and restated electric services agreement which gives us an option to extend the term of such agreement through June 30, 2024. Should Linde, the City of Coffeyville or any of our other third-party suppliers fail to perform in accordance with existing contractual arrangements, our operation could be forced to halt. Alternative sources of supply could be difficult to obtain. Any shutdown of our operations, even for a limited period, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions may be adversely affected by the supply and price levels of pet coke. Failure by CVR Energy to continue to supply us with pet coke (to the extent third-party pet coke is unavailable or available only at higher prices), or CVR Energy’s imposition of an obligation to provide it with security for our payment obligations, could negatively impact our results of operations.

Our profitability is directly affected by the price and availability of pet coke obtained from CVR Energy’s Coffeyville, Kansas crude oil refinery pursuant to a long-term agreement and pet coke purchased from third parties (with respect to which we have no contractual arrangements), both of which vary based on market prices. Pet coke is a key raw material used by us in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer products. If pet coke costs increase, we may not be able to increase our prices to recover these increased costs, because market prices for our nitrogen fertilizer products are not correlated with pet coke prices.

Based on our current output, we obtain most (over 70% on average during the last five years) of the pet coke we need from CVR Energy’s adjacent crude oil refinery, and procure the remainder on the open market. The price that we pay CVR Energy for pet coke is based on the lesser of a pet coke price derived from the price we receive for UAN (subject to a UAN-based price ceiling and floor) and a pet coke index price. In most cases, the price we pay CVR Energy will be lower than the price which we would otherwise pay to third parties. Pet coke prices could significantly increase in the future. Should CVR Energy fail to perform in accordance with our existing agreement, we would need to purchase pet coke from third parties on the open market, which could negatively impact our results of operations to the extent third-party pet coke is unavailable or available only at higher prices.

We may not be able to maintain an adequate supply of pet coke. In addition, we could experience production delays or cost increases if alternative sources of supply prove to be more expensive or difficult to obtain. We currently purchase 100% of the pet coke produced by CVR Energy’s Coffeyville refinery. Accordingly, if we increase our production, we will be more dependent on pet coke purchases from third-party suppliers at open market prices. There is no assurance that we would be able to purchase pet coke on comparable terms from third parties or at all.

Under our pet coke agreement with CVR Energy, we may become obligated to provide security for our payment obligations if, in CVR Energy’s sole judgment, there is a material adverse change in our financial condition or liquidity position or in our ability to pay for our pet coke purchases. See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence – Agreements with CVR Energy – Coke Supply Agreement.”

18

Table of Contents

We rely on third-party providers of transportation services and equipment, which subjects us to risks and uncertainties beyond our control that may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make distributions.

We rely on railroad and trucking companies to ship finished products to our customers. We also lease railcars from railcar owners in order to ship our finished products. These transportation operations, equipment and services are subject to various hazards, including extreme weather conditions, work stoppages, delays, spills, derailments and other accidents and other operating hazards.

These transportation operations, equipment and services are also subject to environmental, safety and other regulatory oversight. Due to concerns related to terrorism or accidents, local, state and federal governments could implement new regulations affecting the transportation of our finished products. In addition, new regulations could be implemented affecting the equipment used to ship our finished products.

Any delay in our ability to ship our finished products as a result of these transportation companies’ failure to operate properly, the implementation of new and more stringent regulatory requirements affecting transportation operations or equipment, or significant increases in the cost of these services or equipment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Our facility faces operating hazards and interruptions, including unplanned maintenance or downtime. We could face potentially significant costs to the extent these hazards or interruptions cause a material decline in production and are not fully covered by our existing insurance coverage. Insurance companies that currently insure companies in our industry may cease to do so, may change the coverage provided or may substantially increase premiums in the future.

Our operations, located at a single location, are subject to significant operating hazards and interruptions. Any significant curtailing of production at our nitrogen fertilizer plant or individual units within our plant could result in materially lower levels of revenues and cash flow for the duration of any shutdown and materially adversely impact our ability to make cash distributions. Operations at our nitrogen fertilizer plant could be curtailed or partially or completely shut down, temporarily or permanently, as the result of a number of circumstances, most of which are not within our control, such as:

The magnitude of the effect on us of any shutdown will depend on the length of the shutdown and the extent of the plant operations affected by the shutdown. Our plant requires a scheduled maintenance turnaround every two years, which generally lasts up to three weeks. A major accident, fire, flood, or other event could damage our facility or the environment and the surrounding community or result in injuries or loss of life. For example, the flood that occurred during the weekend of June 30, 2007 shut down our facility for approximately two weeks and required significant expenditures to repair damaged equipment, and our UAN plant was out of service for approximately six weeks after the rupture of a high pressure vessel in September 2010, which had a significant impact on our revenues and cash flows for the fourth quarter of 2010. Moreover, our facility is located adjacent

19

Table of Contents

to CVR Energy’s Coffeyville, Kansas refinery, and a major accident or disaster at the refinery could adversely affect our operations. Planned and unplanned maintenance could reduce our net income, cash flow and ability to make cash distributions during the period of time that any of our units is not operating. Any unplanned future downtime could have a material adverse effect on our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

If we experience significant property damage, business interruption, environmental claims or other liabilities, our business could be materially adversely affected to the extent the damages or claims exceed the amount of valid and collectible insurance available to us. We are currently insured under CVR Energy’s casualty, environmental, property and business interruption insurance policies. The property and business interruption insurance policies have a $1.0 billion limit, with a $2.5 million deductible for physical damage and a 45- to 60-day waiting period (depending on the insurance carrier) before losses resulting from business interruptions are recoverable. The policies also contain exclusions and conditions that could have a materially adverse impact on our ability to receive indemnification thereunder, as well as customary sub-limits for particular types of losses. For example, the current property policy contains a specific sub-limit of $150.0 million for damage caused by flooding. We are fully exposed to all losses in excess of the applicable limits and sub-limits and for losses due to business interruptions of fewer than 45 to 60 days.

