UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
_____________________________________________________________
Form 10-K
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014
|
|
|
OR
|
|
o
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period from to .
|
Commission file number: 001-35120
_____________________________________________________________
CVR Partners, LP
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
56-2677689
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
2277 Plaza Drive, Suite 500
Sugar Land, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
77479
(Zip Code)
|
(281) 207-3200
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
_____________________________________________________________
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
Title of Each Class
|
Name of each exchange on which registered
|
|
Common units representing limited partner interests
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes
o
No
þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes
o
No
þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes
þ
No
o
.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 or Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes
þ
No
o
.
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
Large accelerated filer
þ
|
Accelerated filer
o
|
Non-accelerated filer
o
|
Smaller reporting company
o
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes
o
No
þ
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed based on the New York Stock Exchange closing price on June 30,
2014
(the last business day of the registrant's second fiscal quarter) was $632,771,032. Common units held by each executive officer and director and by each entity or person that, to the registrant's knowledge, owned 10% or more of the registrant's outstanding common units as of June 30,
2014
have been excluded from this number in that these persons may be deemed affiliates of the registrant. This determination of possible affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
|
Class
|
Outstanding at February 17, 2015
|
|
Common unit representing limited partner interests
|
73,122,997 units
|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS
The following are definitions of certain terms used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014
(this "Report").
2
|
|
on-stream
|
Measurement of the reliability of the gasification, ammonia and UAN units, defined as the total number of hours operated by each unit divided by the total number of hours in the reporting period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OSHA
|
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pet coke
|
Petroleum coke — a coal-like substance that is produced during the oil refining process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
prepaid sales
|
Represents customer payments under contracts to guarantee a price and supply of fertilizer in quantities expected to be delivered in the next twelve months. Revenue is not recorded for such sales until the product is considered delivered. Prepaid sales are also referred to as deferred revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
product pricing at gate
|
Product pricing at gate represents net sales less freight revenue divided by product sales volume in tons. Product pricing at gate is also referred to as netback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
recordable incident
|
An injury, as defined by OSHA. All work-related deaths and illnesses, and those work-related injuries which result in loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or require medical treatment beyond first aid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secondary Offering
|
The registered public offering of 12,000,000 common units of CVR Partners, LP, by CRLLC, which closed on May 28, 2013.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slag
|
A glasslike substance removed from the gasifier containing the metal impurities originally present in pet coke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slurry
|
Ground pet coke blended with water and a fluxant (a mixture of fly ash and sand).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spot market
|
A market in which commodities are bought and sold for cash and delivered immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
syngas
|
Synthesized gas — a mixture of gases (largely carbon monoxide and hydrogen) that results from gasifying carbonaceous feedstock such as pet coke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
throughput
|
The volume processed through a unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ton
|
One ton is equal to 2,000 pounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
turnaround
|
A periodically required standard procedure to refurbish and maintain a facility that involves the shutdown and inspection of major processing units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UAN
|
UAN is an aqueous solution of urea and ammonium nitrate used as a fertilizer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wheat belt
|
The primary wheat producing region of the United States, which includes Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas.
|
3
PART I
Item 1.
Business
Overview
CVR Partners, LP ("CVR Partners," the "Partnership," "we," "us," or "our") is a Delaware limited partnership formed by CVR Energy to own, operate and grow our nitrogen fertilizer business. Strategically located adjacent to CVR Refining's refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas, our nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing facility is the only operation in North America that utilizes a petroleum coke, or pet coke, gasification process to produce nitrogen fertilizer.
We produce and distribute nitrogen fertilizer products, which are used primarily by farmers to improve the yield and quality of their crops. Our principal products are UAN and ammonia. These products are manufactured at our facility in Coffeyville, Kansas. Our product sales are heavily weighted toward UAN and all of our products are sold on a wholesale basis.
Our facility includes a 1,225 ton-per-day ammonia unit, a 3,000 ton-per-day UAN unit and a gasifier complex having a capacity of 84 million standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen. Our gasifier is a dual-train facility, with each gasifier able to function independently of the other, thereby providing redundancy and improving our reliability. With the completion of the UAN expansion in February 2013, we now upgrade substantially all of the ammonia we produce to higher margin UAN fertilizer, an aqueous solution of urea and ammonium nitrate which has historically commanded a premium price over ammonia. In
2014
, we produced
963,715
tons of UAN and
388,923
tons of ammonia. Approximately
97%
of our produced ammonia tons and the majority of the purchased ammonia were upgraded into UAN.
We intend to continue to expand our existing asset base and utilize the experience of our and CVR Energy’s management teams to execute our growth strategy, which includes expanded production of UAN and acquiring and building additional infrastructure and production assets. A significant two-year plant expansion designed to increase our UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons per year, or approximately 50%, was completed in February 2013. Our expanded facility was operating at full rates at the end of the first quarter of 2013. CVR Energy, which indirectly owns our general partner and approximately
53%
of our outstanding common units, also indirectly owns the general partner and approximately
66%
of the common units of CVR Refining at December 31,
2014
. CVR Refining owns and operates a complex full coking medium-sour crude oil refinery with a rated capacity of 115,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd) in Coffeyville, Kansas, a complex crude oil refinery with a rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd in Wynnewood, Oklahoma and ancillary businesses.
We generated net sales of
$298.7 million
,
$323.7 million
and
$302.3 million
and net income of
$76.1 million
,
$118.6 million
and
$112.2 million
for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively.
The primary raw material feedstock utilized in our nitrogen fertilizer production process is pet coke, which is produced during the crude oil refining process. In contrast, substantially all of our nitrogen fertilizer competitors use natural gas as their primary raw material feedstock. Historically, pet coke has been less expensive than natural gas on a per ton of fertilizer produced basis and pet coke prices have been more stable when compared to natural gas prices. By using pet coke as the primary raw material feedstock instead of natural gas, we believe our nitrogen fertilizer business has historically been one of the lower cost producers and marketers of UAN and ammonia fertilizers in North America. We currently purchase most of our pet coke from CVR Refining pursuant to a long-term agreement having an initial term that ends in 2027, subject to renewal. During the past five years, over 70% of the pet coke consumed by our plant was produced and supplied by CVR Refining’s Coffeyville, Kansas crude oil refinery.
4
Organizational Structure and Related Ownership
The following chart illustrates the organizational structure of the Partnership as of the date of this Report.
5
Raw Material Supply
The nitrogen fertilizer facility's primary input is pet coke. Pet coke is produced as a byproduct of a refinery's coker unit process. In order to refine heavy or sour crude oil, which are lower in cost and more prevalent than higher quality crude oil, refiners use coker units, which enables refiners to further upgrade heavy crude oil. Our fertilizer plant is located in Coffeyville, Kansas, which is part of the Midwest pet coke market. Our average daily pet coke demand from
2012
-
2014
was approximately 1,400 tons per day.
During the past five years, over 70% of our pet coke requirements on average were supplied by CVR Refining's adjacent crude oil refinery, pursuant to a renewable long-term agreement. Historically we have obtained the remainder of our pet coke requirements from third parties such as other Midwestern refineries or pet coke brokers at spot-prices. During 2012, the Partnership entered a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation. The term of this renewed agreement ends in December
2015
and may be renewed. If necessary, the gasification process can be modified to operate on coal as an alternative, which provides an additional raw material source. There are significant supplies of coal within a 60-mile radius of our nitrogen fertilizer plant.
Linde LLC ("Linde") owns, operates, and maintains the air separation plant that provides contract volumes of oxygen, nitrogen, and compressed dry air to our gasifiers for a monthly fee. We provide and pay for all utilities required for operation of the air separation plant. The air separation plant has not experienced any long-term operating problems; however, CVR Energy maintains, for our benefit, contingent business interruption insurance with a $150.0 million limit for any interruption that results in a loss of production from an insured peril. The agreement with Linde provides that if our requirements for liquid or gaseous oxygen, liquid or gaseous nitrogen or clean dry air exceed specified instantaneous flow rates by at least 10%, we can solicit bids from Linde and third parties to supply our incremental product needs. We are required to provide notice to Linde of the approximate quantity of excess product that we will need and the approximate date by which we will need it. We and Linde will then jointly develop a request for proposal for soliciting bids from third parties and Linde. The bidding procedures may be limited under specified circumstances. The agreement with Linde expires in 2020.
Although we have our own boiler that is used to create start-up steam, we also have the ability to import start-up steam for the nitrogen fertilizer plant from CVR Refining's adjacent crude oil refinery and then export steam back to the crude oil refinery once all of our units are in service. We have entered into a feedstock and shared services agreement with a subsidiary of CVR Refining, which regulates, among other things, the import and export of start-up steam between the adjacent refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer plant. Monthly charges and credits are recorded with the steam valued at the natural gas price for the month.
Production Process
Our nitrogen fertilizer plant was built in 2000 with two separate gasifiers to provide redundancy and reliability. It uses a gasification process, licensed from an affiliate of the General Electric Company ("General Electric"), to convert pet coke to high purity hydrogen for subsequent conversion to ammonia. The nitrogen fertilizer plant is capable of processing approximately 1,400 tons per day of pet coke from CVR Refining's crude oil refinery and third-party sources and converting it into approximately 1,225 tons per day of ammonia. Substantially all of the ammonia produced is converted to approximately 3,000 tons per day of UAN. Typically 0.41 tons of ammonia are required to produce one ton of UAN.
Pet coke is first ground and blended with water and a fluxant (a mixture of fly ash and sand) to form a slurry that is then pumped into the partial oxidation gasifier. The slurry is then contacted with oxygen from an air separation unit. Partial oxidation reactions take place and the synthesis gas, or syngas, consisting predominantly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, is formed. The mineral residue from the slurry is a molten slag (a glasslike substance containing the metal impurities originally present in pet coke) and flows along with the syngas into a quench chamber. The syngas and slag are rapidly cooled and the syngas is separated from the slag.
Slag becomes a byproduct of the process. The syngas is scrubbed and saturated with moisture. The syngas next flows through a shift reactor unit where the carbon monoxide in the syngas is reacted with the moisture to form hydrogen and CO2. The heat from this reaction generates saturated steam. Most of this steam along with other steam produced in the ammonia and UAN plants is used internally. The excess steam not consumed by the process can be sent to the adjacent crude oil refinery.
After additional heat recovery, the high-pressure syngas is cooled and processed in the acid gas removal unit where carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide are removed. The syngas is then fed to a pressure swing adsorption ("PSA") unit, where the remaining impurities are extracted. The PSA unit reduces residual carbon monoxide and CO2 levels to trace levels, and the moisture-free, high-purity hydrogen is sent directly to the ammonia synthesis loop.
6
The hydrogen is reacted with nitrogen from the air separation unit in the ammonia unit to form the ammonia product. A large portion of the ammonia is converted to UAN. In
2014
, we produced
963,715
tons of UAN and
388,923
tons of ammonia. Approximately
97%
of our produced ammonia tons and the majority of the purchased ammonia were upgraded into UAN.
We schedule and provide routine maintenance to our critical equipment using our own maintenance technicians. Pursuant to a technical services agreement with General Electric, which licenses the gasification technology to us, General Electric provides technical advice and technological updates from their ongoing research as well as other licensees' operating experiences. The pet coke gasification process is licensed from General Electric pursuant to a perpetual license agreement that is fully paid. The license grants us perpetual rights to use the pet coke gasification process on specified terms and conditions.
Distribution, Sales and Marketing
The primary geographic markets for our fertilizer products are Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado and Texas. We market the ammonia products to industrial and agricultural customers and the UAN products to agricultural customers.
UAN and ammonia are distributed by truck or by railcar. If delivered by truck, products are sold on a freight-on-board basis, and freight is normally arranged by the customer. We lease and own a fleet of railcars for use in product delivery. We incur costs to maintain and repair our railcar fleet that include expenses related to regulatory inspections and repairs. For example, many of our railcars require specific regulatory inspections and repairs due on a ten-year interval. The extent and frequency of railcar fleet maintenance and repair costs are generally expected to change based partially on when regulatory inspections and repairs are due for our railcars under the relevant regulations. We operate eight rail loading and two truck loading racks for UAN. We also operate four rail loading and two truck loading racks for ammonia.
We own all of the truck and rail loading equipment at our nitrogen fertilizer facility. We also utilize two separate UAN storage tanks and related truck and railcar load-out facilities. Each of these facilities, located in Phillipsburg and Dartmouth, Kansas, has a UAN storage tank that has a capacity of two million gallons, or approximately 10,000 tons. The Phillipsburg property that the terminal was constructed on is owned by a subsidiary of CVR Refining, which operates the terminal. The Dartmouth terminal is located on leased property owned by the Pawnee County Cooperative Association, which operates the terminal. The purpose of the UAN terminals is to collectively distribute approximately 40,000 tons of UAN fertilizer annually. These UAN terminals are currently operational.
We market agricultural products to destinations that produce strong margins. The UAN market is primarily located near the Union Pacific Railroad lines or destinations that can be supplied by truck. The ammonia market is primarily located near the Burlington Northern Santa Fe or Kansas City Southern Railroad lines or destinations that can be supplied by truck. By securing this business directly, we reduce our dependence on distributors serving the same customer base, which enables us to capture a larger margin and allows us to better control our product distribution. Most of the agricultural sales are made on a competitive spot basis. We also offer products on a prepay basis for in-season demand. The heavy in-season demand periods are spring and fall in the corn belt and summer in the wheat belt. The corn belt is the primary corn producing region of the United States, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. The wheat belt is the primary wheat producing region of the United States, which includes Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas. Some of the industrial sales are spot sales, but most are on annual or multiyear contracts.
We use forward sales of our fertilizer products to optimize our asset utilization, planning process and production scheduling. These sales are made by offering customers the opportunity to purchase product on a forward basis at prices and delivery dates that we propose. We use this program to varying degrees during the year and between years depending on market conditions. We have the flexibility to decrease or increase forward sales depending on our view as to whether price environments will be increasing or decreasing. Fixing the selling prices of our products months in advance of their ultimate delivery to customers typically causes our reported selling prices and margins to differ from spot market prices and margins available at the time of shipment. As of December 31,
2014
and
2013
, we had sold forward 279,832 and 285,537 tons of UAN at an average netback of $263 and $251 over the next six months, respectively. Cash received as a result of prepayments is recognized as deferred revenue on our Consolidated Balance Sheet upon receipt, and revenue and resultant net income and EBITDA are recorded as the product is actually delivered.
Customers
We sell UAN products to retailers and distributors. In addition, we sell ammonia to agricultural and industrial customers. Some of our larger customers include Gavilon Fertilizer, LLC, United Suppliers, Inc., Crop Production Services, Inc., J.R. Simplot, Inc., Interchem, and MFA. Given the nature of our business, and consistent with industry practice, we do not have long-term minimum purchase contracts with our UAN and ammonia customers.
7
For the year ended
December 31, 2014
, the top five UAN customers in the aggregate represented
42%
of our total sales. Our top two fertilizer customers on a consolidated basis accounted for approximately
17%
and
10%
, respectively, of our net sales. While we do have high concentration of customers, we do not believe that the loss of any single customer would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. See "Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — Our business depends on significant customers, and the loss of significant customers may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions."
Competition
We have experienced and expect to continue to meet significant levels of competition from current and potential competitors, many of whom have significantly greater financial and other resources. See "Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business — Nitrogen fertilizer products are global commodities, and we face intense competition from other nitrogen fertilizer producers."
Competition in our industry is dominated by price considerations. However, during the spring and fall application seasons, farming activities intensify and delivery capacity is a significant competitive factor. We maintain a large fleet of leased and owned railcars and seasonally adjust inventory to enhance our manufacturing and distribution operations.
Our major competitors include Agrium, Inc.; Koch Nitrogen Company, LLC; Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc.; CF Industries Holdings, Inc. and Terra Nitrogen Company, LP. Domestic competition is intense due to customers' sophisticated buying tendencies and competitor strategies that focus on cost and service. Also, foreign competition can exist from producers of fertilizer products manufactured in countries with lower cost natural gas supplies. In certain cases, foreign producers of fertilizer who export to the United States may be subsidized by their respective governments.
Based on Blue Johnson & Associates, Inc. data regarding total U.S. use of UAN and ammonia, we estimate that our UAN production in
2014
represented approximately 7% of total U.S. UAN use and that the net ammonia produced and marketed at our facility represented less than 1% of total U.S. ammonia use.
Seasonality
Because we primarily sell agricultural commodity products, our business is exposed to seasonal fluctuations in demand for nitrogen fertilizer products in the agricultural industry. As a result, we typically generate greater net sales in the first half of the calendar year, which we refer to as the planting season, and our net sales tend to be lower during the second half of each calendar year, which we refer to as the fill season. In addition, the demand for fertilizers is affected by the aggregate crop planting decisions and fertilizer application rate decisions of individual farmers who make planting decisions based largely on the prospective profitability of a harvest. The specific varieties and amounts of fertilizer they apply depend on factors like crop prices, farmers' current liquidity, soil conditions, weather patterns and the types of crops planted.
Environmental Matters
Our business is subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water and the storage, handling, use and transportation of our nitrogen fertilizer products. These laws and regulations, their underlying regulatory requirements and the enforcement thereof impact us by imposing:
|
•
|
restrictions on operations or the need to install enhanced or additional controls;
|
|
•
|
the need to obtain and comply with permits and authorizations;
|
|
•
|
liability for the investigation and remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at current and former facilities (if any) and off-site waste disposal locations; and
|
|
•
|
specifications for the products we market, primarily UAN and ammonia.
|
Our operations require numerous permits and authorizations. Failure to comply with these permits or environmental laws and regulations generally could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions or a revocation of our permits. In addition, the laws and regulations to which we are subject are often evolving and many of them have become more stringent or have become subject to more stringent interpretation or enforcement by federal and state agencies. The ultimate impact on our business of complying with existing laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that our operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in
8
increased capital, operating and compliance costs or result in delays or limits to our operations or growth while attempting to obtain required permits.
The principal environmental risks associated with our business are outlined below.
The Federal Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations, as well as the corresponding state laws and regulations that regulate emissions of pollutants into the air, affect us through the federal Clean Air Act's permitting requirements and emission control requirements relating to specific air pollutants, as well as the requirement to maintain a risk management program to help prevent accidental releases of certain substances. Some or all of the standards promulgated pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, or any future promulgations of standards, may require the installation of controls or changes to our nitrogen fertilizer facility in order to comply. If new controls or changes to operations are needed, the costs could be material. These new requirements, other requirements of the federal Clean Air Act, or other presently existing or future environmental regulations could cause us to expend substantial amounts to comply and/or permit our facility to produce products that meet applicable requirements.
The regulation of air emissions under the federal Clean Air Act requires that we obtain various construction and operating permits and incur capital expenditures for the installation of certain air pollution control devices at our operations. Various regulations specific to our operations have been implemented, such as National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, New Source Performance Standards and New Source Review. We have incurred, and expect to continue to have to make substantial capital expenditures to attain or maintain compliance with these and other air emission regulations that have been promulgated or may be promulgated or revised in the future. In May 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") finalized revisions to the New Source Performance Standards for nitric acid plants. We do not expect to incur capital expenditures or any significant additional operational expenses associated with the revised standards.