The nitrogen fertilizer industry is highly capital intensive, and the entire or partial loss of facilities can result in significant costs to participants, such as us, and their insurance carriers. Market factors, including but not limited to catastrophic perils that impact our industry, significant changes in the investment returns of insurance companies, insurance company solvency trends and industry loss ratios and loss trends, can negatively impact the future cost and availability of insurance. There can be no assurance that CVR Energy or we will be able to buy and maintain insurance with adequate limits, reasonable pricing terms and conditions.

Deliberate, malicious acts, including terrorism, could damage our facilities, disrupt our operations or injure employees, contractors, customers or the public and result in liability to us.

Intentional acts of destruction could hinder our sales or production and disrupt our supply chain. Our facilities could be damaged or destroyed, reducing our operational production capacity and requiring us to repair or replace our facilities at substantial cost. Employees, contractors and the public could suffer substantial physical injury for which we could be liable. Governmental authorities may impose security or other requirements that could make our operations more difficult or costly. The consequences of any such actions could adversely affect our operating results, financial condition and ability to make distributions.

Our results of operations are highly dependent upon and fluctuate based upon business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry. These factors are outside of our control and may significantly affect our profitability.

Our results of operations are highly dependent upon business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry, which we cannot control. The agricultural products business can be affected by a number of factors. The most important of these factors in the United States are:

20

Table of Contents

International market conditions, which are also outside of our control, may also significantly influence our operating results. The international market for nitrogen fertilizers is influenced by such factors as the relative value of the U.S. dollar and its impact upon the cost of importing nitrogen fertilizers, foreign agricultural policies, the existence of, or changes in, import or foreign currency exchange barriers in certain foreign markets, changes in the hard currency demands of certain countries and other regulatory policies of foreign governments, as well as the laws and policies of the United States affecting foreign trade and investment.

Ammonia can be very volatile and extremely hazardous. Any liability for accidents involving ammonia or other products we produce or transport that cause severe damage to property or injury to the environment and human health could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. In addition, the costs of transporting ammonia could increase significantly in the future.

We manufacture, process, store, handle, distribute and transport ammonia, which can be very volatile and extremely hazardous. Major accidents or releases involving ammonia could cause severe damage or injury to property, the environment and human health, as well as a possible disruption of supplies and markets. Such an event could result in civil lawsuits, fines, penalties and regulatory enforcement proceedings, all of which could lead to significant liabilities. Any damage to persons, equipment or property or other disruption of our ability to produce or distribute our products could result in a significant decrease in operating revenues and significant additional cost to replace or repair and insure our assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. We periodically experience minor releases of ammonia related to leaks from our equipment. We experienced more significant ammonia releases in August 2007 due to the failure of a high-pressure pump and in August and September 2010 due to a heat exchanger leak and a UAN vessel rupture. Similar events may occur in the future.

In addition, we may incur significant losses or costs relating to the operation of our railcars used for the purpose of carrying various products, including ammonia. Due to the dangerous and potentially toxic nature of the cargo, in particular ammonia, on board railcars, a railcar accident may result in fires, explosions and pollution. These circumstances may result in sudden, severe damage or injury to property, the environment and human health. In the event of pollution, we may be held responsible even if we are not at fault and we complied with the laws and regulations in effect at the time of the accident. Litigation arising from accidents involving ammonia and other products we produce or transport 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 results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Given the risks inherent in transporting ammonia, the costs of transporting ammonia could increase significantly in the future. Ammonia is most typically transported by pipeline and railcar. A number of initiatives are underway in the railroad and chemical industries that may result in changes to railcar design in order to minimize railway accidents involving hazardous materials. In addition, in the future, laws may more severely restrict or eliminate our ability to transport ammonia via railcar. If any railcar design changes are implemented, or if accidents involving hazardous freight increase the insurance and other costs of railcars, our freight costs could significantly increase.

Environmental laws and regulations could require us to make substantial capital expenditures to remain in compliance or to remediate current or future contamination that could give rise to material liabilities.

Our operations are subject to a variety of federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing the emission or discharge of pollutants into the environment, product specifications and the generation, treatment, storage, transportation, disposal and remediation of solid and hazardous waste and materials. 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 or facility shutdowns.

21

Table of Contents

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 results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Our facility operates under a number of federal and state permits, licenses and approvals with terms and conditions containing a significant number of prescriptive limits and performance standards in order to operate. Our facility is also required to comply with prescriptive limits and meet performance standards specific to chemical facilities as well as to general manufacturing facilities. All of these permits, licenses, approvals and standards require a significant amount of monitoring, record keeping and reporting in order to demonstrate compliance with the underlying permit, license, approval or standard. Incomplete documentation of compliance status may result in the imposition of fines, penalties and injunctive relief. 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 and licenses due to operational upsets or malfunctions, which may lead to the imposition of fines and penalties or operating restrictions that may have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our facilities and accordingly our financial performance.

Our business is subject to the occurrence of accidental spills, discharges or other releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Past or future spills related to our nitrogen fertilizer plant or transportation of products or hazardous substances from our facility 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 Response, 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 the facility we currently own and operate (whether or not such contamination occurred prior to our acquisition thereof), facilities we formerly owned or operated (if any) and facilities to which we transported or arranged for the transportation of wastes or byproducts containing hazardous substances for treatment, storage, or disposal. The potential penalties and cleanup costs for past or future releases or spills, liability to third parties for damage to their property or exposure to hazardous substances, or the need to address newly discovered information or conditions that may require response actions could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

In addition, we may incur liability for alleged personal injury or property damage due to exposure to chemicals or other hazardous substances located at or released from our facility. 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 facility to adjacent and other nearby properties.