Release Reporting
The release of hazardous substances or extremely hazardous substances into the environment is subject to release reporting requirements under federal and state environmental laws. We periodically experience releases of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances from our equipment. Our facility periodically has excess emission events from flaring and other planned and unplanned startup, shutdown and malfunction events. Such releases are reported to the EPA and relevant state and local agencies. From time to time, the EPA has conducted inspections and issued information requests to us with respect to our compliance with release reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. If we fail to properly report a release, or if the release violates the law or our permits, it could cause us to become the subject of a governmental enforcement action or third-party claims. Government enforcement or third-party claims relating to releases of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances could result in significant expenditures and liability.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Various regulatory and legislative measures to address greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions (including carbon dioxide, or CO2, methane and nitrous oxides) are in different phases of implementation or discussion. In the aftermath of its 2009 "endangerment finding" that GHG emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, the EPA has begun to regulate GHG emissions under the authority granted to it under the federal Clean Air Act. In October 2009, the EPA finalized a rule requiring certain large emitters of GHGs to inventory and report their GHG emissions to the EPA. In accordance with the rule, we began monitoring and reporting GHG emissions from our nitrogen fertilizer plant. In May 2010, the EPA finalized the "Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule," which established new GHG emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources, such as our nitrogen fertilizer plant, must obtain permits under the New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("NSR"), and Title V programs of the federal Clean Air Act. In cases where a new source is constructed or an existing major source undergoes a major modification, facilities are required to undergo NSR review and evaluate and install air pollution controls to reduce GHG emissions. A major modification resulting in a significant increase in GHG emissions may require the installation of air pollution controls as part of the permitting process.
Although the EPA has not yet proposed New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") to regulate GHG emissions for the nitrogen fertilizer plant, the EPA has proposed NSPS to regulate GHG for electric utilities. Therefore, we expect that the EPA will propose standards for our fertilizer plant, but the timing of any such EPA proposal is not known.
9
During a State of the Union address in January 2014 and again in January 2015, President Obama indicated that the United States should take action to address climate change. At the federal legislative level, this could mean Congressional passage of legislation adopting some form of federal mandatory GHG emission reduction, such as a nationwide cap-and-trade program. 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 GHG initiatives to reduce CO2 and other GHG 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 GHG 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 intends to do so.
Alternatively, the EPA may take further steps to regulate GHG emissions. The implementation of EPA regulations and/or the passage of federal or state climate change legislation may result in increased costs to (i) operate and maintain our facility, (ii) install new emission controls on our facility and (iii) administer and manage any GHG emissions program. Increased costs associated with compliance with any future legislation or regulation of GHG 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 users of 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.
Environmental Remediation
Under CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons can include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and, under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances. As is the case with all companies engaged in similar industries, we face potential exposure from future claims and lawsuits involving environmental matters, including soil and water contamination, personal injury or property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances that we manufactured, handled, used, stored, transported, spilled, disposed of or released. We cannot assure you that we will not become involved in future proceedings related to our release of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances or that, if we were held responsible for damages in any existing or future proceedings, such costs would be covered by insurance or would not be material.
Environmental Insurance
We are covered by CVR Energy's site pollution legal liability insurance policy with an aggregate limit of $50.0 million per pollution condition, subject to a self-insured retention of $1.0 million. The policy includes business interruption coverage, subject to a 5-day waiting period deductible. This insurance expires on March 1, 2015 and is expected to be renewed without any material changes in terms. The policy insures any location owned, leased, rented or operated by the Partnership, including our nitrogen fertilizer facility. The policy insures certain pollution conditions at, or migrating from, a covered location, certain waste transportation and disposal activities and business interruption.
In addition to the site pollution legal liability insurance policy, we benefit from umbrella and excess casualty insurance policies maintained by CVR Energy having an aggregate and occurrence limit of $150.0 million, subject to a self-insured retention of $2.0 million. This insurance provides coverage due to named perils for claims involving pollutants where the discharge is sudden and accidental and first commenced at a specific day and time during the policy period. The casualty insurance policies, including umbrella and excess policies, expire on March 1, 2015 and are expected to be renewed or replaced by insurance policies containing equivalent sudden and accidental pollution coverage with no reduction in limits.
The site pollution legal liability policy and the pollution coverage provided in the casualty insurance policies contain discovery requirements, reporting requirements, exclusions, definitions, conditions and limitations that could apply to a particular pollution claim, and there can be no assurance such claim will be adequately insured for all potential damages.
10
Safety, Health and Security Matters
We are subject to a number of federal and state laws and regulations related to safety, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act ("OSHA"), and comparable state statutes, the purpose of which are to protect the health and safety of workers. We also are subject to OSHA Process Safety Management regulations, which are designed to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable or explosive chemicals.
We operate a comprehensive safety, health and security program, with participation by employees at all levels of the organization. We have developed comprehensive safety programs aimed at preventing OSHA recordable incidents. Despite our efforts to achieve excellence in our safety and health performance, there can be no assurances that there will not be accidents resulting in injuries or even fatalities. We routinely audit our programs and consider improvements in our management systems.
Process Safety Management.
We maintain a process safety management program ("PSM"). This program is designed to address all aspects of OSHA guidelines for developing and maintaining a comprehensive process safety management program. We will continue to audit our programs and consider improvements in our management systems and equipment.
Risk Management Program.
We maintain an EPA risk management program. This program is similar to PSM but also includes environmental and worst case scenario protections.
Emergency Planning and Response.
We have an emergency response plan that describes the organization, responsibilities and plans for responding to emergencies in our facility. This plan is communicated to local regulatory and community groups. We have on-site warning siren systems and personal radios. We will continue to audit our programs and consider improvements in our management systems and equipment.
Employees
As of
December 31, 2014
, we had 144 direct employees. These employees operate our facilities at the nitrogen fertilizer plant level and are directly employed and compensated by us. As of
December 31, 2014
, these employees are covered by health insurance, disability and retirement plans established by CVR Energy. None of our employees are unionized, and we believe that our relationship with our employees is good.
We also rely on the services of employees of CVR Energy in the operation of our business pursuant to a services agreement among us, CVR Energy and our general partner.
For more information on this services agreement, see Part III, Item 13 of this report "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence — Agreements with CVR Energy and CVR Refining — Services Agreement."
Available Information
Our website address is www.cvrpartners.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, are available free of charge through our website under "Investor Relations," as soon as reasonably practicable after the electronic filing of these reports is made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). In addition, our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Codes of Ethics and the Charter of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of our general partner are available on our website. These guidelines, policies and charters are also available in print without charge to any unitholder requesting them.
Trademarks, Trade Names and Service Marks
This Report may include our and our affiliates' trademarks, including Coffeyville Resources, the Coffeyville Resources logo, the CVR Partners, LP logo, the CVR Refining, LP logo and the CVR Energy, Inc. logo, each of which is registered or for which we are applying for federal registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This Report may also contain trademarks, service marks, copyrights and trade names of other companies.
11
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 develop into actual events, 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 cash available 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 cash available 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 (which is defined as Adjusted EBITDA reduced for cash needed for (i) net interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service and other contractual obligations; (ii) maintenance capital expenditures; and (iii) to the extent applicable, major scheduled turnaround expenses incurred and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any) 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:
|
•
|
The amount of distributions we pay, if any, and the decision to make any distribution at all will be determined by the board of directors of our general partner, whose interests may differ from those of our common unitholders. Our general partner has limited fiduciary and contractual duties, which may permit it to favor its own interests or the interests of CVR Energy to the detriment of our common unitholders.
|
|
•
|
Our credit facility, which matures in April 2016, and any credit facility or other debt instruments we enter into in the future, may limit the distributions that we can make. 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. In addition, any future credit facility may contain other financial tests and covenants that we must satisfy. Any failure to comply with these tests and covenants could result in the lenders prohibiting distributions by us.
|
|
•
|
The actual amount of available cash depends on numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control, including UAN and ammonia prices, our operating costs, global and domestic demand for nitrogen fertilizer products, fluctuations in our working capital needs, and the amount of fees and expenses incurred by us.
|
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.
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, future quarterly distributions paid to our unitholders will vary significantly from quarter to quarter and may be zero.
12
The board of directors of our general partner may modify or revoke our cash distribution policy at any time at its discretion, including in such a manner that would result in an elimination of cash distributions regardless of the amount of available cash we generate. 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 of directors of our general partner may change such policy at any time at its discretion and could elect not to make distributions for one or more quarters regardless of the amount of available cash we generate. 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 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, governmental policies 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. 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. 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, 2014
, we had cash and cash equivalents of
$79.9 million
and $25.0 million available under our revolving 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.
13
Continued low 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, which approached ten-year lows at the beginning of 2015, is a large component of the total production cost for natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. Low natural gas prices benefit our competitors and disproportionately impact our operations by making us less competitive with natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer manufacturers. Continued low natural gas prices could impair our ability to compete with other nitrogen fertilizer producers who utilize natural gas as their primary feedstock if nitrogen fertilizer pricing drops as a result of low natural gas prices, and therefore have a material adverse impact on the trading price of our common units. In addition, if low natural gas prices in the United States were to prompt 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 population changes, demand for U.S. agricultural products and U.S. and foreign policies regarding trade in agricultural products.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 ("the 2014 Farm Bill") ends direct subsidies to agricultural producers for owning farmland, and funds a new crop insurance program in its place. As part of the conservation title of the 2014 farm bill, agricultural producers must meet a minimum standard of environmental protection in order to receive federal crop insurance on sensitive lands. The 2014 Farm Bill also discourages producers from converting native grasslands to farmland by limiting crop insurance subsidies for the first few years for newly converted lands. These changes may have a negative impact on fertilizer sales and on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.
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. Unfavorable state and federal governmental policies could negatively affect nitrogen fertilizer prices and therefore have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition ability to make cash distributions.
A major factor underlying the current high level of demand for our nitrogen-based fertilizer products is the 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 production of ethanol in the United States and the use of corn in ethanol production. Ethanol production in the United States is highly dependent upon a myriad of federal statutes and regulations, and is made significantly more competitive by various federal and state incentives and mandated usage of renewable fuels pursuant to the federal renewable fuel standards (“RFS”). The RFS required 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuel usage in 2013, increasing to 36.0 billion gallons by 2022. To date, the RFS has been satisfied primarily with fuel ethanol blended into gasoline. However, a number of factors, including the continuing “food versus fuel” debate and studies showing that expanded ethanol usage may increase the level of greenhouse gases in the environment as well as be unsuitable for small engine use, have resulted in calls to reduce subsidies for ethanol, allow increased ethanol imports and to repeal or waive (in whole or in part) the current RFS, any of which could have an adverse effect on corn-based ethanol production, planted corn acreage and fertilizer demand. For example, in December 2013 a bipartisan bill was introduced in Congress to eliminate the ethanol mandate from the RFS. 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.
In November 2013, the EPA proposed the 2014 annual renewable fuel percentage standards, including a reduced corn-based ethanol volume, due in part to the concerns regarding the ethanol "blend wall" - the point at which refiners are required to blend more ethanol into the transportation fuel supply than can be supported by the demand for E10 gasoline (gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume). In January 2015, the EPA announced that its goal was to release the final 2015 RFS
14
volume mandates in the spring of 2015. If finalized, as originally proposed, this rulemaking 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. In other action, the US Court of Appeals upheld an EPA waiver allowing the sale of E15 (gasoline blends containing up to 15% ethanol) on later model year cars, but this issue may continue to be challenged through legislative action.
Further, while most ethanol is currently produced from corn and other raw grains, such as milo or sorghum, the current RFS federal mandate requires a portion of the overall RFS federal mandate to come from advanced biofuels, including 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) and biomass-based diesel. In addition, there is a continuing trend to encourage the use of products other than corn and raw grains for ethanol production. For example, the 2014 Farm Bill provides authorization for funding advanced biofuels. If this trend is successful, the demand for corn may decrease significantly, which could reduce demand for our nitrogen fertilizer products and have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. This potential impact on the demand for nitrogen fertilizer products; however, could be slightly offset by the potential market for nitrogen fertilizer product usage in connection with the production of cellulosic biofuels.
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 Middle East, 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. Increased global supply may put downward pressure on fertilizer prices. 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. Increased local supply may put downward pressure on fertilizer prices. 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.
15
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.
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 on 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, in 2010 we entered into an amended and restated electric services agreement with the City of Coffeyville, Kansas 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 Refining 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 Refining'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 Refining's Coffeyville, Kansas crude oil refinery pursuant to a long-term agreement and pet coke purchased from third parties, 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 Refining's adjacent crude oil refinery, and procure the remainder on the open market. The price that we pay CVR Refining 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 Refining 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 Refining 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 Refining'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. We entered into a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation which became effective on March 1, 2012. The term of this agreement ends in December
2015
and may be renewed. 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 Refining, we may become obligated to provide security for our payment obligations if, in CVR Refining'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 and CVR Refining — Coke Supply Agreement."
16
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 significant risks due to physical damage hazards, environmental liability risk exposure, and unplanned or emergency partial or total plant shutdowns resulting in business interruptions. We could incur potentially significant costs to the extent there are unforeseen events which cause property damage and a material decline in production which are not fully insured. Insurance companies that currently insure companies in our industry may limit or curtail coverage, may modify 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. If our production plant or individual units within our plant, logistics assets, or key suppliers sustain a catastrophic loss and operations are shut down or significantly impaired, it would have a material adverse impact on our operations, financial condition and cash flows and adversely impact our ability to make cash distributions. Moreover, our facility is located adjacent to CVR Refining's Coffeyville refinery, and a major accident or disaster at the refinery could adversely affect our operations. Operations at our nitrogen fertilizer plant could be curtailed or partially or completely shut down, for an extended period of time as a result of unexpected circumstances, which may not be within our control, such as:
|
•
|
major unplanned maintenance requirements;
|
|
•
|
catastrophic events caused by mechanical breakdown, electrical injury, pressure vessel rupture, explosion, contamination, fire, or natural disasters, including flood, windstorm, etc;
|
|
•
|
labor supply shortages, or labor difficulties that result in a work stoppage or slowdown;
|
|
•
|
cessation of all or a portion of the operations at our nitrogen fertilizer plant dictated by environmental authorities;
|
|
•
|
a disruption in the supply of pet coke to our nitrogen fertilizer plant;
|
|
•
|
a governmental ban or other limitation on the use of nitrogen fertilizer products, either generally or specifically those manufactured at our plant; and
|
|
•
|
an event or incident involving a large clean-up, decontamination, or the imposition of laws and ordinances regulating the cost and schedule of demolition or reconstruction. Such regulatory oversight can cause significant delays in restoring property to its pre-loss condition.
|
We have sustained losses over the past ten-year period at our nitrogen fertilizer plant, which are illustrative of the types of risks and hazards that exit. These losses or events resulted in costs assumed by us that were not fully insured due to policy retentions or applicable exclusions. These events were as follows:
|
•
|
June 2007: the flood at CVR Refining's Coffeyville refinery and nitrogen fertilizer plant; and
|
|
•
|
September 2010: the secondary urea reactor rupture at the nitrogen fertilizer plant.
|
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 approximately every two to three years, which generally lasts up to three weeks.
17
Currently, we are insured under CVR Energy's casualty, environmental, property and business interruption insurance policies; the property and business interruption coverage has a combined policy limit of $1.0 billion. The property and business interruption insurance policies contain limits and sub-limits which insure our assets as well as CVR Energy's assets. There is a potential for a common occurrence to impact both the fertilizer plant and CVR Refining's Coffeyville refinery, in which case the insurance limitations would apply to all damages combined. Under this insurance program, there is a $2.5 million property damage retention in respect of the nitrogen fertilizer plant. For business interruption losses, the insurance program has a 45-day waiting period retention for any one occurrence. In addition, the insurance policies contain a schedule of the sub-limits which apply to certain specific perils or areas of coverage. Sub-limits which may be of importance depending on the nature and extent of a particular insured occurrence are: flood, earthquake, contingent business interruption insuring key suppliers and customers, debris removal, decontamination, demolition and increased cost of construction due to law and ordinance, and others. Such conditions, limits and sub-limits could materially impact insurance recoveries, and potentially cause us to assume losses which could impair earnings.
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. There are risks associated with the commercial insurance industry, reducing capacity, changing the scope of insurance coverage offered and substantially increasing premiums due to adverse loss experience or other financial circumstances. Factors that impact insurance cost and availability include, but are not limited to: industry wide losses, natural disasters, specific losses incurred by us, and the investment returns earned by the insurance industry. If the supply of commercial insurance is curtailed due to highly adverse financial results, CVR Energy or we may not be able to continue our present limits of insurance coverage or obtain sufficient insurance capacity to adequately insure our risks for property damage or business interruption.
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.
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 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
18
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.
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, limits and standards require a significant amount of monitoring, record keeping and reporting in order to demonstrate compliance with the underlying permit, license, approval, limit 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.
We could incur significant cost in cleaning up contamination at our fertilizer plant and off-site locations.
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 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.
19
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 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. The EPA is encouraging states to adopt state-wide numeric water quality criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, which are present in our fertilizer products. A number of states have adopted or proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. The adoption of stringent state criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus could reduce the demand for nitrogen fertilizer products in those states. If such laws, rules, regulations or interpretations to significantly curb the end-use or application of fertilizers were promulgated in our marketing area, it could result in decreased demand for our products and 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 regulatory and legislative measures to address GHG emissions (including CO2, methane and nitrous oxides) are in various phases of discussion or implementation. In the aftermath of its 2009 "endangerment finding" that GHG emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare, the EPA has begun to regulate GHG 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 GHGs to inventory and annually report their GHG emissions to the EPA. In accordance with the rule, we began monitoring and reporting our GHG emissions from our nitrogen fertilizer plant. In May 2010, the EPA finalized the "Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule," which established new GHG emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources, such as our nitrogen fertilizer plant, must obtain permits under the New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("NSR") 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 is required to undergo NSR review and evaluate and install air pollution controls to reduce GHG emissions. A major modification resulting in a significant increase in GHG emissions may require the installation of air pollution controls as part of the permitting process.
Although the EPA has not yet proposed New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") to regulate GHG emissions for the nitrogen fertilizer plant, the EPA has proposed NSPS to regulate GHG for electric utilities. Therefore, we expect that the EPA will propose standards for our fertilizer plant, but the timing of any such EPA proposal is not known.
During a State of the Union address in January 2014 and again in January 2015, President Obama indicated that the United States should take action to address climate change. At the federal legislative level, this could mean Congressional passage of legislation adopting some form of federal mandatory GHG emission reduction, such as a nationwide cap-and-trade program. 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 GHG initiatives to reduce CO2 and other GHG 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 GHG 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 intends to do so.
Alternatively, the EPA may take further steps to regulate GHG emissions. The implementation of EPA regulations and/or the passage of federal or state climate change legislation may result in increased costs to (i) operate and maintain our facility, (ii) install new emission controls on our facility and (iii) administer and manage any GHG emissions program. Increased costs
20
associated with compliance with any future legislation or regulation of GHG 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 users of 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, storage and handling 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, storage and handling 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. The 2013 fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas has generated consideration of more restrictive measures in the storage, handling and transportation of crop production materials, including fertilizers.
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 would 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 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 UAN customers represented
42%
of our sales for the year ended
December 31, 2014
. 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 significant customers, or a significant reduction in purchase volume by customers, 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.
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.
21
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.
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. For example:
|
•
|
Although we believe we will have sufficient liquidity under our credit facility to run our business, under extreme market conditions there can be no assurance that such funds would be available or sufficient, and in such a case, we may not be able to successfully obtain additional financing on favorable terms, or at all. Furthermore, our credit facility matures in April 2016 and there can be no assurance that we will be able to refinance our $125.0 million of outstanding term loan debt or obtain a new revolving credit facility on similar terms or at all.
|
|
•
|
Market volatility could exert downward pressure on the price of our common units, which may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital and thereby limit our ability to grow.
|
|
•
|
Our credit facility contains various covenants that must be complied with, and if we are not in compliance, there can be no assurance that we would be able to successfully amend the agreement in the future. Further, any such amendment may be expensive.
|
|
•
|
Market conditions could result in our significant customers experiencing financial difficulties. We are exposed to the credit risk of our customers, and their failure to meet their financial obligations when due because of bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons could result in decreased sales and earnings for us.
|
Our acquisition and expansion strategy involves significant risks.
One of our business strategies is to pursue acquisitions and expansion projects. 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.
In February 2013, we completed a significant two-year plant expansion designed to increase our UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons, or approximately 50% per year. The UAN expansion provides us with the ability to upgrade substantially all of our ammonia production to UAN. 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.
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:
|
•
|
unforeseen difficulties in the acquired operations and disruption of the ongoing operations of our business;
|
|
•
|
failure to achieve cost savings or other financial or operating objectives with respect to an acquisition;
|
|
•
|
strain on the operational and managerial controls and procedures of our business, and the need to modify systems or to add management resources;
|
|
•
|
difficulties in the integration and retention of customers or personnel and the integration and effective deployment of operations or technologies;
|
|
•
|
assumption of unknown material liabilities or regulatory non-compliance issues;
|
|
•
|
amortization of acquired assets, which would reduce future reported earnings;
|
|
•
|
possible adverse short-term effects on our cash flows or operating results; and
|
|
•
|
diversion of management's attention from the ongoing operations of our business.
|
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
22
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.
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 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
23
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, 2014
, 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:
|
•
|
limiting our ability to obtain additional financing to fund our working capital needs, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, acquisitions or other purposes;
|
|
•
|
requiring us to utilize a significant portion of our cash flows to service our indebtedness, thereby reducing available cash and our ability to make distributions on our common units;
|
|
•
|
limiting our ability to use operating cash flow in other areas of our business because we must dedicate a substantial portion of these funds to service debt;
|
|
•
|
limiting our ability to compete with other companies who are not as highly leveraged, as we may be less capable of responding to adverse economic and industry conditions;
|
|
•
|
restricting us from making strategic acquisitions, introducing new technologies or exploiting business opportunities;
|
|
•
|
restricting the way in which we conduct our business because of financial and operating covenants in the agreements governing our and our subsidiaries' existing and future indebtedness, including, in the case of certain indebtedness of subsidiaries, certain covenants that restrict the ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions to us;
|
|
•
|
exposing us to potential events of default (if not cured or waived) under financial and operating covenants contained in our or our subsidiaries' debt instruments that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results;
|
|
•
|
increasing our vulnerability to a downturn in general economic conditions or in pricing of our products; and
|
|
•
|
limiting our ability to react to changing market conditions in our industry and in our customers' industries.
|
In addition, borrowings under our credit facility bear interest at variable rates. If market interest rates increase, such variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could adversely affect our 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.
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 or CVR Refining and its subsidiary of their respective covenants in, any of the intercompany agreements between us and CVR Energy or CVR Refining and its subsidiary 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
24
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:
|
•
|
our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond our control; and
|
|
•
|
our future ability to borrow under our credit facility, the availability of which depends on, among other things, our complying with the covenants in the credit facility.
|
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.
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 securities we may issue in 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 and could increase our interest costs.
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:
|
•
|
incur additional indebtedness or issue certain preferred units;
|
|
•
|
pay distributions in respect of our units or make other restricted payments;
|
|
•
|
make certain payments on debt that is subordinated or secured on a junior basis;
|
|
•
|
make certain investments;
|
|
•
|
sell certain assets;
|
25
|
•
|
create liens on certain assets;
|
|
•
|
consolidate, merge, sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of our assets;
|
|
•
|
enter into certain transactions with our affiliates; and
|
|
•
|
designate our subsidiaries as unrestricted subsidiaries.
|
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. 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.
Our relationship with CVR Energy and CVR Refining and their financial condition subjects us to potential risks that are beyond our control.
Due to our relationship with CVR Energy and CVR Refining, adverse developments or announcements concerning CVR Energy or CVR Refining could materially adversely affect our financial condition, even if we have not suffered any similar development. The ratings assigned to CVR Refining's indebtedness are below investment grade. Downgrades of the credit ratings of CVR Refining 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 and CVR Refining may be factors considered in credit evaluations of us. This is because we rely on CVR Energy and CVR Refining for various services, including management services and the supply of pet coke. The credit and risk profile of CVR Energy and CVR Refining 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 Refining, 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 Refining'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.
26
Risks Inherent in Our Limited Partnership Structure and Our Common Units
The board of directors of our general partner has in place a policy to distribute an amount equal to the available cash we generate each quarter, which could limit our ability to grow and make acquisitions.
Our general partner's current policy is to distribute an amount equal to the available cash we generate each quarter 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 such, to the extent we are unable to finance growth externally, our cash distribution policy will significantly impair our ability to grow. The board of directors of the general partner may modify or revoke our cash distribution policy at any time at its discretion, including in such a manner that would result in an elimination of cash distributions regardless of the amount of available cash we generate. Our Partnership Agreement does not require us to make any distributions.
In addition, because of our distribution policy, our growth, if any, may not be as robust 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, or as in-kind distributions, current unitholders will experience dilution and 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 outstanding 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.
We rely primarily on the executive officers of CVR Energy to manage most aspects of our business and affairs pursuant to a services agreement, which CVR Energy can terminate at any time.
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. CVR Energy can terminate this agreement at any time, 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. In addition, CVR Energy may not continue to provide us the officers that are necessary for the conduct of our business or such provision may not be on terms that are acceptable. If CVR Energy elected to terminate the service 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.
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 spend 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.
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 public common unitholders. In 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, including its majority stockholder, an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises L.P., over our interests and those of our common unitholders.
The potential conflicts of interest include, among others, the following:
|
•
|
Neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires the owners of our general partner, including CVR Energy, to pursue a business strategy that favors us. The affiliates of our general partner, including CVR Energy, have fiduciary duties to make decisions in their own best interests and in the best interest of holders of
|
27
CVR Energy's common stock, which may be contrary to our interests. In addition, our general partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us or our unitholders, such as its owners or CVR Energy, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its fiduciary duty to our unitholders.
|
•
|
Our general partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under our partnership agreement and has also restricted the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that, without the limitations, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing common units, unitholders consent to some actions and conflicts of interest that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law.
|
|
•
|
The board of directors of our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset purchases and sales, capital expenditures, borrowings, repayment of indebtedness and issuances of additional partnership interests, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is available for distribution to our common unitholders.
|
|
•
|
Our partnership agreement does not restrict our general partner from causing us to pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered to us or entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf. There is no limitation on the amounts our general partner can cause us to pay it or its affiliates.
|
|
•
|
Our general partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by it and its affiliates. In addition, our general partner decides whether to retain separate counsel or others to perform services for us.
|
|
•
|
Our general partner determines which costs incurred by it and its affiliates are reimbursable by us.
|
|
•
|
Most of the executive officers of our general partner also serve as executive officers of CVR Energy, and our executive chairman is the chief executive officer of CVR Energy. The executive officers who work for both CVR Energy and our general partner, including our chief financial officer and general counsel, divide their time between our business and the business of CVR Energy. These executive officers will face conflicts of interest from time to time in making decisions which may benefit either us or CVR Energy.
|
Our partnership agreement limits the liability and replaces 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 replaces 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 replace the standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example:
|
•
|
Our partnership agreement permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to its capacity as general partner. This entitles our general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us or our common unitholders. Decisions made by our general partner in its individual capacity are made by Coffeyville Resources as the sole member of our general partner, and not by the board of directors of our general partner. Examples include the exercise of the general partner's call right, its voting rights with respect to any common units it may own, its registration rights and its determination whether or not to consent to any merger or consolidation or amendment to our partnership agreement.
|
|
•
|
Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner will not have any liability to us or our unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as general partner so long as it acted in good faith, meaning it believed that the decisions were in our best interests.
|
|
•
|
Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner and the officers and directors of our general partner will not be liable for monetary damages to us for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that our general partner or those persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, acted with knowledge that such person's conduct was criminal.
|
|
•
|
Our partnership agreement generally provides that affiliate transactions and resolutions of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner and not involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less favorable to us than those generally provided to or available from unrelated third parties or be "fair and reasonable." In determining whether a transaction or resolution is "fair and
|
28
reasonable," our general partner may consider the totality of the relationship between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly advantageous or beneficial to us.
By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder becomes bound by the provisions of our partnership agreement, including the provisions described above.
CVR Energy has the power to appoint and remove our general partner's directors.
CVR Energy has the power to elect all of the members of the board of directors of our general partner. Our general partner has control over all decisions related to our operations. Our public unitholders do not have an ability to influence any operating decisions and will not be able to prevent us from entering into any transactions. Furthermore, 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.
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. A unitholder may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of its 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 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 have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or our general partner's directors and do not have sufficient voting power to remove our general partner without CVR Energy's consent.
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. Unitholders have no right to elect our general partner or our general partner's board of directors on an annual or other continuing basis. The board of directors of our general partner, including the independent directors, is chosen entirely by CVR Energy as the indirect owner of the general partner and not by our common unitholders. 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.
As of the date of this Report, CVR Energy indirectly owns approximately 53% of our common units, which means holders of common units other than CVR Energy will not be 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 33 1/3% 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 our unitholders.
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 the holders of our common units.
29
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.
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 our 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. If our general partner were no longer controlled by CVR Energy, CVR Energy could be more likely to terminate the services agreement, which it may do upon 180 days' notice.
Mr. Carl C. Icahn exerts significant influence over the Partnership and his interests may conflict with the interests of the Partnership's public unitholders.
CVR Energy indirectly owns our general partner and approximately 53% of our common units. CVR Energy has the right to appoint and replace all of the members of the board of directors of our general partner at any time.
Mr. Carl C. Icahn indirectly controls approximately 82% of the voting power of CVR Energy's capital stock and, by virtue of such stock ownership in CVR Energy, is able to elect and appoint all of the directors of CVR Energy. This gives Mr. Icahn the ability to control and exert substantial influence over CVR Energy. As a result of such control of CVR Energy, he is able to control the Partnership, including:
|
•
|
business strategy and policies;
|
|
•
|
mergers or other business combinations;
|
|
•
|
the acquisition or disposition of assets;
|
|
•
|
future issuances of common units or other securities;
|
|
•
|
incurrence of debt or obtaining other sources of financing; and
|
|
•
|
the Partnership's distribution policy and the payment of distributions on the Partnership's common units.
|
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 subject to a 180-day notice period. We cannot predict whether CVR Energy will terminate the services agreement and, if so, what the economic effect of termination would be. 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, while CVR Energy currently owns the majority of our common units, its current owners are under no obligation to maintain their ownership interest in us, which could have a material adverse effect on us.
Mr. Icahn's interests may not always be consistent with the Partnership's interests or with the interests of the Partnership's public unitholders. Mr. Icahn and entities controlled by him may also pursue acquisitions or business opportunities in industries in which we compete, and there is no requirement that any additional business opportunities be presented to us. We also have
30
and may in the future enter into transactions to purchase goods or services with affiliates of Mr. Icahn. To the extent that conflicts of interest may arise between the Partnership and Mr. Icahn and his affiliates, those conflicts may be resolved in a manner adverse to the Partnership or its public unitholders.
We may issue additional common units and other equity interests without the approval of our unitholders, which would dilute the existing ownership interests of our unitholders.
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:
|
•
|
the proportionate ownership interest of unitholders immediately prior to the issuance will decrease;
|
|
•
|
the amount of cash distributions on each unit will decrease;
|
|
•
|
the ratio of our taxable income to distributions may increase;
|
|
•
|
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit will be diminished; and
|
|
•
|
the market price of the common units may decline.
|
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 17, 2015
, there were
73,122,997
common units outstanding. Of this amount, (i) approximately 47% of the common units are held by the public and are freely transferable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, to the extent held 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 approximately 53% of the common units, which may be sold pursuant to our already effective registration statement on Form S-3 described below or an exemption from registration such as Rule 144.
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.
The Partnership’s registration statement on Form S-3, declared effective by the SEC on August 29, 2012, enables CRLLC to sell, from time to time, in one or more public offerings or direct placements, the 38,920,000 common units it currently owns.
As a publicly traded partnership we qualify for certain exemptions from the NYSE's corporate governance requirements.
As a publicly traded partnership, we qualify for certain exemptions from the NYSE's corporate governance requirements, including:
|
•
|
the requirement that a majority of the board of directors of our general partner consist of independent directors;
|
|
•
|
the requirement that the board of directors of our general partner have a nominating/corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors; and
|
|
•
|
the requirement that the board of directors of our general partner have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors.
|
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 NYSE.
31
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 material 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 organized as 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. Current law requires us 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 will be 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 entity level taxation. 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, if available, 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 for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or if we were otherwise subject to entity-level taxation, 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 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 administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations 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 from time to time have considered substantive changes to the existing U.S. federal income tax laws that would adversely affect the tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships. One such legislative proposal would have eliminated the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof may or may not be applied retroactively. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will be reintroduced or will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could cause a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.
Several states currently subject partnerships to entity-level taxation. Specifically, we are subject to the Texas franchise tax and the Illinois replacement tax. Such taxes reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Other states are evaluating proposals to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of income, franchise or other forms of taxation. Imposition of these or similar taxes by any other state in which we do business will further reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders and could cause a substantial reduction in the value of our common units. We are unable to predict whether any of these or other proposals will ultimately be enacted.
32
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.
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 as a partnership 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 be counted only once. Our sponsor directly and indirectly owns more than 50% of the total interests in our capital and profits. Therefore, a transfer by our sponsor of all or a portion of its interests in us could result in a termination of us as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. 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 the unitholder’s taxable income for the year of termination. Our technical termination currently would not affect our classification as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, but instead, after our termination we would be treated as a new partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If treated as a new partnership, we must make new tax elections and could be subject to penalties if we are unable to determine that a 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.
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 of 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 they receive from the sale.
Tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons face unique tax issues from owning our common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.
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 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
33
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 shares of our taxable income. If you are a tax-exempt entity or a non-U.S. person, you should consult your tax advisor before investing in our common units.
We treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the actual common units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.
Because we cannot 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 generally 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 the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan 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 there are no specific rules governing the U.S. federal income tax consequence of loaning a partnership interest, a unitholder whose common units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan to a "short seller" to cover a short sale of common units) may be considered as having disposed of the loaned common units. In that case, the unitholder 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 and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, 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. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a securities loan should modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their common units.
Our unitholders will likely 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 conduct business or own or control property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. We currently own assets and/or conduct business in Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin currently impose a personal income tax on individuals. Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin also impose an income tax on corporations and other entities. Illinois imposes a replacement tax on corporations and other entities, and Texas imposes a franchise tax on corporations and other entities. 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. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own or control assets or conduct business in additional states or foreign jurisdictions 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. Our counsel has not rendered an opinion on the state, local, or non-U.S. tax consequences of an investment in our common units.
34
Item 1B.
Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2.
Properties
We own one facility, our 60-acre nitrogen fertilizer plant, which is located in Coffeyville, Kansas. Our executive offices are located at 2277 Plaza Drive in Sugar Land, Texas, and our administrative office is located in Kansas City, Kansas. The offices in Sugar Land and Kansas City are leased by a subsidiary of CVR Energy and we pay a pro rata share of the rent on those offices. We believe that our owned facility, together with CVR Energy's leased facilities, will be sufficient for our needs over the next twelve months.
We have entered into a cross-easement agreement with CVR Refining so that both we and CVR Refining are able to access and utilize each other's land in certain circumstances in order to operate our respective businesses in a manner to provide flexibility for both parties to develop their respective properties, without depriving either party of the benefits associated with the continuous reasonable use of the other party's property. For more information on this cross-easement agreement, see Part III, Item 13 of this report "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence — Agreements with CVR Energy and CVR Refining — Real Estate Transactions."
We also utilize two separate UAN storage tanks and related truck and railcar load-out facilities. Each of these storage facilities, located in Phillipsburg and Dartmouth, Kansas, has a UAN storage tank that has a capacity of two million gallons, or approximately 10,000 tons. The Phillipsburg property that the terminal was constructed on is owned by a subsidiary of CVR Refining, which operates the terminal. The Dartmouth terminal is located on leased property owned by the Pawnee County Cooperative Association, which operates the terminal.
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings
We are, and will continue to be, subject to litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, including matters such as those described under "Business — Environmental Matters." We also incorporate by reference into this Part I, Item 3 of this Report, the information regarding the lawsuits and proceedings described and referenced in
Note 13
, "Commitments and Contingencies" to our Consolidated Financial Statements as set forth in Part II, Item 8 of this Report. In accordance with GAAP, we record a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of lawsuits, investigations or claims asserted against us, we do not believe that any currently pending legal proceeding or proceedings to which we are a party will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Item 4.
Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
35
PART II
Item 5.
Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information
Our common units are listed on the NYSE under the symbol "UAN". The table below sets forth, for the quarter indicated, the high and low sales prices per unit of our common units for our two most recent fiscal years:
|
2014:
|
High
|
|
Low
|
||||
|
First Quarter
|
$
|
21.91
|
|
|
$
|
16.31
|
|
|
Second Quarter
|
21.93
|
|
|
17.81
|
|
||
|
Third Quarter
|
19.26
|
|
|
13.45
|
|
||
|
Fourth Quarter
|
13.99
|
|
|
8.52
|
|
||
|
2013:
|
High
|
|
Low
|
||||
|
First Quarter
|
$
|
30.00
|
|
|
$
|
24.32
|
|
|
Second Quarter
|
27.50
|
|
|
21.00
|
|
||
|
Third Quarter
|
23.81
|
|
|
17.50
|
|
||
|
Fourth Quarter
|
19.98
|
|
|
15.11
|
|
||
There were 23 holders of record of our common units as of
February 17, 2015
. Because many of our common units are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of holders, we are unable to estimate the total number of beneficial owners represented by these record holders.