We may incur future costs relating to the off-site disposal of hazardous wastes. Companies that dispose of, or arrange for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at off-site locations may be held jointly and severally liable for the costs of investigation and remediation of contamination at those off-site locations, regardless of fault. We could become involved in litigation or other proceedings involving off-site waste disposal and the damages or costs in any such proceedings could be material.

We may be unable to obtain or renew permits necessary for our operations, which could inhibit our ability to do business.

We hold numerous environmental and other governmental permits and approvals authorizing operations at our nitrogen fertilizer facility. Expansion of our operations is also predicated upon securing the necessary environmental or other permits or approvals. A decision by a government agency to deny or delay issuing a new

22

Table of Contents

or renewed material permit or approval, or to revoke or substantially modify an existing permit or approval, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue operations and on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make cash distributions.

Environmental laws and regulations on fertilizer end-use and application and numeric nutrient water quality criteria could have a material adverse impact on fertilizer demand in the future.

Future environmental laws and regulations on the end-use and application of fertilizers could cause changes in demand for our products. 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. From time to time, various state legislatures have proposed bans or other limitations on fertilizer products. In addition, a number of states have adopted or proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria that could result in decreased demand for our fertilizer products in those states. Similarly, a new final Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) rule establishing numeric nutrient criteria for certain Florida water bodies may require farmers to implement best management practices, including the reduction of fertilizer use, to reduce the impact of fertilizer on water quality. The rule has been challenged and may be replaced with a state rule imposing similar numeric nutrient criteria. Such laws, regulations or interpretations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Climate change laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and ability to make cash distributions.

Various legislative and regulatory measures to address greenhouse gas emissions (including CO2, methane and nitrous oxides) are in various phases of discussion or implementation. In the aftermath of its 2009 “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to human health and welfare, the EPA has begun to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the authority granted to it under the Clean Air Act. In October 2009, the EPA finalized a rule requiring certain large emitters of greenhouse gases to inventory and annually report their greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA. In accordance with the rule, we began monitoring our greenhouse gas emissions from our nitrogen fertilizer plant and have already reported emissions to the EPA for the year ended 2011. In May 2010, the EPA finalized the “Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” which established new greenhouse gas emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources, such as our nitrogen fertilizer plant, must obtain permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, and Title V programs of the federal Clean Air Act. The significance of the permitting requirement is that, in cases where a new source is constructed or an existing source undergoes a major modification, the facility would need to evaluate and install best available control technology, or BACT, for its greenhouse gas emissions. A major modification resulting in a significant expansion of production at our nitrogen fertilizer plant that causes a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions could require the installation of BACT controls. However, we do not believe that our ongoing or anticipated expansion projects would trigger the need to install BACT controls. The EPA’s endangerment finding, Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and certain other greenhouse gas emission rules have been challenged and will likely be subject to extensive litigation.

At the federal legislative level, Congressional passage of legislation adopting some form of federal mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction, such as a nationwide cap-and-trade program, does not appear likely at this time, although it could be adopted at a future date. It is also possible that Congress may pass alternative climate change bills that do not mandate a nationwide cap-and-trade program and instead focus on promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency.

In addition to potential federal legislation, a number of states have adopted regional greenhouse gas initiatives to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, a group of Midwest states, including Kansas (where our nitrogen fertilizer facility is located), formed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, which calls for the development of a cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions and for the inventory of such emissions. However, the individual states that have signed on to the accord must adopt laws or regulations implementing the trading scheme before it becomes effective, and it is unclear whether Kansas still intends to do so.

23

Table of Contents

The implementation of EPA greenhouse gas regulations or potential federal, state or regional programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will likely result in increased costs to (i) operate and maintain our facilities, (ii) install new emission controls on our facilities and (iii) administer and manage any greenhouse gas emissions program. Increased costs associated with compliance with any future legislation or regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, if it occurs, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

In addition, climate change legislation and regulations may result in increased costs not only for our business but also for agricultural producers that utilize our fertilizer products, thereby potentially decreasing demand for our fertilizer products. Decreased demand for our fertilizer products may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

New regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous chemicals, risks of terrorism and the security of chemical manufacturing facilities could result in higher operating costs.

The costs of complying with future regulations relating to the transportation of hazardous chemicals and security associated with our nitrogen fertilizer facility may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. Targets such as chemical manufacturing facilities may be at greater risk of future terrorist attacks than other targets in the United States. The chemical industry has responded to the issues that arose in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 by starting new initiatives relating to the security of chemical industry facilities and the transportation of hazardous chemicals in the United States. Future terrorist attacks could lead to even stronger, more costly initiatives that could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions .

Due to our lack of asset diversification, adverse developments in the nitrogen fertilizer industry could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

We rely exclusively on the revenues generated from our nitrogen fertilizer business. An adverse development in the nitrogen fertilizer industry would have a significantly greater impact on our operations and cash available for distribution to holders of common units than it will on other companies with a more diverse asset and product base. The largest publicly traded companies with which we compete sell a more varied range of fertilizer products.

Our business depends on significant customers, and the loss of one or several significant customers may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Our business has a high concentration of customers. In the aggregate, our top five ammonia customers represented 61.3% of our ammonia sales, and our top five UAN customers represented 49.0% of our UAN sales, for the year ended December 31, 2011. 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, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

There can be no assurance that the transportation costs of our competitors will not decline.

Our nitrogen fertilizer plant is located within the U.S. farm belt, where the majority of the end users of our nitrogen fertilizers grow their crops. Many of our competitors produce fertilizer outside this region and incur greater costs in transporting their products over longer distances via rail, ships and pipelines. There can be no assurance that our competitors’ transportation costs will not decline or that additional pipelines will not be built, lowering the price at which our competitors can sell their products, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

24

Table of Contents

We are subject to strict laws and regulations regarding employee and process safety, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Our facility is subject to the requirements of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA, and comparable state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, OSHA and certain environmental regulations require that we maintain information about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that we provide this information to employees and state and local governmental authorities. Failure to comply with OSHA requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements and monitoring and control of occupational exposure to regulated substances, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions if we are subjected to significant fines or compliance costs.

Instability and volatility in the global capital, credit and commodity markets could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make cash distributions.

The global capital and credit markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruption in recent years. Our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions could be negatively impacted by difficult conditions and extreme volatility in the capital, credit and commodities markets and in the global economy. These factors, combined with declining business and consumer confidence and increased unemployment, precipitated an economic recession in the United States and globally. The difficult conditions in these markets and the overall economy affect us in a number of ways. For example:

Our acquisition and expansion strategy involves significant risks.

One of our business strategies is to pursue acquisitions and expansion projects (including the ongoing expansion of our UAN capacity). However, acquisitions and expansions involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including intense competition for suitable acquisition targets, the potential unavailability of financial resources necessary to consummate acquisitions and expansions, difficulties in identifying suitable acquisition targets and expansion projects or in completing any transactions identified on sufficiently favorable terms, and the need to obtain regulatory or other governmental approvals that may be necessary to complete acquisitions and expansions. In addition, any future acquisitions and expansions may entail significant transaction costs, tax consequences and risks associated with entry into new markets and lines of business.

We are in the process of expanding our nitrogen fertilizer plant, which is expected to allow us the flexibility to upgrade all of our ammonia production to UAN. This expansion is premised in large part on the historically higher margin that we have received for UAN compared to ammonia. If the premium that UAN currently earns over ammonia decreases, this expansion project may not yield the economic benefits and accretive effects that we currently anticipate.

25

Table of Contents

In addition to the risks involved in identifying and completing acquisitions described above, even when acquisitions are completed, integration of acquired entities can involve significant difficulties, such as:

In addition, in connection with any potential acquisition or expansion project, we will need to consider whether the business we intend to acquire or expansion project we intend to pursue could affect our tax treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we are otherwise unable to conclude that the activities of the business being acquired or the expansion project would not affect our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we could seek a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS. Seeking such a ruling could be costly or, in the case of competitive acquisitions, place us in a competitive disadvantage compared to other potential acquirers who do not seek such a ruling. If we are unable to conclude that an activity would not affect our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we could choose to acquire such business or develop such expansion project in a corporate subsidiary, which would subject the income related to such activity to entity-level taxation. See “— Tax Risks — Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat us as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes or if we were to become subject to additional amounts of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.”

Failure to manage acquisition and expansion growth risks could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. There can be no assurance that we will be able to consummate any acquisitions or expansions, successfully integrate acquired entities, or generate positive cash flow at any acquired company or expansion project.

We rely on the executive officers of CVR Energy to manage many aspects of our business and affairs pursuant to a services agreement, which CVR Energy can terminate at any time after April 13, 2012, subject to a 180-day notice period.

Our future performance depends to a significant degree upon the continued contributions of CVR Energy’s senior management team. We have entered into a services agreement with our general partner and CVR Energy whereby CVR Energy has agreed to provide us with the services of its senior management team as well as accounting, business operations, legal, finance and other key back-office and mid-office personnel. At any time after April 13, 2012, CVR Energy can terminate this agreement, subject to a 180-day notice period. The loss or unavailability to us of any member of CVR Energy’s senior management team could negatively affect our ability to operate our business and pursue our business strategies. We do not have employment agreements with any of CVR Energy’s officers and we do not maintain any key person insurance. We can provide no assurance that CVR Energy will continue to provide us the officers that are necessary for the conduct of our business nor that such provision will be on terms that are acceptable. If CVR Energy elected to terminate the agreement on 180 days’ notice, we might not be able to find qualified individuals to serve as our executive officers within such 180-day period.

26

Table of Contents

In addition, pursuant to the services agreement we are responsible for a portion of the compensation expense of such executive officers according to the percentage of time such executive officers spent working for us. However, the compensation of such executive officers is set by CVR Energy, and we have no control over the amount paid to such officers. The services agreement does not contain any cap on the amounts we may be required to pay CVR Energy pursuant to this agreement.

A shortage of skilled labor, together with rising labor costs, could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Efficient production of nitrogen fertilizer using modern techniques and equipment requires skilled employees. Our nitrogen fertilizer facility relies on gasification technology that requires special expertise to operate efficiently and effectively. To the extent that the services of our key technical personnel become unavailable to us for any reason, we would be required to hire other personnel. We may not be able to locate or employ such qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all. We face competition for these professionals from our competitors, our customers and other companies operating in our industry. If we are unable to find qualified employees, or if the cost to find qualified employees increases materially, our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected.

If licensed technology were no longer available, our business may be adversely affected.

We have licensed, and may in the future license, a combination of patent, trade secret and other intellectual property rights of third parties for use in our business. In particular, the gasification process we use to convert pet coke to high purity hydrogen for subsequent conversion to ammonia is licensed from General Electric. The license, which is fully paid, grants us perpetual rights to use the pet coke gasification process on specified terms and conditions and is integral to the operations of our facility. If this license, or any other license agreements on which our operations rely, were to be terminated, licenses to alternative technology may not be available, or may only be available on terms that are not commercially reasonable or acceptable. In addition, any substitution of new technology for currently-licensed technology may require substantial changes to manufacturing processes or equipment and may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Security breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our customers and suppliers, and personally identifiable information of our employees, in our facilities and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, disrupt our operations, damage our reputation, and cause a loss of confidence, which could adversely affect our business.

We may face third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, which if successful could result in significant costs for our business.