Cash Distribution Policy
The board of directors of the Partnership's general partner has a policy for the Partnership to distribute all available cash generated on a quarterly basis. Cash distributions will be made to the common unitholders of record on the applicable record date, generally within
60
days after the end of each quarter. Available cash for each quarter will be determined by the board of directors of the general partner following the end of such quarter. Beginning with the first quarter of 2013, available cash for each quarter has been calculated as Adjusted EBITDA reduced for cash needed for (i) net interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service and other contractual obligations; (ii) maintenance capital expenditures; and (iii) to the extent applicable, major scheduled turnaround expense incurred and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as EBITDA (net income before interest expense, net, income tax expense, depreciation and amortization) further adjusted for the impact of non-cash share-based compensation, and, where applicable, major scheduled turnaround expense and loss on disposition of assets.
Available cash for each quarter through the end of 2012 was calculated based on our cash flow from operations for the quarter, less cash needed for maintenance capital expenditures, debt service and other contractual obligations and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of our general partner deemed necessary or appropriate. From time to time, we make prepaid sales, whereby we receive cash during one quarter in respect of product to be produced and sold in a future quarter, but we do not record revenue in respect of the cash received until the quarter when product is delivered. The Partnership also retained cash on hand associated with prepaid sales at each quarter end for future distributions to common unitholders based upon the recognition into income of the prepaid sales.
Because our policy is to distribute all available cash we generate each quarter, without reserving cash for future distributions or borrowing to pay distributions during periods of low cash flow from operations, our unitholders have direct exposure to fluctuations in the amount of earnings generated by our business. We expect that the amount of our quarterly distributions, if any, will vary based on our earnings during each quarter. Our quarterly cash distributions, if any, will not be stable and will vary from quarter to quarter as a direct result of variations in our operating performance and earnings caused by fluctuations in the price of nitrogen fertilizers. See Part I, Item 1 of this report "Business — Distribution, Sales and Marketing." Such variations may be significant. The board of directors of our general partner may change the foregoing distribution policy at any time and from time to time. Our partnership agreement does not require us to pay cash distributions on a quarterly or other basis.
36
Our ability to make distributions is limited by our credit facility. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources" for a discussion of those limitations.
A summary of cash distributions paid to unitholders during the years ended
December 31, 2014
and
2013
and has been included in Part II, Item 8 Note
6
"
Partners’ Capital and Partnership Distributions
."
37
Performance Graph
The following graph sets forth the cumulative return on our common units between April 8, 2011 and
December 31, 2014
, as compared to the cumulative return of the Russell 2000 Index and an industry peer group consisting of Agrium, Inc., CF Industries Holdings, Inc., The Mosaic Company, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc., Rentech Nitrogen Partners, LP, and Terra Nitrogen Company, LP. The graph assumes an investment of $100 on April 8, 2011 in our common units, the Russell 2000 Index and the industry peer group, and assumes the reinvestment of dividends where applicable. The closing market price for our common units on
December 31, 2014
was $9.74. The price performance shown on the graph is not intended to forecast and does not necessarily indicate future price performance.
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
BETWEEN APRIL 8, 2011 AND DECEMBER 31,
2014
among CVR Partners, LP, the Russell 2000 Index and a peer group
|
|
Apr '11
|
|
Jun '11
|
|
Sep '11
|
|
Dec '11
|
|
Mar '12
|
|
Jun '12
|
|
Sep '12
|
|
Dec '12
|
||||||||
|
CVR Partners,LP
|
100.00
|
|
|
127.98
|
|
|
136.46
|
|
|
147.18
|
|
|
158.95
|
|
|
149.10
|
|
|
165.53
|
|
|
162.00
|
|
|
Russell 2000 Index
|
100.00
|
|
|
98.40
|
|
|
76.60
|
|
|
88.11
|
|
|
98.74
|
|
|
94.96
|
|
|
99.59
|
|
|
101.01
|
|
|
Peer Group
|
100.00
|
|
|
101.67
|
|
|
86.67
|
|
|
92.91
|
|
|
127.02
|
|
|
123.27
|
|
|
142.65
|
|
|
139.04
|
|
|
|
Mar '13
|
|
Jun '13
|
|
Sep '13
|
|
Dec '13
|
|
Mar '14
|
|
Jun '14
|
|
Sep '14
|
|
Dec '14
|
||||||||
|
CVR Partners,LP
|
149.68
|
|
|
139.22
|
|
|
111.36
|
|
|
105.65
|
|
|
127.92
|
|
|
114.96
|
|
|
86.14
|
|
|
62.52
|
|
|
Russell 2000 Index
|
113.16
|
|
|
116.24
|
|
|
127.70
|
|
|
138.38
|
|
|
139.50
|
|
|
141.87
|
|
|
131.01
|
|
|
143.26
|
|
|
Peer Group
|
131.97
|
|
|
120.94
|
|
|
116.20
|
|
|
105.73
|
|
|
111.51
|
|
|
106.62
|
|
|
105.70
|
|
|
98.30
|
|
This performance graph shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.
38
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer
The table below sets forth information regarding repurchases of our common units during the fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2014
. These represent common units that employees of our general partner elected to surrender to the Partnership to satisfy certain minimum tax withholding upon the vesting of units. The Partnership does not consider this to be a unit buyback program.
|
Period
|
Total Number of
Units Purchased
|
|
Average Price
Paid per Unit
|
|
Total Number of Units
Purchased as Part of
Publicly Announced
Plans or Programs
|
|
Maximum Number (or
Approximate Dollar
Value) of Units that
May Yet Be Purchased
Under the
Plans or Programs
|
|||||
|
October 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
November 1, 2014 to November 31, 2014
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
December 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014
|
2,845
|
|
|
9.17
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
Total
|
2,845
|
|
|
$
|
9.17
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
Item 6.
Selected Financial Data
This data should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Report.
The selected consolidated financial information presented below under the caption Statement of Operations Data for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
and the selected consolidated financial information presented below under the caption Balance Sheet Data as of December 31,
2014
and
2013
, has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Report. Grant Thornton LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, audited our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31,
2014
and
2013
and KPMG LLP, our predecessor independent registered public accounting firm, audited our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2012
. The selected consolidated financial information presented below under the caption Statement of Operations Data for the years ended December 31,
2011
and
2010
and the selected consolidated financial information presented below under the caption Balance Sheet Data as of December 31,
2012
,
2011
and
2010
have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this Report.
The following schedules show our selected financial and operating data for the periods indicated, which are derived from our consolidated financial statements. A portion of our fiscal year 2011 results prior to our Initial Public Offering on April 13, 2011 are included in the total 2011 results presented herein. The Partnership has omitted net income per unit for all periods prior to the year ended December 31, 2011, as the Partnership operated under a different capital structure prior to the closing of the Initial Public Offering and, as a result, the per unit data would not be meaningful to investors. Per unit data for the twelve months ending December 31, 2011 is calculated since the closing of the Initial Public Offering on April 13, 2011.
Our consolidated financial statements include certain costs of CVR Energy that were incurred on our behalf. These costs, which are reflected in selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) and direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization), are billed to us pursuant to a services agreement entered into in October 2007 that is a related party transaction. The amounts charged or allocated to us are not necessarily indicative of the costs that we would have incurred had we operated as a stand-alone entity for all periods presented.
39
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
||||||||||
|
Reconciliation to net sales (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sales net at gate
|
$
|
259.3
|
|
|
$
|
281.5
|
|
|
$
|
273.5
|
|
|
$
|
266.6
|
|
|
$
|
163.4
|
|
|
Freight in revenue
|
27.5
|
|
|
30.2
|
|
|
22.4
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|||||
|
Hydrogen revenue
|
10.1
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|
14.2
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|||||
|
Other
|
1.8
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||||
|
Total net sales
|
$
|
298.7
|
|
|
$
|
323.7
|
|
|
$
|
302.3
|
|
|
$
|
302.9
|
|
|
$
|
180.5
|
|
40
|
|
As of December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
||||||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
79.9
|
|
|
$
|
85.1
|
|
|
$
|
127.8
|
|
|
$
|
237.0
|
|
|
$
|
42.7
|
|
|
Working capital
|
89.9
|
|
|
108.4
|
|
|
116.6
|
|
|
229.4
|
|
|
27.1
|
|
|||||
|
Total assets
|
578.8
|
|
|
593.5
|
|
|
623.0
|
|
|
659.3
|
|
|
452.2
|
|
|||||
|
Total debt
|
125.0
|
|
|
125.0
|
|
|
125.0
|
|
|
125.0
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||||
|
Total partners' capital
|
413.9
|
|
|
439.9
|
|
|
446.2
|
|
|
489.5
|
|
|
402.2
|
|
|||||
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
||||||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Cash Flow and Other Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Net cash flow used in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Operating activities
|
$
|
118.9
|
|
|
$
|
129.0
|
|
|
$
|
133.5
|
|
|
$
|
139.8
|
|
|
$
|
75.9
|
|
|
Investing activities
|
(21.0
|
)
|
|
(43.7
|
)
|
|
(81.1
|
)
|
|
(16.4
|
)
|
|
(9.0
|
)
|
|||||
|
Financing activities
|
(103.1
|
)
|
|
(128.0
|
)
|
|
(161.5
|
)
|
|
70.8
|
|
|
(29.6
|
)
|
|||||
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(42.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(109.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
194.2
|
|
|
$
|
37.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Capital expenditures for property, plant and equipment
|
$
|
21.1
|
|
|
$
|
43.8
|
|
|
$
|
82.2
|
|
|
$
|
19.1
|
|
|
$
|
10.1
|
|
41
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
||||||||||
|
Key Operating Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Production volume (thousand tons):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Ammonia (gross produced) (6)
|
388.9
|
|
|
402.0
|
|
|
390.0
|
|
|
411.2
|
|
|
392.7
|
|
|||||
|
Ammonia (net available for sale) (6)(7)
|
28.3
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
124.6
|
|
|
116.8
|
|
|
155.6
|
|
|||||
|
UAN
|
963.7
|
|
|
930.6
|
|
|
643.8
|
|
|
714.1
|
|
|
578.3
|
|
|||||
|
Pet coke consumed (thousand tons)
|
489.7
|
|
|
487.0
|
|
|
487.3
|
|
|
517.3
|
|
|
436.3
|
|
|||||
|
Pet coke (cost per ton)
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
Sales (thousand tons):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Ammonia
|
24.4
|
|
|
40.5
|
|
|
127.8
|
|
|
112.8
|
|
|
164.7
|
|
|||||
|
UAN
|
951.0
|
|
|
904.6
|
|
|
643.5
|
|
|
709.3
|
|
|
580.7
|
|
|||||
|
Product pricing at gate (dollars per ton) (8):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Ammonia
|
$
|
518
|
|
|
$
|
643
|
|
|
$
|
613
|
|
|
$
|
579
|
|
|
$
|
361
|
|
|
UAN
|
$
|
259
|
|
|
$
|
282
|
|
|
$
|
303
|
|
|
$
|
284
|
|
|
$
|
179
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
On-stream factors(9):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Gasification
|
96.8
|
%
|
|
95.6
|
%
|
|
92.6
|
%
|
|
99.0
|
%
|
|
89.0
|
%
|
|||||
|
Ammonia
|
92.6
|
%
|
|
94.4
|
%
|
|
91.1
|
%
|
|
97.7
|
%
|
|
87.7
|
%
|
|||||
|
UAN
|
92.0
|
%
|
|
91.9
|
%
|
|
86.4
|
%
|
|
95.5
|
%
|
|
80.8
|
%
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Market Indicators:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Natural gas NYMEX (dollars per MMBtu)
|
$
|
4.26
|
|
|
$
|
3.73
|
|
|
$
|
2.83
|
|
|
$
|
4.03
|
|
|
$
|
4.38
|
|
|
Ammonia — Southern Plains (dollars per ton)
|
539
|
|
|
581
|
|
|
647
|
|
|
619
|
|
|
437
|
|
|||||
|
UAN — Corn belt (dollars per ton)
|
314
|
|
|
337
|
|
|
369
|
|
|
379
|
|
|
266
|
|
|||||
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Amounts are shown exclusive of depreciation and amortization. Amounts excluded from selling, general and administrative expenses are nominal. Depreciation and amortization is primarily comprised of the following components:
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
||||||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization excluded from direct operating expenses
|
$
|
26.9
|
|
|
$
|
25.3
|
|
|
$
|
20.6
|
|
|
$
|
18.8
|
|
|
$
|
18.5
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization excluded from cost of product sold
|
0.4
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||||
|
|
$
|
27.3
|
|
|
$
|
25.6
|
|
|
$
|
20.7
|
|
|
$
|
18.9
|
|
|
$
|
18.5
|
|
42
|
(2)
|
Our direct operating expenses and selling, general and administrative expenses include amounts for share-based compensation which include amounts related to CVR Energy's share-based compensation expense allocated to us by CVR Energy for financial reporting purposes in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic ("ASC") 718. See
Note 3
("
Share‑Based Compensation
") to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion of allocated share-based compensation expenses. The charges for allocated share-based compensation were:
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
||||||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Direct operating expenses
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
1.4
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|||||
|
Total
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
|
$
|
2.2
|
|
|
$
|
4.6
|
|
|
$
|
5.9
|
|
|
$
|
9.0
|
|
|
(3)
|
Interest income for the year ended December 31, 2010 is primarily attributable to a due from affiliate balance owed to us by Coffeyville Resources as a result of affiliate loans. The due from affiliate balance was distributed to Coffeyville Resources in December 2010. Accordingly, such amounts are no longer owed to us.
|
|
(4)
|
Beginning with the first quarter 2013, the board of directors of our general partner adopted an amended policy to calculate available cash starting with Adjusted EBITDA. See further discussion on Adjusted EBITDA in Part II, Item 7 "Results of Operations" of this report. For 2013 and 2014, available cash for distribution equaled our Adjusted EBITDA reduced for cash needed for (i) net interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service and other contractual obligations; (ii) maintenance capital expenditures; and (iii) to the extent applicable, major scheduled turnaround expenses incurred and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Available cash for each quarter through the end of 2012 was calculated based on our cash flow from operations for the quarter, less cash needed for maintenance capital expenditures, debt service and other contractual obligations and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of our general partner deemed necessary or appropriate; the Partnership also retained cash on hand associated with prepaid sales at each quarter end for future distributions to common unitholders based upon the recognition into income of the prepaid sales. For the year ended December 31, 2011, available cash for distributions was calculated for the period beginning at the closing of our Initial Public Offering (April 13, 2011) through December 31, 2011. Available cash for distribution may be increased by previously established cash reserves, if any, at the discretion of the board of directors of our general partner.
|
Available cash for distribution
is not a recognized term under GAAP. Available cash for distribution should not be considered in isolation or as an alternative to net income or operating income, or any other measure of financial performance or operating performance. In addition, available cash for distribution is not presented as, and should not be considered, an alternative to cash flows from operations or as a measure of liquidity. Available cash for distribution as reported by the Partnership may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other entities, thereby limiting its usefulness as a comparative measure.
|
(5)
|
We have omitted net income per unit during the period we operated as a partnership through the closing of our Initial Public Offering because during those periods we operated under a different capital structure than what we are operating under following the closing of our Initial Public Offering, and, therefore, the information is not meaningful. Per unit data for the twelve months ending December 31, 2011 is calculated for the period beginning at the closing of our Initial Public Offering (April 13, 2011) through December 31, 2011.
|
|
(6)
|
Gross tons produced for ammonia represent the total ammonia produced, including ammonia produced that was upgraded into UAN. As a result of the completion of the UAN expansion project in February 2013, we now upgrade substantially all of the ammonia we produce into UAN. Net tons available for sale represent the ammonia available for sale that was not upgraded into UAN.
|
|
(7)
|
In addition to the produced ammonia, the Partnership acquired approximately
33.6 thousand
and
17.3 thousand
tons of ammonia during the years ended
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, respectively. The Partnership has upgraded or expects to upgrade the majority of purchased ammonia to UAN. We did not purchase ammonia during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010.
|
43
|
(8)
|
Product pricing at gate per ton represents net sales less freight revenue divided by product sales volume in tons, and is shown in order to provide a pricing measure that is comparable across the fertilizer industry.
|
|
(9)
|
On-stream factor is the total number of hours operated divided by the total number of hours in the reporting period and is included as a measure of operating efficiency.
|
Excluding the impact of the downtime associated with the installation of the waste heat boiler, the pressure swing adsorption unit upgrade and the Linde air separation unit maintenance, the on-stream factors for the year ended
December 31, 2014
would have been
98.2%
for gasifier,
94.3%
for ammonia and
93.7%
for UAN. Excluding the impact of the planned downtime associated with the replacement of the damaged catalyst, the unplanned Linde air separation unit outages, the UAN expansion coming online and the unplanned downtime associated with weather issues, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31,
2013
would have been
99.5%
for gasifier,
98.9%
for ammonia and
98.0%
for UAN. Excluding the major scheduled turnaround and the impact of the Linde air separation unit outage, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31,
2012
would have been
98.1%
for gasifier,
97.1%
for ammonia and
92.8%
for UAN. Excluding the impact of the Linde air separation unit outage, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31,
2011
would have been
99.2%
for gasifier,
98.0%
for ammonia and
95.7%
for UAN. Excluding the impact of the Linde air separation unit outage, the rupture of the high-pressure UAN vessel and the major scheduled turnaround, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31, 2010 would have been
97.6%
for gasifier,
96.8%
for ammonia and
96.1%
for UAN.
44
Item 7.
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Report.