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 have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. In

27

Table of Contents

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 manufacturing processes or equipment or to our products, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

Our indebtedness may affect our ability to operate our business, and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2011, we had $125.0 million in outstanding term loan borrowings and borrowing availability of $25.0 million under our revolving credit facility. We and our subsidiary 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 level of indebtedness could have important consequences, such as:

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 ability to make distributions. While we may enter into agreements limiting our exposure to higher interest rates, any such agreements may not offer complete protection from this risk.

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 subject to prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, competitive, legal and other factors.

28

Table of Contents

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 (including restrictions on distributions to our unitholders), 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. Our credit facility provides that we can make distributions to holders of our common units, but only if we are in compliance with our leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio covenants on a pro forma basis after giving effect to any distribution and there is no default or event of default under the facility. If we were unable to comply with any such covenant restrictions in any quarter, our ability to make distributions to unitholders would be curtailed. In addition, the termination or non-renewal of, or violation by CVR Energy of its covenants in, any of the intercompany agreements between us and CVR Energy that has a material adverse effect on us would trigger an event of 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, subject to the intercreditor agreements. In addition, any defaults 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.

We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness that may not be successful.

Our ability to satisfy our debt obligations will depend upon, among other things:

We cannot offer any assurance that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations, or that we will be able to draw under our credit facility or otherwise, in an amount sufficient to fund our liquidity needs. In addition, our general partner’s current policy is to distribute all available cash we generate on a quarterly basis, and the board of directors of our general partner may in the future elect to pay a special distribution, engage in unit repurchases or pursue other strategic options including acquisitions of other business or asset purchases, which would reduce cash available to service our debt obligations.

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to service our indebtedness, we may be forced to reduce or suspend distributions, reduce or delay capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness or seek bankruptcy protection. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. In addition, the terms of existing or future debt agreements may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In the absence of such operating results and resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations, sell equity, and/or negotiate with our lenders to restructure the applicable debt, in order to meet our debt service and other obligations. We may not be able to consummate those dispositions for fair market value or at all. Our credit facility or market or business conditions may limit our ability to avail ourselves of some or all of these options. Furthermore, any proceeds that we could realize from any such dispositions may not be adequate to meet our debt service obligations then due.

29

Table of Contents

Our debt agreements contain restrictions that will limit our flexibility in operating our business and our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

Our credit facility contains, and any instruments governing future indebtedness of ours would likely contain, a number of covenants that impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us, including restrictions on our and our subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

Any of these restrictions could limit our ability to plan for or react to market conditions and could otherwise restrict partnership activities. 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 assets, and force us into bankruptcy or liquidation, subject to any applicable intercreditor agreements. In addition, a default under our credit facility would trigger a cross default under our other agreements and could trigger a cross default under the agreements governing our future indebtedness. 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.

Despite our indebtedness, we may still be able to incur significantly more debt, including secured indebtedness. This could intensify the risks described above.

We may be able to incur substantially more debt in the future, including secured indebtedness. Although our credit facility contains restrictions on our incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions and, under certain circumstances, indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. Also, these restrictions may not prevent us from incurring obligations that do not constitute indebtedness. To the extent such new debt or new obligations are added to our existing indebtedness, the risks described above could substantially increase.

We are a holding company and depend upon our subsidiary for our cash flow.

We are a holding company. All of our operations are conducted and all of our assets are owned by Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, or CRNF, our wholly-owned subsidiary and our sole subsidiary. Consequently, our cash flow and our ability to meet our obligations or to make cash distributions in the future will depend upon the cash flow of our subsidiary and the payment of funds by our subsidiary to us in the form of dividends or otherwise. The ability of our subsidiary to make any payments to us will depend on its earnings, the terms of its indebtedness, including the terms of any credit facilities, and legal restrictions. In particular, future credit facilities incurred at our subsidiary may impose significant limitations on the ability of our subsidiary to make distributions to us and consequently our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.

30

Table of Contents

As a publicly traded partnership we qualify for certain exemptions from the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance requirements.

As a publicly traded partnership, we qualify for certain exemptions from the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance requirements, including:

Our general partner’s board of directors has not and does not currently intend to establish a nominating/corporate governance committee. Additionally, we could avail ourselves of the additional exemptions available to publicly traded partnerships listed above at any time in the future. Accordingly, unitholders do not have the same protections afforded to equityholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the New York Stock Exchange.

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 under current rules will be required to comply with Section 404 in our annual report for the year ended December 31, 2012. Furthermore, upon completion of this process, we may identify control deficiencies of varying degrees of severity under applicable SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, rules and regulations that remain unremediated. Although we produce our financial statements in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), our internal accounting controls may not currently meet all standards applicable to companies with publicly traded securities. As a publicly traded partnership, 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 deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

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. 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 units. In addition, if we fail to remedy any material weakness, our financial statements may be inaccurate, we may face restricted access to the capital markets and the price of our common units may be adversely affected.

31

Table of Contents

Our relationship with CVR Energy and its financial condition subjects us to potential risks that are beyond our control.

Due to our relationship with CVR Energy, adverse developments or announcements concerning CVR Energy could materially adversely affect our financial condition, even if we have not suffered any similar development. The ratings assigned to CVR Energy’s senior secured indebtedness are below investment grade. Downgrades of the credit ratings of CVR Energy could increase our cost of capital and collateral requirements, and could impede our access to the capital markets.

The credit and business risk profiles of CVR Energy may be factors considered in credit evaluations of us. This is because we rely on CVR Energy for various services, including management services and the supply of pet coke. Another factor that may be considered is the financial condition of CVR Energy, including the degree of its financial leverage and its dependence on cash flow from us to service its indebtedness. The credit and risk profile of CVR Energy could adversely affect our credit ratings and risk profile, which could increase our borrowing costs or hinder our ability to raise capital.