Forward-Looking Statements
This Report, including this Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, contains "forward-looking statements" as defined by the SEC, including statements concerning contemplated transactions and strategic plans, expectations and objectives for future operations. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation:
|
•
|
statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that we expect, believe or anticipate will or may occur in the future;
|
|
•
|
statements relating to future financial or operational performance, future distributions, future capital sources and capital expenditures; and
|
|
•
|
any other statements preceded by, followed by or that include the words "anticipates," "believes," "expects," "plans," "intends," "estimates," "projects," "could," "should," "may," or similar expressions.
|
Although we believe that our plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by the forward-looking statements we make in this Report, including this Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such plans, intentions or expectations will be achieved. These statements are based on assumptions made by us based on our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors that we believe are appropriate in the circumstances. Such statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. You are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including but not limited to those set forth under the section captioned "Risk Factors" and contained elsewhere in this report. Such factors include, among others:
|
•
|
our ability to make cash distributions on the common units;
|
|
•
|
the volatile nature of our business and the variable nature of our distributions;
|
|
•
|
the ability of our general partner to modify or revoke our distribution policy at any time;
|
|
•
|
the cyclical nature of our business;
|
|
•
|
the seasonal nature of our business;
|
|
•
|
the dependence of our operations on a few third-party suppliers, including providers of transportation services and equipment;
|
|
•
|
our reliance on pet coke that we purchase from CVR Refining;
|
|
•
|
the supply and price levels of essential raw materials;
|
|
•
|
the risk of a material decline in production at our nitrogen fertilizer plant;
|
|
•
|
potential operating hazards from accidents, fire, severe weather, floods or other natural disasters;
|
|
•
|
competition in the nitrogen fertilizer businesses;
|
|
•
|
capital expenditures and potential liabilities arising from environmental laws and regulations;
|
|
•
|
existing and proposed environmental laws and regulations, including those relating to climate change, alternative energy or fuel sources, and on the end-use and application of fertilizers;
|
|
•
|
new regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous chemicals, risks of terrorism and the security of chemical manufacturing facilities;
|
|
•
|
our lack of asset diversification;
|
45
|
•
|
our dependence on significant customers;
|
|
•
|
the potential loss of our transportation cost advantage over our competitors;
|
|
•
|
our potential inability to successfully implement our business strategies, including the completion of significant capital programs;
|
|
•
|
our reliance on CVR Energy's senior management team and conflicts of interest they face operating each of CVR Partners, CVR Refining and CVR Energy;
|
|
•
|
risks relating to our relationships with CVR Energy and CVR Refining;
|
|
•
|
control of our general partner by CVR Energy;
|
|
•
|
our ability to continue to license the technology used in our operations;
|
|
•
|
restrictions in our debt agreements;
|
|
•
|
changes in our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income or state tax purposes; and
|
|
•
|
instability and volatility in the capital and credit markets.
|
All forward-looking statements contained in this Report speak only as of the date of this document. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur after the date of this Report, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except to the extent required by law.
Overview and Executive Summary
We are a Delaware limited partnership formed by CVR Energy to own, operate and grow our nitrogen fertilizer business. Strategically located adjacent to CVR Refining's refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas, our nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing facility is the only operation in North America that utilizes a petroleum coke, or pet coke, gasification process to produce nitrogen fertilizer.
We produce and distribute nitrogen fertilizer products, which are used primarily by farmers to improve the yield and quality of their crops. Our principal products are UAN and ammonia. These products are manufactured at our facility in Coffeyville, Kansas. Our product sales are heavily weighted toward UAN and all of our products are sold on a wholesale basis.
Our facility includes a 1,225 ton-per-day ammonia unit, a 3,000 ton-per-day UAN unit, and a gasifier complex having a capacity of 84 million standard cubic feet per day of hydrogen. Our gasifier is a dual-train facility, with each gasifier able to function independently of the other, thereby providing redundancy and improving our reliability. With the completion of the UAN expansion in February 2013, we now upgrade substantially all of the ammonia we produce to higher margin UAN fertilizer, an aqueous solution of urea and ammonium nitrate which has historically commanded a premium price over ammonia. In
2014
, we produced
963,715
tons of UAN and
388,923
tons of ammonia. Approximately
97%
of our produced ammonia tons and the majority of purchased ammonia were upgraded into UAN.
We intend to continue to expand our existing asset base and utilize the experience of our and CVR Energy’s management teams to execute our growth strategy, which includes expanded production of UAN and acquiring and building additional infrastructure and production assets. A significant two-year plant expansion designed to increase our UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons per year, or approximately 50%, was completed in February 2013. Our expanded facility was operating at full rates at the end of the first quarter of 2013.
CVR Energy, which indirectly owns our general partner and approximately
53%
of our outstanding common units, also indirectly owns the general partner and approximately
66%
of the common units of CVR Refining at
December 31, 2014
. CVR Refining owns and operates a complex full coking medium-sour crude oil refinery with a rated capacity of 115,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd) in Coffeyville, Kansas, a complex crude oil refinery with a rated capacity of 70,000 bpcd in Wynnewood, Oklahoma and ancillary businesses.
The primary raw material feedstock utilized in our nitrogen fertilizer production process is pet coke, which is produced during the crude oil refining process. In contrast, substantially all of our nitrogen fertilizer competitors use natural gas as their primary raw material feedstock. Historically, pet coke has been less expensive than natural gas on a per ton of fertilizer produced basis and pet coke prices have been more stable when compared to natural gas prices. By using pet coke as the primary raw material feedstock instead of natural gas, we believe our nitrogen fertilizer business has historically been one of
46
the lower cost producers and marketers of UAN and ammonia fertilizers in North America. We currently purchase most of our pet coke from CVR Refining pursuant to a long-term agreement having an initial term that ends in 2027, subject to renewal. During the past five years, over 70% of the pet coke consumed by our plant was produced and supplied by CVR Refining’s Coffeyville, Kansas crude oil refinery.
Our Initial Public Offering
On April 13, 2011, we completed our Initial Public Offering of 22,080,000 common units priced at $16.00 per unit. The net proceeds to us from the Initial Public Offering were approximately $324.2 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. The net proceeds from the Initial Public Offering were used to make certain distributions, purchase (and subsequently extinguish) the incentive distribution rights owned by the general partner, pay fees resulting from the credit facility, and the balance was used for or will be used for general partnership purposes, including our UAN expansion, and approximately
$39.5 million
which was used to fund other profit and growth capital expenses since the Initial Public Offering.
Secondary Public Offering
On May 28, 2013, Coffeyville Resources, LLC (“CRLLC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy, sold 12,000,000 of our common units to the public at a price of $25.15 per unit in a registered public offering (the “Secondary Offering”). The net proceeds to CRLLC from the Secondary Offering were approximately $292.6 million, after deducting approximately $9.2 million in underwriting discounts and commissions. We did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of common units by CRLLC. Following the closing of the Secondary Offering and as of
December 31, 2014
, public security holders held approximately
47%
of all outstanding common units and CRLLC held approximately
53%
of all outstanding common units and the general partner interest.
CVR Energy Transaction Agreement
On April 18, 2012, CVR Energy entered into a Transaction Agreement (the “Transaction Agreement”) with an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (“IEP”). Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, IEP's affiliate offered (the “Offer”) to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of CVR Energy’s common stock for a price of $30.00 per share in cash, without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes, plus one non-transferable contingent cash payment (“CCP”) right for each share which represented the contractual right to receive an additional cash payment per share if a definitive agreement for the sale of CVR Energy was executed on or before August 18, 2013 and such transaction closed. As no sale of CVR Energy was executed by the date outlined in the Transaction Agreement, the CCPs expired on August 19, 2013. On May 7, 2012, IEP's affiliate announced that control of CVR Energy had been acquired through the Offer. As of December 31,
2014
, IEP and its affiliates owned approximately
82%
of the shares of CVR Energy.
Major Influences on Results of Operations
Our earnings and cash flows from operations are primarily affected by the relationship between nitrogen fertilizer product prices, on-stream factors and direct operating expenses. Unlike our competitors, we do not use natural gas as a feedstock and use a minimal amount of natural gas as an energy source in our operations. As a result, volatile swings in natural gas prices have a minimal impact on our results of operations. Instead, CVR Refining's adjacent refinery supplies us with most of the pet coke feedstock we need pursuant to a 20 year pet coke supply agreement entered into in October 2007. The price at which our products are ultimately sold depends on numerous factors, including the global supply and demand for nitrogen fertilizer products which, in turn, depends on, among other factors, world grain demand and production levels, changes in world population, the cost and availability of fertilizer transportation infrastructure, weather conditions, the availability of imports, and the extent of government intervention in agriculture markets.
Nitrogen fertilizer prices are also affected by local factors, including local market conditions and the operating levels of competing facilities. An expansion or upgrade of competitors' facilities, political and economic developments and other factors are likely to continue to play an important role in nitrogen fertilizer industry economics. These factors can impact, among other things, the level of inventories in the market, resulting in price volatility and a reduction in product margins. Moreover, the industry typically experiences seasonal fluctuations in demand for nitrogen fertilizer products.
In addition, the demand for fertilizers is affected by the aggregate crop planting decisions and fertilizer application rate decisions of individual farmers. Individual farmers make planting decisions based largely on the prospective profitability of a
47
harvest, while the specific varieties and amounts of fertilizer they apply depend on factors like crop prices, their current liquidity, soil conditions, weather patterns and the types of crops planted.
Natural gas is the most significant raw material required in our competitors' production of nitrogen fertilizers. Over the past several years, natural gas prices have experienced high levels of price volatility. This pricing and volatility has a direct impact on our competitors' cost of producing nitrogen fertilizer.
In order to assess our operating performance, we calculate the product pricing at gate as an input to determine our operating margin. Product pricing at gate represents net sales less freight revenue divided by product sales volume in tons. We believe product pricing at gate is a meaningful measure because we sell products at our plant gate and terminal locations' gates (sold gate) and delivered to the customer's designated delivery site (sold delivered). The relative percentage of sold gate versus sold delivered can change period to period. The product pricing at gate provides a measure that is consistently comparable period to period.
We and other competitors in the U.S. farm belt share a significant transportation cost advantage when compared to our out-of-region competitors in serving the U.S. farm belt agricultural market. In 2014, approximately 49% of the corn planted in the United States was grown within an estimated $45 per UAN ton freight train rate of our nitrogen fertilizer plant. We are therefore able to cost-effectively sell substantially all of our products in the higher margin agricultural market, whereas a significant portion of our competitors' revenues is derived from the lower margin industrial market. Our products leave the plant either in railcars for destinations located principally on the Union Pacific Railroad or in trucks for direct shipment to customers. We do not currently incur significant intermediate transfer, storage, barge freight or pipeline freight charges; however, we do incur costs to maintain and repair our railcar fleet. Selling products to customers within economic rail transportation limits of the nitrogen fertilizer plant and keeping transportation costs low are keys to maintaining profitability.
As a result of the UAN expansion project completed in 2013, we will continue to upgrade substantially all of our ammonia production into UAN for as long as it makes economic sense to do so. The value of nitrogen fertilizer products is also an important consideration in understanding our results. For the years ended December 31,
2014
and
2013
, we upgraded approximately
97%
and
95%
, respectively, of our ammonia production into UAN, a product that presently generates greater profit than ammonia.
The high fixed cost of our direct operating expense structure also directly affects our profitability. Our facility's pet coke gasification process results in a significantly higher percentage of fixed costs than a natural gas-based fertilizer plant. Major fixed operating expenses include electrical energy, employee labor, maintenance, including contract labor, and outside services. We estimate these fixed costs averaged approximately 80% of direct operating expenses over the 24 months ended December 31,
2014
.
Our largest raw material expense used in the production of ammonia is pet coke, which we purchase from CVR Refining and third parties. For the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, we incurred approximately
$13.6 million
,
$14.6 million
and
$16.2 million
, respectively, for pet coke, which equaled an average cost per ton of
$28
,
$30
and
$33
, respectively.
Consistent, safe, and reliable operations at our nitrogen fertilizer plant are critical to our financial performance and results of operations. Unplanned downtime of the plant may result in lost margin opportunity, increased maintenance expense and a temporary increase in working capital investment and related inventory position. The financial impact of planned downtime, such as major turnaround maintenance, is mitigated through a diligent planning process that takes into account margin environment, the availability of resources to perform the needed maintenance, feedstock logistics and other factors. Historically, the nitrogen fertilizer plant has undergone a full facility turnaround approximately every two to three years. Turnarounds are expected to last 14-21 days and we generally anticipate that the costs will range from approximately $5.0 million to $6.0 million. A less involved facility shutdown was performed during the second quarter of 2014 and included both the installation of a waste heat boiler and the completion of several key tasks in order to upgrade the pressure swing adsorption unit ("PSA"), which is projected to increase hydrogen recovery sufficient to produce approximately 7,000 to 9,000 additional tons of ammonia annually. The Partnership is planning to undergo the next full facility turnaround in the third quarter of 2015.
Agreements with CVR Energy and CVR Refining
In connection with our formation and the initial public offering of CVR Energy in October 2007, we entered into several agreements with CVR Energy and its affiliates that govern the business relations among us, CVR Energy and its affiliates, and our general partner. In connection with our Initial Public Offering in April 2011, we amended and restated certain of the intercompany agreements and entered into several new agreements with CVR Energy and its affiliates (some of which are now with subsidiaries of CVR Refining). These include the pet coke supply agreement under which we buy the pet coke we use in our nitrogen fertilizer plant; a services agreement, under which CVR Energy and its affiliates provide us with management
48
services including the services of its senior management team; a feedstock and shared services agreement, which governs the provision of feedstocks, including, but not limited to, hydrogen, high-pressure steam, nitrogen, instrument air, oxygen and natural gas; a raw water and facilities sharing agreement, which allocates raw water resources between the two businesses; an easement agreement; an environmental agreement; and a lease agreement pursuant to which we lease office space and laboratory space from CVR Energy.
We obtain most (over 70% on average during the last five years) of the pet coke we need from a subsidiary of CVR Refining pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement, and procure the remainder on the open market. The price we pay pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement is based on the lesser of a pet coke price derived from the price received by us for UAN, or the UAN-based price, and a pet coke price index. The UAN-based price begins with a pet coke price of $25 per ton based on a price per ton for UAN (exclusive of transportation cost), or netback price, of $205 per ton, and adjusts up or down $0.50 per ton for every $1.00 change in the netback price. The UAN-based price has a ceiling of $40 per ton and a floor of $5 per ton.
The services agreement, which became effective in October 2007 and subsequently amended, resulted in charges primarily comprised of approximately
$10.0 million
,
$10.0 million
and
$7.1 million
for the fiscal years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively (excluding share-based compensation), included in selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.
CVR Refining, LP Initial Public Offering
On January 23, 2013, CVR Refining, an affiliate of the Partnership, completed its initial public offering (the "Refining Partnership IPO"). CVR Refining's common units are listed on the NYSE and are traded under the symbol "CVRR." Following the Refining Partnership IPO and subsequent transactions, CVR Energy indirectly owns CVR Refining's general partner and, at
December 31, 2014
, approximately
66%
of CVR Refining's outstanding common units.
Prior to the Refining Partnership IPO, the Partnership and CRNF maintained several agreements with CVR Energy and its subsidiaries, including CVR Refining and its subsidiaries, that govern the business relations among us. Although certain of CVR Energy's subsidiaries that are parties to these agreements were contributed to CVR Refining in connection with the Refining Partnership IPO, the Refining Partnership IPO had no impact on these agreements and our continued business relations with CVR Energy and its affiliates.
Factors Affecting Comparability
Our historical results of operations for the periods presented may not be comparable with prior periods or to our results of operations in the future for the reasons discussed below.
Fertilizer Plant Property Taxes
CRNF received a ten year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the county reclassified and reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant for property tax purposes. The reclassification and reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of approximately $10.7 million per year for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, $11.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, $11.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, and $11.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. CRNF protested the classification and resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals ("COTA"), followed by an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. However, CRNF fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claimed were owed for the years ended December 31, 2008 through 2012. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion dated August 9, 2013, reversed the COTA decision, in part and remanded the case to COTA, instructing COTA to classify each asset on an asset by asset basis instead of making a broad determination that the entire plant was real property as COTA did originally. The County filed a motion for rehearing with the Kansas Court of Appeals and a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court, both of which have been denied. CRNF believes that when that asset by asset determination is done, the majority of the plant will be classified as personal property which would result in significantly lower property taxes for CRNF for 2008 and for those years after the conclusion of the property tax settlement noted below as compared to the taxes paid by CRNF prior to the settlement.
On February 25, 2013, Montgomery County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012, which has lowered and will lower CRNF's property taxes by about
$10.7 million
per year (as compared to the 2012 tax year) for tax years 2013 through 2016 based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides that Montgomery County will support CRNF's application before COTA for a
ten
year tax exemption for the UAN expansion. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 reclassification and reassessment as discussed above. During the years ended
49
December 31,
2014
and
2013
, CRNF recognized
$1.3 million
and
$1.4 million
, respectively, in property tax expense included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
2012 Turnaround
During the fourth quarter of 2012, the nitrogen fertilizer facility completed a major scheduled turnaround. Overall results were negatively impacted due to the lost production during the downtime and the resulting reduced sales and associated cost of product sold. Costs of approximately $4.8 million, associated with the 2012 turnaround, are included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2012. No full facility turnaround activities occurred in 2014 or 2013.
Industry Factors
Global demand for fertilizers is driven primarily by population growth, dietary changes in the developing world and increased consumption of bio-fuels. According to the International Fertilizer Industry Association, from 1972 to 2012, global fertilizer demand grew 2.1% annually. Fertilizer use is projected to increase by 45% between 2005 and 2030 to meet global food demand according to a study funded by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Currently, the developed world uses fertilizer more intensively than the developing world, but sustained economic growth in emerging markets is increasing food demand and fertilizer use. As an example, China's wheat and coarse grains production increased 51% between 2004 and 2014, but still failed to keep pace with increases in demand, prompting China to grow its imports by more than 51% over the same period, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.
World grain demand increased 11%, from 2010 to 2014, leading to a tight grain supply environment and significant increases in grain prices that is highly supportive of fertilizer prices. For example, according to estimates from Blue, Johnson Associates, Inc., average annual corn belt UAN spot freight on board prices increased 17% from $266 per ton in 2010 to $312 per ton in 2014.
Nitrogen fertilizer prices have decoupled from their historical correlation with natural gas prices and are now driven primarily by demand dynamics. From 2010 to 2014, corn prices in Illinois have averaged $5.40 per bushel, an increase of 49% above the average price of $3.62 per bushel during the preceding five years. At existing grain prices and prices implied by futures markets, farmers are expected to generate substantial profits, leading to relatively inelastic demand for fertilizers.
The United States is the world's largest exporter of coarse grains, accounting for 34% of world exports and 30% of world production, according to the USDA. Fertecon estimates the United States is the world's third largest consumer of nitrogen fertilizer and historically the world's first or second largest importer of nitrogen fertilizer, importing approximately 44% of its nitrogen fertilizer needs. North American producers have a significant and sustainable cost advantage over European producers that export to the U.S. market. Over the last decade, the North American nitrogen fertilizer market has experienced significant consolidation through plant closures and corporate consolidation.
Unlike ammonia and urea, UAN can be applied throughout the growing season and can be applied in tandem with pesticides and herbicides, providing farmers with flexibility and cost savings. As a result of these factors, UAN typically commands a premium price to urea and ammonia, on a nitrogen equivalent basis.
50
Results of Operations
The period to period comparisons of our results of operations have been prepared using the historical periods included in our consolidated financial statements. In order to effectively review and assess our historical financial information below, we have also included supplemental operating measures and industry measures that we believe are material to understanding our business.
To supplement our actual results calculated in accordance with GAAP for the applicable periods, the Partnership also uses certain non-GAAP financial measures, which are reconciled to our GAAP based results below. These non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered as an alternative to GAAP results.
The following tables summarize the financial data and key operating statistics for CVR Partners and our operating subsidiary for fiscal years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
. The following data should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this Report.
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||
|
Net sales
|
$
|
298.7
|
|
|
$
|
323.7
|
|
|
$
|
302.3
|
|
|
Cost of product sold — Affiliates
|
9.4
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|||
|
Cost of product sold — Third parties (1)
|
62.6
|
|
|
47.3
|
|
|
34.6
|
|
|||
|
|
72.0
|
|
|
58.1
|
|
|
46.1
|
|
|||
|
Direct operating expenses — Affiliates (1)(2)
|
3.0
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|||
|
Direct operating expenses — Third parties (1)
|
95.9
|
|
|
90.0
|
|
|
93.3
|
|
|||
|
|
98.9
|
|
|
94.1
|
|
|
95.6
|
|
|||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses — Affiliates (1)(2)
|
13.4
|
|
|
16.0
|
|
|
17.2
|
|
|||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses — Third parties (1)
|
4.3
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|||
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
21.0
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
|||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
27.3
|
|
|
25.6
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|||
|
Operating income
|
$
|
82.8
|
|
|
$
|
124.9
|
|
|
$
|
115.8
|
|
|
Interest expense and other financing costs
|
(6.7
|
)
|
|
(6.3
|
)
|
|
(3.8
|
)
|
|||
|
Interest income
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|||
|
Other income, net
|
—
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|||
|
Total other income (expense)
|
(6.7
|
)
|
|
(6.2
|
)
|
|
(3.5
|
)
|
|||
|
Income before income tax expense (benefit)
|
76.1
|
|
|
118.7
|
|
|
112.3
|
|
|||
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
—
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|||
|
Net income
|
$
|
76.1
|
|
|
$
|
118.6
|
|
|
$
|
112.2
|
|
|
EBITDA (3)
|
$
|
110.1
|
|
|
$
|
150.6
|
|
|
$
|
136.6
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA (3)
|
$
|
110.3
|
|
|
$
|
152.8
|
|
|
$
|
148.2
|
|
|
Available cash for distribution (4)
|
$
|
102.0
|
|
|
$
|
145.2
|
|
|
$
|
132.3
|
|
|
Reconciliation to net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sales net at gate
|
$
|
259.3
|
|
|
$
|
281.5
|
|
|
$
|
273.5
|
|
|
Freight in revenue
|
27.5
|
|
|
30.2
|
|
|
22.4
|
|
|||
|
Hydrogen revenue
|
10.1
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|||
|
Other
|
1.8
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
|
Total net sales
|
$
|
298.7
|
|
|
$
|
323.7
|
|
|
$
|
302.3
|
|
51
|
(1)
|
Amounts are shown exclusive of depreciation and amortization. Amounts excluded from selling, general and administrative expenses are nominal. Depreciation and amortization is primarily comprised of the following components:
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization excluded from direct operating expenses
|
$
|
26.9
|
|
|
$
|
25.3
|
|
|
$
|
20.6
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization excluded from cost of product sold
|
0.4
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|||
|
|
$
|
27.3
|
|
|
$
|
25.6
|
|
|
$
|
20.7
|
|
|
(2)
|
Our direct operating expenses and selling, general and administrative expenses include amounts for share-based compensation, which include amounts related to CVR Energy's share-based compensation expense allocated to us by CVR Energy for financial reporting purposes. See
Note 3
("
Share‑Based Compensation
") to Part II, Item 8 of this report for further discussion of allocated share-based compensation expenses. The charges for allocated share-based compensation were:
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||
|
Direct operating expenses
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.4
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
1.4
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|||
|
Total
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
|
$
|
2.2
|
|
|
$
|
4.6
|
|
|
(3)
|
EBITDA
is defined as net income (i) before interest (income) expense, (ii) income tax expense and (iii) depreciation and amortization expense.
|
Adjusted EBITDA
is defined as EBITDA further adjusted for the impact of non-cash share-based compensation, and, when applicable, major scheduled turnaround expense and loss on disposition of assets. We have recorded non-cash share-based compensation in each of the periods presented, and our plant generally undergoes a major scheduled turnaround (and so incurs major scheduled turnaround expense) every two to three years.
We present EBITDA because we believe it allows users of our financial statements, such as investors and analysts, to assess our financial performance without regard to financing methods, capital structure or historical cost basis. We present Adjusted EBITDA because we have found it helpful to consider an operating measure that excludes expenses, such as major scheduled turnaround expense and loss on disposition of assets, relating to transactions not reflective of our core operations. When applicable, each of these expenses is discussed in the Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations section of our SEC reports, so that investors have complete information about expenses. In addition, we believe that it is useful to exclude from Adjusted EBITDA non-cash share-based compensation, although it is a recurring cost incurred in the ordinary course of business. In our view, non-cash share-based compensation, which also is presented in our financial statements and discussed in the Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, reflects a non-cash cost which may obscure, for a given period, trends in the underlying business, due to the timing and nature of the equity awards. We also present Adjusted EBITDA because it is the starting point used by the board of directors of our general partner when calculating our available cash for distribution.
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are not recognized terms under GAAP and should not be substituted for net income or cash flows from operations. Management believes that EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA enable investors and analysts to better understand our ability to make distributions to common unitholders, help investors and analysts evaluate our ongoing operating results and allow for greater transparency in reviewing our overall financial, operational and economic performance by allowing investors to evaluate the same information used by management. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA presented by other companies may not be comparable to our presentation, since each company may define these terms differently.
52
A reconciliation of our Net Income to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA is as follows:
|
|
Three Months Ended December 31,
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
24.8
|
|
|
$
|
76.1
|
|
|
$
|
118.6
|
|
|
$
|
112.2
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Interest expense and other financing costs, net
|
1.7
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
||||
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
7.0
|
|
|
27.3
|
|
|
25.6
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
||||
|
EBITDA
|
$
|
33.5
|
|
|
110.1
|
|
|
150.6
|
|
|
136.6
|
|
|||
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Major scheduled turnaround expenses
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
||||
|
Share-based compensation, non-cash
|
—
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
||||
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
$
|
33.5
|
|
|
$
|
110.3
|
|
|
$
|
152.8
|
|
|
$
|
148.2
|
|
|
(4)
|
Beginning with the first quarter 2013, the board of directors of our general partner adopted an amended policy to calculate available cash starting with Adjusted EBITDA. For 2014 and 2013, available cash for distribution equaled our Adjusted EBITDA reduced for cash needed for (i) net interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service and other contractual obligations; (ii) maintenance capital expenditures; and (iii) to the extent applicable, major scheduled turnaround expenses incurred and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Available cash for each quarter through the end of 2012 was calculated based on our cash flow from operations for the quarter, less cash needed for maintenance capital expenditures, debt service and other contractual obligations and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of our general partner deemed necessary or appropriate; the Partnership also retained cash on hand associated with prepaid sales at each quarter end for future distributions to common unitholders based upon the recognition into income of the prepaid sales. Available cash for distribution may be increased by previously established cash reserves, if any, at the discretion of the board of directors of our general partner.
|
Available cash for distribution
is not a recognized term under GAAP. Available cash for distribution should not be considered in isolation or as an alternative to net income or operating income, or any other measure of financial performance or operating performance. In addition, available cash for distribution is not presented as, and should not be considered, an alternative to cash flows from operations or as a measure of liquidity. Available cash for distribution as reported by the Partnership may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other entities, thereby limiting its usefulness as a comparative measure.
53
A reconciliation of the available cash for distribution for the three months and year ended December 31,
2014
is as follows:
|
|
Three Months Ended
December 31, 2014 |
|
Year Ended
December 31, 2014 |
||||
|
|
(in millions, except units and per unit data)
|
||||||
|
Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to Available cash for distribution
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
$
|
33.5
|
|
|
$
|
110.3
|
|
|
Adjustments:
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Net cash interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service
|
(1.5
|
)
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
||
|
Maintenance capital expenditures
|
(2.0
|
)
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
||
|
Plus:
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Distribution of previously established cash reserves
|
—
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
||
|
Available cash for distribution
|
$
|
30.0
|
|
|
$
|
102.0
|
|
|
Available cash for distribution, per common unit
|
$
|
0.41
|
|
|
$
|
1.39
|
|
|
Common units outstanding (in thousands)
|
73,123
|
|
|
73,123
|
|
||
54
The following tables show selected information about key operating statistics and market indicators for our business:
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
Key Operating Statistics:
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
Production volume (thousand tons):
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Ammonia (gross produced) (1)
|
388.9
|
|
|
402.0
|
|
|
390.0
|
|
|||
|
Ammonia (net available for sale) (1)(2)
|
28.3
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
124.6
|
|
|||
|
UAN
|
963.7
|
|
|
930.6
|
|
|
643.8
|
|
|||
|
Pet coke consumed (thousand tons)
|
489.7
|
|
|
487.0
|
|
|
487.3
|
|
|||
|
Pet coke (cost per ton) (3)
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
Sales (thousand tons):
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Ammonia
|
24.4
|
|
|
40.5
|
|
|
127.8
|
|
|||
|
UAN
|
951.0
|
|
|
904.6
|
|
|
643.5
|
|
|||
|
Product pricing at gate (dollars per ton) (4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Ammonia
|
$
|
518
|
|
|
$
|
643
|
|
|
$
|
613
|
|
|
UAN
|
$
|
259
|
|
|
$
|
282
|
|
|
$
|
303
|
|
|
On-stream factors (5):
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Gasification
|
96.8
|
%
|
|
95.6
|
%
|
|
92.6
|
%
|
|||
|
Ammonia
|
92.6
|
%
|
|
94.4
|
%
|
|
91.1
|
%
|
|||
|
UAN
|
92.0
|
%
|
|
91.9
|
%
|
|
86.4
|
%
|
|||
|
|
Annual Average For
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
Market Indicators:
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
Natural gas NYMEX (dollars per MMbtu)
|
$
|
4.26
|
|
|
$
|
3.73
|
|
|
$
|
2.83
|
|
|
Ammonia — Southern Plains (dollars per ton)
|
539
|
|
|
581
|
|
|
647
|
|
|||
|
UAN — Corn belt (dollars per ton)
|
314
|
|
|
337
|
|
|
369
|
|
|||
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Gross tons produced for ammonia represent the total ammonia produced, including ammonia produced that was upgraded into UAN. As a result of the completion of the UAN expansion project in February 2013, we now upgrade substantially all of the ammonia we produce into UAN. Net tons available for sale represent the ammonia available for sale that was not upgraded into UAN.
|
|
(2)
|
In addition to the produced ammonia, the Partnership acquired approximately
33.6 thousand
and
17.3 thousand
tons of ammonia during the years ended December 31,
2014
and
2013
, respectively. The Partnership has upgraded or expects to upgrade the majority of purchased ammonia to UAN. We did not purchase ammonia during the year ended December 31,
2012
.
|
|
(3)
|
Our pet coke cost per ton purchased from CVR Refining averaged
$24
,
$27
and
$30
for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively. Third-party pet coke prices averaged
$41
,
$40
and
$42
for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively.
|
|
(4)
|
Product pricing at gate per ton represents net sales less freight revenue divided by product sales volume in tons, and is shown in order to provide a pricing measure that is comparable across the fertilizer industry.
|
|
(5)
|
On-stream factor is the total number of hours operated divided by the total number of hours in the reporting period and is included as a measure of operating efficiency. Excluding the impact of the downtime associated with the installation of the waste heat boiler, the pressure swing adsorption unit upgrade and the Linde air separation unit maintenance, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31, 2014 would have been
98.2%
for gasifier,
94.3%
for ammonia and
93.7%
for UAN. Excluding the impact of the planned downtime associated with the replacement of the damaged catalyst, the unplanned Linde air separation unit outages, the UAN expansion coming online and the unplanned downtime associated with weather issues, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31, 2013 would have been
99.5%
for gasifier,
98.9%
for ammonia and
98.0%
for UAN. Excluding the major scheduled turnaround and the
|
55
impact of the Linde air separation unit outage, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31, 2012 would have been
98.1%
for gasifier,
97.1%
for ammonia and
92.8%
for UAN.
Year Ended
December 31, 2014
compared to the Year Ended
December 31, 2013
Net Sales.
Net sales were
$298.7 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
, compared to
$323.7 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2013
. The net sales
decrease
of
$25.0 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
was the result of lower UAN sales prices ($25.8 million), lower ammonia sales volumes ($10.7 million), and lower ammonia sales prices ($3.0 million), partially offset by higher UAN sales volumes ($14.6 million). For the year ended
December 31, 2014
, UAN, ammonia and hydrogen made up
$273.7 million
,
$13.1 million
, and
$10.1 million
of our net sales, respectively. This compared to UAN, ammonia and hydrogen net sales of
$284.9 million
,
$26.8 million
and
$11.4 million
, respectively, for the year ended
December 31, 2013
. The following table demonstrates the impact of changes in sales volumes and sales price for UAN, ammonia and hydrogen for the year ended
December 31, 2014
compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
.
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2014
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2013
|
|
Total Variance
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Volume(1)
|
|
$ per ton(2)
|
|
Sales $(3)
|
|
Volume(1)
|
|
$ per ton(2)
|
|
Sales $(3)
|
|
Volume(1)
|
|
Sales $(3)
|
|
Price
Variance
|
|
Volume
Variance
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
UAN
|
951,043
|
|
|
$
|
288
|
|
|
$
|
273.7
|
|
|
904,596
|
|
|
$
|
315
|
|
|
$
|
284.9
|
|
|
46,447
|
|
|
$
|
(11.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(25.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
14.6
|
|
|
Ammonia
|
24,378
|
|
|
$
|
536
|
|
|
$
|
13.1
|
|
|
40,535
|
|
|
$
|
660
|
|
|
$
|
26.8
|
|
|
(16,157
|
)
|
|
$
|
(13.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.7
|
)
|
|
Hydrogen
|
996,516
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
10.1
|
|
|
1,165,300
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
11.4
|
|
|
(168,784
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.3
|
|
|
$
|
(1.6
|
)
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
UAN and ammonia sales volumes are in tons. Hydrogen sales volumes are in MSCF.
|
|
(2)
|
Includes freight charges. Hydrogen is based on $ per MSCF.
|
|
(3)
|
Sales dollars in millions.
|
For the year ended
December 31, 2014
, our nitrogen fertilizer operations experienced an
increase
of
5.1%
in UAN sales unit volumes and a
decrease
of
39.9%
in ammonia sales unit volumes. The increase in UAN and decrease in ammonia sales volumes for the year ended
December 31, 2014
compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
was partially attributable to the UAN expansion being available for the full period in 2014. On-stream factors (total number of hours operated divided by total hours in the reporting period) for the gasification, ammonia and UAN units were
96.8%
,
92.6%
and
92.0%
, respectively, for the year ended
December 31, 2014
. On-stream factors for the gasification, ammonia and UAN units were
95.6%
,
94.4%
and
91.9%
, respectively, for the year ended
December 31, 2013
.
Product pricing at gate represents net sales less freight revenue divided by product sales volume in tons. We believe product pricing at gate is a meaningful measure because we sell products at our plant gate and terminal locations' gates (sold gate) and delivered to the customer's designated delivery site (sold delivered). The relative percentage of sold gate versus sold delivered can change period to period. The product pricing at gate provides a measure that is consistently comparable period to period. Product pricing at gate for UAN
decreased
approximately
8.2%
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
. Product pricing at gate for ammonia
decreased
approximately
19.4%
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
.
Cost of Product Sold (Exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization).
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) includes cost of freight and distribution expenses, pet coke expense and purchased ammonia. Cost of product sold excluding depreciation and amortization for the year ended
December 31, 2014
was
$72.0 million
, compared to
$58.1 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2013
. The
$13.9 million
increase
resulted from
$15.3 million
in higher costs from transactions with third parties, which is offset by lower costs from transactions with affiliates of
$1.4 million
. The higher third-party costs incurred during the year ended
December 31, 2014
were primarily the result of increased distribution costs ($10.5 million) mostly due to the increase in railcar regulatory inspections and repairs as well as increased ammonia purchases ($6.5 million), partially offset by lower freight and pet coke expenses. The increase in railcar regulatory inspections and repairs is related to a larger portion of our fleet due for regulatory inspections and related repairs during the year ended
December 31, 2014
as compared to the prior year.
Direct Operating Expenses (Exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization).
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) consist primarily of energy and utility costs, direct costs of labor, property taxes, plant-related maintenance services and environmental and safety compliance costs as well as catalyst and chemical costs. Direct operating
56
expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the year ended
December 31, 2014
were
$98.9 million
, as compared to
$94.1 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2013
. The total
increase
of
$4.8 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
, as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
, was comprised of a
$5.9 million
increase
in costs from transactions with third parties, partially offset by a
$1.1 million
decrease
in direct operating costs from affiliates. The increase resulted primarily from higher utilities, net ($1.3 million), refractory brick amortization ($2.7 million), repairs and maintenance ($1.2 million), partially offset by lower insurance costs ($1.1 million). The increased utility costs were largely due to higher electrical and natural gas prices, partially offset by lower electrical volumes. The increase in refractory brick amortization is primarily due to a decrease in the estimated useful life to reflect higher estimated rates of use in our production process.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses (Exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization).
Selling, general and administrative expenses include the direct selling, general and administrative expenses of our business as well as certain expenses incurred by our affiliates, CVR Energy and Coffeyville Resources, on our behalf and billed or allocated to us in accordance with the services agreement. We also reimburse our general partner in accordance with the partnership agreement for expenses it incurs on our behalf. Reimbursed expenses to our general partner are included as selling, general & administrative expenses from affiliates. Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) were
$17.7 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
, as compared to
$21.0 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2013
. The
decrease
of
$3.3 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
was the result of a
decrease
in costs from transactions with affiliates (
$2.6 million
) coupled with a
decrease
in costs from transactions with third parties (
$0.7 million
). The overall variance was primarily the result of a decrease in reimbursements to our general partner ($1.7 million), a decrease in outside services ($1.2 million) and a decrease in share-based compensation ($1.0 million), partially offset by increases in expenses related to personnel costs ($0.4 million), exclusive of share-based compensation.
Operating Income.
Operating income was
$82.8 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
, as compared to operating income of
$124.9 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2013
. The
decrease
of
$42.1 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
was the result of the
decrease
in sales (
$25.0 million
), an increase in cost of product sold (
$13.9 million
), an increase in direct operating expenses (
$4.8 million
) and an increase in depreciation and amortization (
$1.7 million
), partially offset by a decrease in selling, general, and administrative expenses (
$3.3 million
).
Interest Expense and Other Financing Costs.
Interest expense and other financing costs were approximately
$6.7 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
and
$6.3 million
for the year ended
December 31, 2013
. Interest expense and other financing costs for the year ended
December 31, 2014
were primarily attributable to bank interest expense of $4.7 million on the term loan facility, $1.1 million of interest expense related to the interest rate swap and $1.0 million of deferred financing amortization, partially offset by capitalized interest. The increase in expense as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2013
was primarily due to a decrease in capitalized interest.