If we were to seek a credit rating in the future, our credit rating may be adversely affected by the leverage of CVR Energy, as credit rating agencies may consider the leverage and credit profile of CVR Energy and its affiliates because of their ownership interest in and joint control of us and the strong operational links between CVR Energy’s refining business and us. Any adverse effect on our credit rating would increase our cost of borrowing or hinder our ability to raise financing in the capital markets, which would impair our ability to grow our business and make cash distributions to unitholders.

Risks Related to Our Limited Partnership Structure and Our Common Units

The board of directors of our general partner has adopted a policy to distribute all of the available cash we generate on a quarterly basis, which could limit our ability to grow and make acquisitions.

Our general partner’s current policy is to distribute all of the available cash we generate on a quarterly basis to our unitholders. As a result, we will rely primarily upon external financing sources, including commercial bank borrowings and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund our acquisitions and expansion capital expenditures. As a result, to the extent we are unable to finance growth externally, our cash distribution policy will significantly impair our ability to grow.

In addition, because of our general partner’s current distribution policy, our growth may not be as fast as that of businesses that reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations. To the extent we issue additional units in connection with any acquisitions or expansion capital expenditures, the payment of distributions on those additional units will decrease the amount we distribute on each outstanding unit. There are no limitations in our partnership agreement on our ability to issue additional units, including units ranking senior to the common units. The incurrence of additional commercial borrowings or other debt to finance our growth strategy would result in increased interest expense, which, in turn, would reduce the available cash that we have to distribute to our unitholders.

Our general partner, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy, has fiduciary duties to CVR Energy and its stockholders, and the interests of CVR Energy and its stockholders may differ significantly from, or conflict with, the interests of our public common unitholders.

Our general partner is responsible for managing us. Although our general partner has fiduciary duties to manage us in a manner that is in our best interests, the fiduciary duties are specifically limited by the express terms of our partnership agreement, and the directors and officers of our general partner also have fiduciary duties to manage our general partner in a manner beneficial to CVR Energy and its stockholders. The interests of CVR Energy and its stockholders may differ from, or conflict with, the interests of our common unitholders. In

32

Table of Contents

resolving these conflicts, our general partner may favor its own interests, the interests of Coffeyville Resources, its sole member, or the interests of CVR Energy and holders of CVR Energy’s common stock over our interests and those of our common unitholders.

The potential conflicts of interest include, among others, the following:

Our partnership agreement limits the liability and reduces the fiduciary duties of our general partner and restricts the remedies available to us and our common unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

Our partnership agreement limits the liability and reduces the fiduciary duties of our general partner, while also restricting the remedies available to our common unitholders for actions that, without these limitations and reductions, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. Delaware partnership law permits such contractual reductions of fiduciary duty. By purchasing common units, common unitholders consent to some actions that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties applicable under state law. Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example:

33

Table of Contents

By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder becomes bound by the provisions of our partnership agreement, including the provisions described above.

Our unitholders have limited voting rights, and CVR Energy has the power to appoint and remove our general partner’s directors.

Our general partner has control over all decisions related to our operations. Furthermore, CVR Energy, through its ownership of 100% of Coffeyville Resources, has the power to elect all of the members of the board of directors of our general partner. The goals and objectives of CVR Energy, as the indirect owner of our general partner, may not be consistent with those of our public unitholders.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, our unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Our public unitholders do not have an ability to influence any operating decisions and are not able to prevent us from entering into any transactions. Unlike publicly traded corporations, we do not hold annual meetings of our unitholders to elect directors or conduct other matters routinely conducted at annual meetings of stockholders. Furthermore, even if our unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they have no practical ability to remove our general partner. As a result of these limitations, the price at which the common units will trade could be diminished.

Common units are subject to our general partner’s call right.

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units, our general partner will have the right, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, but not the obligation, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by public unitholders at a price not less than their then-current market price, as calculated pursuant to the terms of our partnership agreement. As a result, each holder of our common units may be required to sell such holder’s common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on investment. Each holder of our common units may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of such holder’s common units. Our general partner is not obligated to obtain a fairness opinion regarding the value of the common units to be repurchased by it upon exercise of the call right. There is no restriction in our

34

Table of Contents

partnership agreement that prevents our general partner from issuing additional common units and then exercising its call right. Our general partner may use its own discretion, free of fiduciary duty restrictions, in determining whether to exercise this right.

Our public unitholders do not have sufficient voting power to remove our general partner without CVR Energy’s consent.

CVR Energy indirectly owns approximately 70% of our common units, which means holders of common units are not able to remove the general partner, under any circumstances, unless CVR Energy sells some of the common units that it owns or we sell additional units to the public, in either case, such that CVR Energy owns less than 50% of our common units.

Our partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of unitholders owning 20% or more of our common units (other than our general partner and its affiliates and permitted transferees).

Our partnership agreement restricts unitholders’ voting rights by providing that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner, its affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner, may not vote on any matter. Our partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of common unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the ability of our common unitholders to influence the manner or direction of management.

Cost reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates will reduce cash available for distribution to you.

Prior to making any distribution on our outstanding units, we will reimburse our general partner for all expenses it incurs on our behalf including, without limitation, our pro rata portion of management compensation and overhead charged by CVR Energy in accordance with our services agreement. The services agreement does not contain any cap on the amount we may be required to pay pursuant to this agreement. The payment of these amounts, including allocated overhead, to our general partner and its affiliates could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to you.

Limited partners may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to the general partner. Our partnership is organized under Delaware law and our subsidiary conducts business in a number of other states, including Kansas, Nebraska and Texas. Limited partners could be liable for our obligations as if such limited partners were general partners if a court or government agency determined that:

Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.

In the event that: (i) we make distributions to our unitholders when our nonrecourse liabilities exceed the sum of (a) the fair market value of our assets not subject to recourse liability and (b) the excess of the fair market value of our assets subject to recourse liability over such liability, or a distribution causes such a result, and (ii) a unitholder knows at the time of the distribution of such circumstances, such unitholder will be liable for a period of three years from the time of the impermissible distribution to repay the distribution under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Act.

35

Table of Contents

Likewise, upon the winding up of the partnership, in the event that (a) we do not distribute assets in the following order: (i) to creditors in satisfaction of their liabilities; (ii) to partners and former partners in satisfaction of liabilities for distributions owed under our partnership agreement; (iii) to partners for the return of their contribution; and finally (iv) to the partners in the proportions in which the partners share in distributions and (b) a unitholder knows at the time of such circumstances, then such unitholder will be liable for a period of three years from the impermissible distribution to repay the distribution under Section 17-807 of the Delaware Act.

Our general partner’s interest in us and the control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest in us to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of the unitholders. Furthermore, there is no restriction in our partnership agreement on the ability of CVR Energy to transfer its equity interest in our general partner to a third party. The new equity owner of our general partner would then be in a position to replace the board of directors and the officers of our general partner with its own choices and to influence the decisions taken by the board of directors and officers of our general partner.

If control of our general partner were transferred to an unrelated third party, the new owner of the general partner would have no interest in CVR Energy. We rely substantially on the senior management team of CVR Energy and have entered into a number of significant agreements with CVR Energy, including a services agreement pursuant to which CVR Energy provides us with the services of its senior management team and a long-term agreement for the provision of pet coke. If our general partner were no longer controlled by CVR Energy, CVR Energy could be more likely to terminate the services agreement which, beginning on April 13, 2012, it may do upon 180 days’ notice, or elect not to renew the pet coke agreement, which expires in 2027.

Our business could be negatively affected as a result of a threatened proxy contest and pending tender offer with respect to CVR Energy.

CVR Energy, which indirectly owns our general partner and approximately 70% of our common units, recently received a notice from certain funds affiliated with Carl Icahn that discloses their intent to nominate nine individuals for election to CVR Energy’s Board of Directors. In addition, on February 23, 2012, certain funds affiliated with Carl Icahn commenced a tender offer for control of CVR Energy with the intention, following completion of such tender offer, to seek to sell CVR Energy to a strategic acquiror. Our general partner is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy, and consequently CVR Energy has the right to nominate all of the members of the board of directors of our general partner.

The Partnership could be adversely affected by these events because, among other things:

CVR Energy provides us with the services of its senior management team as well as accounting, business operations, legal, finance and other key back-office and mid-office personnel pursuant to a services agreement which it can terminate at any time after April 13, 2012, subject to a 180-day notice period. CVR Energy also has the right under our partnership agreement to sell our general partner at any time to a third party, who would be able to replace our entire board of directors. Finally, CVR Energy currently owns the majority of our common units. A new board of directors at CVR Energy might have a different view as to whether to maintain any or all of the foregoing, which could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership.

36

Table of Contents

Increases in interest rates could adversely impact our unit price and our ability to issue additional equity to make acquisitions, incur debt or for other purposes.

We cannot predict how interest rates will react to changing market conditions. Interest rates on our credit facility, future credit facilities and debt offerings could be higher than current levels, causing our financing costs to increase accordingly. Additionally, as with other yield-oriented securities, we expect that our unit price will be impacted by the level of our quarterly cash distributions and implied distribution yield. The distribution yield is often used by investors to compare and rank related yield-oriented securities for investment decision-making purposes. Therefore, changes in interest rates may affect the yield requirements of investors who invest in our common units, and a rising interest rate environment could have a material adverse impact on our unit price and our ability to issue additional equity to make acquisitions or to incur debt as well as increasing our interest costs.

We may issue additional common units and other equity interests without your approval, which would dilute your existing ownership interests.

Under our partnership agreement, we are authorized to issue an unlimited number of additional interests without a vote of the unitholders. The issuance by us of additional common units or other equity interests of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

In addition, our partnership agreement does not prohibit the issuance by our subsidiaries of equity interests, which may effectively rank senior to the common units.

Units eligible for future sale may cause the price of our common units to decline.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common units in the public market, or the perception that these sales may occur, could cause the market price of our common units to decline. This could also impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of our equity interests.

As of February 20, 2012, there were 73,030,936 common units outstanding. Of this amount, (i) 22,080,000 common units were sold to the public in our Initial Public Offering and are freely transferable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, by persons other than “affiliates,” as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act and (ii) CVR Energy, through Coffeyville Resources owns 50,920,000 common units, which may only be sold pursuant to a future registration statement or an exemption from registration such as Rule 144. On February 13, 2012, CVR Energy announced its intention to sell a portion of its common unit holdings in CVR Partners. There can be no assurance as to the terms, conditions, amount or timing of such offering, or whether such offering will take place at all. This announcement does not constitute an offer of any securities for sale and is being made pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 135 under the Securities Act.

Under our partnership agreement, our general partner and its affiliates (including Coffeyville Resources) have the right to cause us to register their units under the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws. We are also party to an amended and restated registration rights agreement with Coffeyville Resources pursuant to which we may be required to register the sale of the common units it holds.

37

Table of Contents

Tax Risks

Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the IRS were to treat us as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes or if we were to become subject to additional amounts of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Despite the fact that we are a limited partnership under Delaware law, it is possible in certain circumstances for a partnership such as ours to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. From 2011, and in each taxable year thereafter, we are required to derive at least 90% of our annual gross income from specific activities to continue to be treated as a partnership, rather than as a corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We may not find it possible to meet this qualifying income requirement, or may inadvertently fail to meet this qualifying income requirement.

Although we do not believe based upon our current operations that we are treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, a change in our business or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity. We may in the future enter into new activities or businesses. If our legal counsel were to be unable to opine that gross income from any such activity or business will count toward satisfaction of the 90% gross income, or qualifying income, requirement to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we could seek a ruling from the IRS that gross income we earn from any such activity or business will be qualifying income. There can be no assurance, however, that the IRS would issue a favorable ruling under such circumstances. If we did not receive a favorable ruling, we could choose to engage in the activity or business through a corporate subsidiary, which would subject the income related to such activity or business to entity-level taxation. Except to the extent that we in the future request a ruling regarding the qualifying nature of our income from a particular activity or business, we do not intend to request a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes or any other matter affecting us.

If we were treated as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would pay U.S. federal income tax on all of our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%, and would likely pay additional state and local income tax at varying rates. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses, deductions or credits would flow through to our unitholders. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by legislation or judicial or administrative ruling or interpretation at any time. Current law may change to cause us to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to entity-level taxation. The current administration and, members of Congress have recently considered substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that would, adversely affect the tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships. Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws or interpretations thereof may or may not be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax

38

Table of Contents

purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could cause a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

At the state level, several states are evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise or other forms of taxation. Specifically, we are required to pay Texas franchise tax each year at a maximum effective rate of 0.7% of our gross income apportioned to Texas in the prior year. Imposition of this or a similar tax by Texas and, if applicable, by any other state in which we do business will reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Although the considered legislation would not appear to affect our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we are unable to predict whether any of these changes, or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could cause a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

If the IRS contests the U.S. federal income tax positions we take, the market for our common units may be materially and adversely impacted, and the cost of any IRS contest will reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Except to the extent that we, in the future, request a ruling regarding the qualifying nature of our income, we have not and do not intend to request a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes or any other matter affecting us. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we take, and the IRS’s positions may ultimately be sustained. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of the positions we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the price at which they trade. In addition, our costs of any contest with the IRS will be borne indirectly by our unitholders because the costs will reduce our cash available for distribution.

A unitholder’s share of our income is taxable for U.S. federal income tax purposes even if the unitholder does not receive any cash distributions from us.

Our unitholders are treated as partners to whom we allocate taxable income that could be different in amount than the cash we distribute. A unitholder’s allocable share of our taxable income is taxable to the unitholder, which may require the payment of U.S. federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes on the unitholder’s share of our taxable income, even if no cash distributions are received from us. Unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability that results from that income.

Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be more or less than expected.

If our unitholders sell common units, they will recognize a gain or loss for U.S. federal income tax purposes equal to the difference between the amount realized and their tax basis in those common units. Because distributions in excess of their allocable share of our net taxable income decrease their tax basis in their common units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the common units our unitholders sell will, in effect, become taxable income to our unitholders if they sell such common units at a price greater than their tax basis in those common units, even if the price they receive is less than their original cost. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income due to potential recapture items, including depreciation recapture. In addition, because the amount realized includes a unitholder’s share of our nonrecourse liabilities, if our unitholders sell common units, they may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash the unitholders receive from the sale.

Tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons face unique tax issues from owning our common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Investment in our common units by tax-exempt entities, such as employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), and non-U.S. persons, raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually

39

Table of Contents

all of our income allocated to organizations that are exempt from U.S. federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. Distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by withholding taxes at the highest applicable effective tax rate, and non-U.S. persons will be required to file U.S. federal income tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable income.

We treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual common units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.

Due to our inability to match transferors and transferees of common units, we have adopted depreciation and amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of existing Treasury Regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code, referred to as “Treasury Regulations.” A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale of common units and could cause a substantial reduction in the value of our common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

We prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our common units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. The use of this proration method may not be permitted under existing Treasury Regulations. The U.S. Treasury Department has issued proposed Treasury Regulations that provide a safe harbor pursuant to which publicly traded partnerships may use a similar monthly simplifying convention to allocate tax items among transferor and transferee unitholders. Nonetheless, the proposed regulations do not specifically authorize the use of the proration method we have adopted. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method or new Treasury Regulations were issued requiring a change, we may be required to change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders. Counsel has not rendered an opinion to us with respect to whether our monthly convention for allocating taxable income and losses is permitted by existing Treasury Regulations.

A unitholder whose common units are loaned to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of common units may be considered as having disposed of those common units. If so, the unitholder would no longer be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from the disposition.

Because a unitholder whose common units are loaned to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of common units may be considered as having disposed of the loaned common units, he may no longer be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a partner with respect to those common units during the period of the loan to the short seller and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan to the short seller, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those common units may not be reportable by the unitholder and any cash distributions received by the common unitholder as to those common units could be fully taxable as ordinary income.

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits interests during any twelve-month period will result in the termination of our partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We will be considered to have technically terminated for U.S. federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve-month period. For purposes of determining whether the 50% threshold has been met, multiple sales of the same common unit will

40

Table of Contents

be counted only once. While we would continue our existence as a Delaware limited partnership, our technical termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all unitholders, which would result in us filing two tax returns (and our unitholders could receive two Schedules K-1) for one fiscal year and could result in a significant deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing our taxable income. In the case of a unitholder reporting on a taxable year other than a fiscal year ending December 31, the closing of our taxable year may also result in more than one year of our taxable income or loss being includable in his taxable income for the year of termination. A technical termination currently would not affect our classification as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, but instead, we would be treated as a new partnership for such tax purposes. If treated as a new partnership, we must make new tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we are unable to determine that a technical termination occurred. The IRS has announced a relief procedure whereby a publicly traded partnership that has technically terminated may request special relief that, if granted, would permit the partnership to provide only a single Schedule K-1 to unitholders for the tax years in which the termination occurs.

Unitholders are likely to be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements in jurisdictions where they do not live as a result of investing in our common units.

In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, unitholders are likely to be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do business or control property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Unitholders are likely required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Further, unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. We currently own assets and conduct business in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas. Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska currently impose a personal income tax on individuals. Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska also impose an income tax on corporations and other entities. Texas currently imposes a franchise tax on corporations and other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own or control assets or conduct business in additional states that impose a personal income tax. It is the responsibility of each unitholder to file all U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. tax returns.