Net Income.
For the year ended
December 31, 2014
, net income was
$76.1 million
, as compared to
$118.6 million
of net income for the year ended
December 31, 2013
, a
decrease
of
$42.5 million
. The
decrease
in net income was primarily due to the factors noted above.
Year Ended December 31, 2013 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2012
Net Sales.
Net sales were $323.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $302.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. Sales of both UAN and ammonia for the year ended December 31, 2012 were negatively impacted by the downtime associated with the major scheduled turnaround during 2012. The net sales increase of $21.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 was the result of higher sales volumes for UAN ($82.2 million), higher hydrogen sales volumes to CVR Energy's refinery ($5.3 million) and higher prices for ammonia ($3.6 million), offset by lower sales volumes for ammonia ($57.6 million) and lower prices for UAN ($12.4 million). For the year ended December 31, 2013, UAN, ammonia and hydrogen made up $284.9 million, $26.8 million, and $11.4 million of our net sales, respectively. This compared to UAN, ammonia and hydrogen net sales of $215.1 million, $80.8 million and $6.4 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2012. The following table demonstrates the impact of changes in sales volumes and sales price for UAN, ammonia and hydrogen for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the year ended December 31, 2012.
57
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2013
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2012
|
|
Total Variance
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Volume(1)
|
|
$ per ton(2)
|
|
Sales $(3)
|
|
Volume(1)
|
|
$ per ton(2)
|
|
Sales $(3)
|
|
Volume(1)
|
|
Sales $(3)
|
|
Price
Variance
|
|
Volume
Variance
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
UAN
|
904,596
|
|
|
$
|
315
|
|
|
$
|
284.9
|
|
|
643,514
|
|
|
$
|
334
|
|
|
$
|
215.1
|
|
|
261,082
|
|
|
$
|
69.8
|
|
|
$
|
(12.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
82.2
|
|
|
Ammonia
|
40,535
|
|
|
$
|
660
|
|
|
$
|
26.8
|
|
|
127,843
|
|
|
$
|
632
|
|
|
$
|
80.8
|
|
|
(87,308
|
)
|
|
$
|
(54.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.6
|
|
|
$
|
(57.6
|
)
|
|
Hydrogen
|
1,165,300
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
11.4
|
|
|
624,242
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
6.4
|
|
|
541,058
|
|
|
$
|
5.0
|
|
|
$
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
5.3
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
UAN and ammonia sales volumes are in tons. Hydrogen sales volumes are in MSCF.
|
|
(2)
|
Includes freight charges. Hydrogen is based on $ per MSCF.
|
|
(3)
|
Sales dollars in millions.
|
For the year ended December 31, 2013, our nitrogen fertilizer operations experienced an increase of 40.6% in UAN sales unit volumes and a decrease of 68.3% in ammonia sales unit volumes. The increase in UAN and ammonia sales volumes for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 was primarily attributable to the UAN expansion coming on-line in February of 2013. On-stream factors (total number of hours operated divided by total hours in the reporting period) for the gasification, ammonia and UAN units were 95.6%, 94.4% and 91.9%, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2013. On-stream factors for the gasification, ammonia and UAN units were 92.6%, 91.1% and 86.4%, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2012. Production during the year ended December 31, 2012 was significantly reduced due to the major turnaround in the fourth quarter. Excluding the planned downtime associated with replacement of damaged catalyst, the unplanned Linde air separation unit outages, impact of the UAN expansion coming on-line and the unplanned downtime associated with weather issues, the on-stream factors for the year ended December 31, 2013 would have been 99.5% for gasifier, 98.9% for ammonia and 98.0% for UAN.
Product pricing at gate represents net sales less freight revenue divided by product sales volume in tons. We believe product pricing at gate is a meaningful measure because we sell products at our plant gate and terminal locations' gates (sold gate) and delivered to the customer's designated delivery site (sold delivered). The percentage of sold gate versus sold delivered can change period to period. The product pricing at gate provides a measure that is consistently comparable period to period. Product pricing at gate prices for ammonia increased approximately 4.9% for the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 and product pricing at gate prices for UAN decreased approximately 6.9% for the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012.
Cost of Product Sold (Exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization).
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) includes cost of freight and distribution expenses, pet coke expense and purchased ammonia. Cost of product sold excluding depreciation and amortization for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $58.1 million, compared to $46.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The $12.0 million increase resulted from $12.7 million in higher costs from transactions with third parties, which is offset by lower costs from transactions with affiliates of $0.7 million. The higher third-party costs incurred during the year ended December 31, 2013 were primarily the result of higher purchased ammonia expenses compared to 2012 and increased freight costs primarily associated with increased sales volumes. These costs were partially offset by lower pet coke costs per ton.
Direct Operating Expenses (Exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization).
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) consist primarily of energy and utility costs, direct costs of labor, property taxes, plant-related maintenance services and environmental and safety compliance costs as well as catalyst and chemical costs. Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the year ended December 31, 2013 were $94.1 million, as compared to $95.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The total decrease of $1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, was comprised of a $3.3 million decrease in costs from transactions with third parties, partially offset by a $1.8 million increase in direct operating costs from affiliates. The decrease resulted primarily from lower property taxes ($11.7 million) and the 2012 turnaround costs ($4.8 million), partially offset by higher utilities ($7.5 million), catalyst amortization ($2.5 million), insurance ($1.1 million), repairs and maintenance ($1.0 million), reduced operating expenses during 2012 from the receipt of the reactor rupture insurance proceeds ($1.0 million) and chemical costs ($0.9 million). The decrease in taxes was due to a settlement between Montgomery County and CRNF, during the year ended December 31, 2013, which has and will lower CRNF's property taxes. The increased utility costs were largely due to the UAN expansion, which came on-line in February 2013. The increase in the catalyst amortization is largely the result of the planned replacement of damaged catalyst.
58
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses (Exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization).
Selling, general and administrative expenses include the direct selling, general and administrative expenses of our business as well as certain expenses incurred by our affiliates, CVR Energy and Coffeyville Resources, on our behalf and billed or allocated to us in accordance with the services agreement. We also reimburse our general partner in accordance with the partnership agreement for expenses it incurs on our behalf. Reimbursed expenses to our general partner are included as selling, general & administrative expenses from affiliates. Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) were $21.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to $24.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The decrease of $3.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 was the result of a decrease in costs from transactions with third parties ($1.9 million) coupled with a decrease in costs from transactions with affiliates ($1.2 million). The overall variance was primarily the result of a decrease in share-based compensation ($3.7 million) and outside services ($0.7 million), partially offset by increases expenses related to the services agreement ($2.9 million).
Operating Income.
Operating income was $124.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to operating income of $115.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. The increase of $9.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 was the result of the increase in sales ($21.4 million) and decreases in selling, general, and administrative expense ($3.1 million) and direct operating expenses ($1.5 million), partially offset by an increase in cost of product sold ($12.0 million) and depreciation and amortization ($4.9 million). Depreciation and amortization expense was higher for the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 primarily due to the UAN expansion coming on-line in February 2013.
Interest Expense and Other Financing Costs.
Interest expense and other financing costs were approximately $6.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 and $3.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. Interest expense and other financing costs for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 were primarily attributable to bank interest expense on the $125.0 million term loan facility, interest rate swap expense and deferred financing amortization. The increase is primarily due to the decrease in capitalized interest from $3.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2012 to $0.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2013.
Net Income.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, net income was $118.6 million, as compared to $112.2 million of net income for the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of $6.4 million. The increase in net income was primarily due to the factors noted above.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our principal source of liquidity has historically been cash from operations, which can include cash advances from customers resulting from forward sales. Our principal uses of cash are funding our operations, distributions to common unitholders, capital expenditures and funding our debt service obligations. We believe that our cash from operations, remaining proceeds from the Initial Public Offering, and available borrowings under our revolving credit facility will be adequate to satisfy anticipated commitments and planned capital expenditures for the next twelve months. However, our future capital expenditures and other cash requirements could be higher than we currently expect as a result of various factors. Additionally, our ability to generate sufficient cash from our operating activities depends on our future performance, which is subject to general economic, political, financial, competitive, and other factors beyond our control.
Depending on the needs of our business, contractual limitations and market conditions, we may from time to time seek to issue equity securities, incur additional debt, modify the terms of our existing debt, issue debt securities, or otherwise refinance our existing debt. There can be no assurance that we will seek to do any of the foregoing or that we will be able to do any of the foregoing on terms acceptable to us or at all. Further discussion of declared cash distributions is included below with
Distributions to Unitholders.
Cash Balance and Other Liquidity
As of
December 31, 2014
, we had cash and cash equivalents of
$79.9 million
including
$13.6 million
of customer advances. Working capital at
December 31, 2014
was
$89.9 million
, consisting of
$129.6 million
in current assets and
$39.7 million
in current liabilities. Working capital at
December 31, 2013
was
$108.4 million
, consisting of
$135.8 million
in current assets and
$27.4 million
in current liabilities. As of
February 17, 2015
, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $101.3 million.
59
Credit Facility
On April 13, 2011 in conjunction with the completion of our Initial Public Offering, we entered into a new credit facility with a group of lenders including Goldman Sachs Lending Partners LLC, as administrative and collateral agent. The credit facility includes a term loan facility of $125.0 million and a revolving credit facility of $25.0 million with an uncommitted incremental facility of up to $50.0 million. There is no scheduled amortization and the credit facility matures in April 2016. The credit facility is available to finance on-going working capital, capital projects, letter of credit issuances and general needs of the Partnership.
Borrowings under the credit facility bear interest based on a pricing grid determined by a trailing four quarter leverage ratio. Pricing for borrowings under the credit facility is currently based on the Eurodollar rate plus a margin of 3.50%, or, for base rate loans, the prime rate plus 2.50%. Under its terms, the lenders under the credit facility were granted a perfected, first priority security interest (subject to certain customary exceptions) in substantially all of the assets of CVR Partners and CRNF and all of the capital stock of CRNF and each domestic subsidiary owned by CVR Partners or CRNF. CRNF is the borrower under the credit facility. All obligations under the credit facility are unconditionally guaranteed by CVR Partners and substantially all of our future, direct and indirect, domestic subsidiaries.
As of
December 31, 2014
, no amounts were drawn under the $25.0 million revolving credit facility.
Mandatory Prepayments
We are required to prepay outstanding amounts under our term facility in an amount equal to the net proceeds from the sale of assets or from insurance or condemnation awards related to collateral, in each case subject to certain reinvestment rights. In addition, we are required to prepay outstanding amounts under our term facility with the net proceeds from certain issuances of debt (other than debt permitted to be incurred under our credit facility).
Voluntary Prepayments/Commitment Reductions
At any time, we may voluntarily reduce the unutilized portion of the revolving commitment amount, and prepay, in whole or in part, outstanding amounts under our credit facility without premium or penalty other than customary "breakage" costs with respect to Eurodollar rate loans.
Amortization and Final Maturity
There is no scheduled amortization under our credit facility. All outstanding amounts under our credit facility are due and payable in full in April 2016.
Restrictive Covenants and Other Matters
Our credit facility requires us to maintain (i) a minimum interest coverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) as of any fiscal quarter of 3.0 to 1.0 and (ii) a maximum leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of any fiscal quarter ending of 3.0 to 1.0, in all cases calculated on a trailing four quarter basis. In addition, the credit facility includes negative covenants that, subject to significant exceptions, limit our ability and the ability of certain of our subsidiaries to, among other things:
|
•
|
incur, assume or permit to exist additional indebtedness, guarantees and other contingent obligations;
|
|
•
|
incur liens;
|
|
•
|
make negative pledges;
|
|
•
|
pay dividends or make other distributions;
|
|
•
|
make payments to our subsidiary;
|
|
•
|
make certain loans and investments;
|
|
•
|
consolidate, merge or sell all or substantially all of our assets;
|
|
•
|
enter into sale-leaseback transactions; and
|
|
•
|
enter into transactions with affiliates.
|
The 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.
60
The credit facility contains certain customary representations and warranties, affirmative covenants and events of default, including, among other things, payment defaults, breach of representations and warranties, covenant defaults, cross-defaults to certain indebtedness, certain events of bankruptcy, certain events under ERISA, material judgments, actual or asserted failure of any guaranty or security document supporting the credit facility to be in force and effect, and change of control. An event of default will also be triggered if CVR Energy, CVR Refining or any of their subsidiaries (other than us and CRNF) terminates or violates any of its covenants in any of the intercompany agreements between us and CVR Energy, CVR Refining and their subsidiaries (other than us and CRNF) and such action has a material adverse effect on us. If an event of default occurs, the administrative agent under the credit facility would be entitled to take various actions, including the acceleration of amounts due under the credit facility and all actions permitted to be taken by a secured creditor.
As of
December 31, 2014
, we were in compliance with the covenants under the credit facility.
Interest Rate Swaps
Our profitability and cash flows are affected by changes in interest rates on our credit facility borrowings, specifically LIBOR and prime rates. The primary purpose of our interest rate risk management activities is to hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates by using interest rate derivatives to convert some or all of the interest rates we pay on our borrowings from a floating rate to a fixed interest rate.
We have determined that the two Interest Rate Swaps agreements entered into in 2011 qualify for hedge accounting treatment. The impact recorded for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
is
$1.1 million
,
$1.1 million
and
$1.0 million
, respectively, in additional interest expense. For the year ended December 31,
2014
, the Partnership recorded a
decrease
in fair market value on the Interest Rate Swaps of
$0.2 million
, which is unrealized, in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). The combined fair market value of the interest rate swaps recorded in current and non-current liabilities at December 31,
2014
is
$1.0 million
. This amount is unrealized and, therefore, included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss).
Capital Spending
Our total capital expenditures for the year ended December 31,
2014
were
$21.1 million
. We divide our capital spending needs into two categories: maintenance and growth. Maintenance capital spending includes only non-discretionary maintenance projects and projects required to comply with environmental, health and safety regulations. We also treat maintenance capital spending as a reduction of cash available for distribution to unitholders. Growth capital projects generally involve an expansion of existing capacity, improvement in product yields, and/or a reduction in direct operating expenses. Of the
$21.1 million
spent for the year ended December 31,
2014
, $4.7 million was related to maintenance capital projects and the remainder was related to growth capital projects. Major scheduled turnaround expenses are expensed when incurred.
Our growth strategy includes expanding production of UAN and acquiring additional infrastructure and production assets. We completed a significant two-year plant expansion designed to increase our UAN production capacity by 400,000 tons, or approximately 50% per year. The UAN expansion construction was completed in February 2013 and our expanded facility was running at full operating rates prior to the end of the first quarter of 2013. Total capital expenditures associated with the UAN expansion were approximately $130.0 million, excluding capitalized interest. Approximately $24.3 million and $64.5 million were spent on this expansion during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and the remaining expenditures were spent in years prior to
2012
.
During the year ended December 31,
2014
, we spent approximately $16.4 million on growth projects. Included in this amount was approximately $7.8 million for the purchase of railcars as disclosed in
Note 14 ("Related Party Transactions")
to Part II, Item 8 of this report and $3.2 million for the upgraded PSA unit as discussed in
Major Influences on Results of Operations
, with the remaining expenditures for other growth projects. Total capital expenditures for the railcar purchase is expected to be approximately $8.5 million, which includes the $7.8 million spent during the year ended December 31, 2014 and an estimated $0.7 million for costs necessary to bring the purchased railcars to the condition and location necessary for its intended use during the year ended December 31, 2015. Total capital expenditures for the upgraded PSA unit is expected to be $4.2 million, which includes $3.2 million and $0.5 million spent during the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and an estimated $0.5 million of remaining expenditures for the year ended December 31, 2015.
Capital spending for our business has been and will be determined by the Board of Directors of our general partner. Our current estimates for
2015
may change as a result of unforeseen circumstances and a change in our plans. These estimates may be revised from time to time or amounts may not be spent in the manner discussed herein. Our maintenance capital expenditures are expected to be approximately $10.0 to $12.0 million for the year ending December 31,
2015
. Planned capital expenditures for
2015
are subject to change due to unanticipated increases in the cost, scope and completion time for our capital projects. For example, we may experience increases in labor or equipment costs necessary to comply with government regulations or to complete projects that sustain or improve the profitability of our nitrogen fertilizer plant.
61
The nitrogen fertilizer plant underwent a previously scheduled major turnaround in the fourth quarter of 2012. As a result of the shutdown, production was reduced for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The turnaround cost was approximately $4.8 million, which was funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership is planning to complete the next full facility turnaround in the third quarter of 2015. No full facility turnaround activities occurred in 2014 or 2013.
Distributions to Unitholders
The board of directors of the Partnership's general partner has a policy for the Partnership to distribute all available cash generated on a quarterly basis. Our policy is disclosed in
Note 6 ("Partners’ Capital and Partnership Distributions")
to Part II, Item 8 of this report. The following is a summary of cash distributions paid to unitholders during
2014
for the respective quarters to which the distributions relate:
|
|
December 31,
2013 |
|
March 31,
2014 |
|
June 30,
2014 |
|
September 30,
2014 |
|
Total Cash
Distributions Paid in 2014 |
||||||||||
|
|
($ in millions, except per common unit amounts)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Amount paid to CRLLC
|
$
|
16.7
|
|
|
$
|
14.8
|
|
|
$
|
12.8
|
|
|
$
|
10.5
|
|
|
$
|
54.9
|
|
|
Amounts paid to public unitholders
|
14.7
|
|
|
13.0
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
48.2
|
|
|||||
|
Total amount paid
|
$
|
31.4
|
|
|
$
|
27.8
|
|
|
$
|
24.1
|
|
|
$
|
19.7
|
|
|
$
|
103.1
|
|
|
Per common unit
|
$
|
0.43
|
|
|
$
|
0.38
|
|
|
$
|
0.33
|
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
$
|
1.41
|
|
|
Common units outstanding (in thousands)
|
73,113
|
|
|
73,113
|
|
|
73,114
|
|
|
73,117
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
On
February 18, 2015
, the Board of Directors of the general partner of the Partnership declared a cash distribution for the fourth quarter of
2014
in the amount of $
0.41
per common unit, or $
30.0
million in aggregate. The cash distribution will be paid on
March 9, 2015
to the Partnership's unitholders of record at the close of business on
March 2, 2015
. Total cash distributions paid and to be paid based upon available cash for
2014
were approximately $
1.39
per common unit.
Cash Flows
The following table sets forth our cash flows for the periods indicated below:
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||
|
Net cash flow provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Operating activities
|
$
|
118.9
|
|
|
$
|
129.0
|
|
|
$
|
133.5
|
|
|
Investing activities
|
(21.0
|
)
|
|
(43.7
|
)
|
|
(81.1
|
)
|
|||
|
Financing activities
|
(103.1
|
)
|
|
(128.0
|
)
|
|
(161.5
|
)
|
|||
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(42.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(109.1
|
)
|
Cash Flows Provided by Operating Activities
For purposes of this cash flow discussion, we define trade working capital as accounts receivable, inventory and accounts payable. Other working capital is defined as all other current assets and liabilities except trade working capital.
Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the year ended
December 31, 2014
were
$118.9 million
. Fluctuations in trade working capital decreased our operating cash flow by $7.1 million due to a decrease in accounts payable of $5.0 million and an increase in inventory of approximately $2.5 million, partially offset by a decrease in accounts receivable of $0.4 million. The decrease in accounts payable was primarily attributable to the decrease in intercompany obligations and a decrease due to normal fluctuations in the timing of regular payments. Fluctuations in other working capital increased our operating cash flows by approximately $19.6 million due an increase in deferred revenue of $12.9 million, an increase in accrued expenses and other current liabilities of $3.6 million and a decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $3.1 million. The increase in deferred revenue was primarily attributable to higher market demand for prepaid contracts for the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to the prior period. The increase in accrued expenses and other current liabilities was primarily attributable to an increase in accrued railcar regulatory inspections and repairs of $3.3 million and an increase in accrued intercompany charges of $2.0 million, partially offset by other changes in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. The decrease to
62
prepaid expenses and other current assets was primarily attributable to a decrease in prepaid insurance due to lower insurance premiums and a decrease in intercompany amounts due from CRRM that include the transfer of hydrogen.
Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2013 were $129.0 million. Fluctuations in trade working capital decreased our operating cash flow by $5.3 million due to an increase in inventory of $4.1 million, an increase in accounts receivable of $0.7 million and a decrease in accounts payable of $0.5 million. The increase in inventory was primarily attributable to $3.6 million of lower finished goods inventory the end of 2012 attributable to the turnaround as compared to 2013 and the purchase of precious metals of $1.7 million in connection with the UAN expansion, partially offset by a decrease in parts and supplies. Fluctuations in other working capital decreased operating cash flows by $13.2 million due to an increase to prepaid expense of $7.8 million and a decrease to accrued expenses and other current liabilities of $5.1 million and a decrease in deferred revenue of $0.3 million. The increase to prepaid expense was primarily attributable to the increase prepaid insurance due to a change from monthly to annual insurance payments and due to an increase in intercompany amounts due for hydrogen. The decrease in accrued expenses and other current liabilities of $5.1 million is primarily due to lower property tax in connection with the property tax settlement.
Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2012 were $133.5 million. Fluctuations in trade working capital increased our operating cash flow by $6.1 million and was attributable to an increase in accounts payable of $9.4 million and a decrease in accounts receivable of $2.5 million, partially offset by an increase in inventory of $5.8 million. The increase in accounts payable is primarily related to costs associated with the UAN expansion. The increase in inventory is primarily related to the purchase of new precious metals, catalyst and chemicals. Fluctuations in other working capital decreased our operating cash flow by $11.8 million primarily due to a $8.1 million decrease in deferred revenue and $3.6 million decrease in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and an increase in prepaid and other current assets of $0.1 million. The decrease in deferred revenue is due to a lower market demand for prepaid contracts for year ending December 31, 2012 compared to the prior period. The decrease in accrued expenses and other current liabilities is primarily attributable to the purchase of the nitric acid plant in connection with the UAN expansion.
Cash Flows Used In Investing Activities
Net cash flows used in investing activities for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
were
$21.0 million
,
$43.7 million
and
$81.1 million
, respectively, and were primarily the result of capital expenditures. For the year ended
December 31, 2014
, capital expenditures are discussed above at "Liquidity and Capital Resources - Capital Expenditures." For the years ended
December 31, 2013
and
2012
, the capital expenditures primarily related to the UAN expansion that contributed approximately $24.3 million and $64.5 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2012 capital expenditures were partially offset by approximately $1.0 million of insurance proceeds received in connection with the rupture of the high-pressure UAN vessel.
Cash Flows Used In Financing Activities
Net cash flows
used in
financing activities for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
were
$103.1 million
,
$128.0 million
and
$161.5 million
, respectively. The net cash used in financing activities for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
, and
2012
were primarily attributable to quarterly cash distributions of
$103.1 million
,
$127.5 million
and
$161.2 million
, respectively.
63
Capital and Commercial Commitments
We are required to make payments relating to various types of obligations. The following table summarizes our minimum payments as of
December 31, 2014
relating to long-term debt, operating leases, unconditional purchase obligations and interest payments for the five years ending December 31,
2019
and thereafter.
Contractual Obligations
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Total
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
2018
|
|
2019
|
|
Thereafter
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
(in millions)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Long-term debt (1)
|
$
|
125.0
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
125.0
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
Operating leases (2)
|
19.4
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|||||||
|
Unconditional purchase obligations (3)
|
34.3
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|||||||
|
Unconditional purchase obligations with affiliates (4)
|
106.1
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
65.4
|
|
|||||||
|
Interest payments (5)
|
5.9
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||||||
|
Total
|
$
|
290.7
|
|
|
$
|
29.2
|
|
|
$
|
143.9
|
|
|
$
|
16.1
|
|
|
$
|
15.3
|
|
|
$
|
13.7
|
|
|
$
|
72.5
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
We entered into a credit facility during 2011. The credit facility included a $125.0 million term loan and a $25.0 million revolving credit facility. As of
December 31, 2014
, no amounts were outstanding under the revolving credit facility.
|
|
(2)
|
We lease various facilities and equipment, primarily railcars, under non-cancelable operating leases for various periods.
|
|
(3)
|
The amounts include commitments under a product supply agreement with Linde and a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation. The term of this agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation ends in December
2015
and may be renewed.
|
|
(4)
|
The amounts include commitments under our long-term pet coke supply agreement with CRRM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Refining, having an initial term that ends in 2027, subject to renewal. The Partnership’s purchase obligations for pet coke from CRRM have been derived from a calculation of the average pet coke price paid to CRRM over the preceding two year period.
|
|
(5)
|
Interest payments are based on the current interest rate on
December 31, 2014
.
|
Under our long-term pet coke supply agreement with CRRM, we may become obligated to provide security for our payment obligations under the agreement if in CRRM's sole judgment there is a material adverse change in our financial condition or liquidity position or in our ability to make payments. This security may not exceed an amount equal to 21 times the average daily dollar value of pet coke we purchase for the 90-day period preceding the date on which CRRM gives us notice that it has deemed that a material adverse change has occurred. Unless otherwise agreed by CRRM and us, we can provide such security by means of a standby or documentary letter of credit, prepayment, a surety instrument, or a combination of the foregoing. If we do not provide such security, CRRM may require us to pay for future deliveries of pet coke on a cash-on-delivery basis. If we fail to pay for such deliveries on a cash-on-delivery basis, CRRM may suspend delivery of pet coke until such security is provided and terminate the agreement upon 30 days' prior written notice. Additionally, we may terminate the agreement within 60 days of providing security, so long as we provide five days' prior written notice.
Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness, to make distributions, to fund planned capital expenditures and to satisfy our other capital and commercial commitments will depend on our ability to generate cash flow in the future. This, to a certain extent, is subject to nitrogen fertilizer margins, natural gas prices and general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control.
Our business may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations, and future borrowings may not be available to us under our credit facility, in an amount sufficient to enable us to make quarterly distributions, finance necessary capital expenditures, service our indebtedness or fund our other liquidity needs. We may seek to sell assets or issue debt securities or additional equity securities to fund our liquidity needs but may not be able to do so. We may also need to refinance all or a
64
portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. We may not be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any "off-balance sheet arrangements" as such term is defined within the rules and regulations of the SEC.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards
In February 2013, the FASB issued Accounting Standard Update ("ASU") No. 2013-02, "
Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
" ("ASU 2013-02"). ASU 2013-02 requires the Partnership to present information about reclassification adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive income in the financial statements in a single footnote or parenthetically on the face of the financial statements based on the source and the statement of operations line items affected by the reclassification. The standard is effective for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2013 and is to be applied prospectively. The Partnership adopted this standard as of January 1, 2013. The adoption of this standard did not materially expand the Partnership's consolidated financial statements and footnote disclosures.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09,
"Revenue from Contracts with Customers"
("ASU 2014-09"), which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. ASU 2014-09 will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective. The standard is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. Early adoption is not permitted. The Partnership has not yet selected a transition method and is currently evaluating the standard and the impact on its consolidated financial statements and footnote disclosures.
Critical Accounting Policies
We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with GAAP. In order to apply these principles, management must make judgments, assumptions and estimates based on the best available information at the time. Actual results may differ based on the accuracy of the information utilized and subsequent events. Our accounting policies are described in the notes to our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this report. Our critical accounting policies, which are described below, could materially affect the amounts recorded in our financial statements.
Long-Lived Assets
We calculate depreciation and amortization on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the various classes of depreciable assets. When assets are placed in service, we estimate what we believe are their reasonable useful lives. We account for impairment of long-lived assets in accordance with ASC Topic 360,
Property, Plant and Equipment — Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets
("ASC 360"). In accordance with ASC 360, the Partnership reviews long-lived assets (excluding goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives) for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated undiscounted future net cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated undiscounted future net cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds their fair value. Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of their carrying value or fair value less cost to sell. No impairment charges were recognized for any of the periods presented.
Goodwill
To comply with ASC 350,
Intangibles — Goodwill and Other
("ASC 350"), we perform a test for goodwill impairment annually, or more frequently in the event we determine that a triggering event has occurred. Our annual testing is performed in the fourth quarter of each year. Goodwill and other intangible accounting standards provide that goodwill and other intangible assets with indefinite lives are not amortized but instead are tested for impairment on an annual basis. In accordance with these standards, we completed our annual test for impairment of goodwill as of November 1,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively. For
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, the annual test of impairment indicated that goodwill was not impaired.
In testing our goodwill for impairment, we have applied the guidance in ASU No. 2011- 08, which allows an alternative in certain situations that simplifies the impairment testing of goodwill. This guidance allows an entity the option to first perform a qualitative evaluation to determine whether it is necessary to perform the quantitative two-step goodwill impairment analysis.
65
We began the qualitative assessment by analyzing the key drivers and other external factors that impact the business in order to determine if any significant events, transactions or other factors had occurred or are expected to occur that would impair earnings or competitiveness therefore impairing the fair value of the Partnership. After assessing the totality of events and circumstances, it was determined that it was not more likely than not that the fair value of the Partnership was less than the carrying value, and so it was not necessary to perform the two-step valuation. The key drivers that were considered in the evaluation of the Partnership's fair value included:
|
•
|
general economic conditions;
|
|
•
|
fertilizer pricing;
|
|
•
|
input costs; and
|
|
•
|
customer outlook.
|
Revenue Recognition
Revenues for products sold are recorded upon delivery of the products to customers, which is the point at which title is transferred, the customer has the assumed risk of loss, and when payment has been received or collection is reasonably assured. Sales are recognized when the product is delivered and all significant obligations of the Partnership have been satisfied. Deferred revenue represents customer prepayments under contracts to guarantee a price and supply of nitrogen fertilizer in quantities expected to be delivered in the next 12 months in the normal course of business. Taxes collected from customers and remitted to governmental authorities are not included in reported revenues. Pass-through finished goods delivery costs reimbursed by customers are reported in net sales, while an offsetting expense is included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
Allocation of Costs
Our consolidated financial statements include an allocation of costs that have been incurred by CVR Energy or Coffeyville Resources on our behalf. The allocation of such costs is governed by the services agreement entered into by CVR Energy and us and affiliated companies in October 2007 and amended in connection with our Initial Public Offering in April 2011. The services agreement provides guidance for the treatment of certain general and administrative expenses and certain direct operating expenses incurred on our behalf. Such expenses incurred include, but are not limited to, salaries, benefits, share-based compensation expense, insurance, accounting, tax, legal and technology services. The authoritative guidance to allocate such costs is set forth in Staff Accounting Bulletin ("SAB") Topic 1-B
"Allocations of Expenses and Related Disclosures in Financial Statements of Subsidiaries, Divisions or Lesser Business Components of Another Entity."
("SAB Topic 1-B").
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The Partnership uses forward swap contracts primarily to reduce the exposure to changes in interest rates on its debt and to provide a cash flow hedge. These derivative instruments have been designated as hedges for accounting purposes. Accordingly, these instruments are recorded at fair value in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, at each reporting period end. The actual measurement of the cash flow hedge ineffectiveness will be recognized in earnings, if applicable. The effective portion of the gain or loss on the swaps will be reported in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) ("AOCI"), in accordance with ASC 815,
Derivatives and Hedging
("ASC 815").
Other financial instruments consisting of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and accounts payable are carried at cost, which approximates fair value, as a result of the short-term nature of the instruments.
Share-Based Compensation
The Partnership records share-based compensation related to the CVR Partners LTIP, and we have been allocated share-based compensation expense from CVR Energy and CRLLC. The Partnership accounts for share-based compensation in accordance with ASC 718,
Compensation - Stock Compensation
("ASC 718"). ASC 718 requires that compensation costs relating to share-based payment transactions be recognized in a company's financial statements. ASC 718 applies to transactions in which an entity exchanges its equity instruments for goods or services and also may apply to liabilities an entity incurs for goods or services that are based on the fair value of those equity instruments.
66
Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Interest Rate Risk
On June 30 and July 1, 2011, CRNF entered into two floating-to-fixed interest rate swap agreements for the purpose of hedging the interest rate risk associated with a portion of its $125.0 million floating rate term debt which matures in April 2016. The aggregate notional amount covered under these agreements, which commenced on August 12, 2011 and expires on February 12, 2016, totals $62.5 million (split evenly between the two agreement dates). Under the terms of the interest rate swap agreement entered into on June 30, 2011, CRNF receives a floating rate based on three month LIBOR and pays a fixed rate of 1.94%. Under the terms of the interest rate swap agreement entered into on July 1, 2011, CRNF receives a floating rate based on three month LIBOR and pays a fixed rate of 1.975%. Both swap agreements will be settled every 90 days. The effect of these swap agreements is to lock in a fixed rate of interest of approximately 1.96% plus the applicable margin paid to lenders over three month LIBOR as governed by the CRNF credit agreement. At
December 31, 2014
, the effective rate was approximately
4.56%
. The agreements were designated as cash flow hedges at inception and accordingly, the effective portion of the gain or loss on the swap is reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) ("AOCI"), and will be reclassified into interest expense when the interest rate swap transaction affects earnings. Any ineffective portion of the gain or loss will be recognized immediately in interest expense.
The Partnership still has exposure to interest rate risk on 50% of its $125.0 million floating rate term debt. A 1% increase over the Eurodollar floor spread of 3.5%, as specified in the credit agreement, would increase interest cost to the Partnership by approximately $625,000 on an annualized basis, thus decreasing net income by the same amount.
Commodity Price, Foreign Currency Exchange and Non-Operating Risks
We do not currently use derivative financial instruments to manage risks related to changes in prices of commodities (e.g., UAN, ammonia or pet coke). Given that our business is currently based entirely in the United States, we are not directly exposed to foreign currency exchange rate risk. We do not engage in activities that expose us to speculative or non-operating risks, including derivative trading activities. In the opinion of our management, there is no derivative financial instrument that correlates effectively with, and has a trading volume sufficient to hedge, our firm commitments and forecasted commodity purchase or sales transactions. Our management will continue to monitor whether financial derivatives become available which could effectively hedge identified risks and management may in the future elect to use derivative financial instruments consistent with our overall business objectives to avoid unnecessary risk and to limit, to the extent practical, risks associated with our operating activities.
67
Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
Audited Financial Statements
|
Page
Number
|
68
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of CVR GP, LLC
The Unitholders of CVR Partners, LP
The General Partner of CVR Partners, LP:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of CVR Partners, LP (a Delaware limited partnership) and subsidiaries (the “Partnership”) as of
December 31, 2014
and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, partners’ capital, and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended
December 31, 2014
. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of CVR Partners, LP and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2014
and 2013, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended
December 31, 2014
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2014
, based on criteria established in the 2013
Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated
February 19, 2015
expressed an unqualified opinion.
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
February 19, 2015
69
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of CVR GP, LLC
and
The Unitholders of CVR Partners, LP
and
The General Partner of CVR Partners, LP:
We have audited the accompanying CVR Partners, LP and subsidiaries (the Partnership) consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, partners' capital, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2012. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, CVR Partners, LP and subsidiaries' results of operations and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2012, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
/s/ KPMG LLP
Houston, Texas
February 28, 2013
70
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of CVR GP, LLC
The Unitholders of CVR Partners, LP
The General Partner of CVR Partners, LP:
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of CVR Partners, LP (a Delaware limited partnership) and subsidiaries (the “Partnership”) as of
December 31, 2014
, based on criteria established in the 2013
Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Partnership’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying
Management’s Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Partnership maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2014
, based on criteria established in the 2013
Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by COSO.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements of the Partnership as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2014
, and our report dated
February 19, 2015
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
February 19, 2015
71
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
||||
|
|
(in thousands, except unit data)
|
||||||
|
ASSETS
|
|||||||
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
79,914
|
|
|
$
|
85,142
|
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $34 and $50, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively
|
7,136
|
|
|
7,549
|
|
||
|
Inventories
|
35,614
|
|
|
33,064
|
|
||
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets, including $1,848 and $3,104 from affiliates at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively
|
6,914
|
|
|
10,025
|
|
||
|
Total current assets
|
129,578
|
|
|
135,780
|
|
||
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation
|
404,934
|
|
|
412,956
|
|
||
|
Goodwill
|
40,969
|
|
|
40,969
|
|
||
|
Deferred financing costs, net
|
272
|
|
|
1,236
|
|
||
|
Other long-term assets, including $957 and $1,136 with affiliates at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively
|
3,086
|
|
|
2,513
|
|
||
|
Total assets
|
$
|
578,839
|
|
|
$
|
593,454
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS' CAPITAL
|
|||||||
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Accounts payable, including $2,279 and $4,289 due to affiliates at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively
|
$
|
12,747
|
|
|
$
|
17,137
|
|
|
Personnel accruals, including $1,129 and $2,025 with affiliates at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively
|
3,785
|
|
|
4,494
|
|
||
|
Deferred revenue
|
13,613
|
|
|
696
|
|
||
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities, including $2,094 and $323 with affiliates at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively
|
9,562
|
|
|
5,059
|
|
||
|
Total current liabilities
|
39,707
|
|
|
27,386
|
|
||
|
Long-term liabilities:
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Long-term debt
|
125,000
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
||
|
Other long-term liabilities, $67 with affiliates at December 31, 2013
|
201
|
|
|
1,147
|
|
||
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
125,201
|
|
|
126,147
|
|
||
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Partners' capital:
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Common unitholders, 73,122,997 and 73,112,951 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively
|
414,968
|
|
|
441,819
|
|
||
|
General partner interest
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
||
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
(1,038
|
)
|
|
(1,899
|
)
|
||
|
Total partners' capital
|
413,931
|
|
|
439,921
|
|
||
|
Total liabilities and partners' capital
|
$
|
578,839
|
|
|
$
|
593,454
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
72
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in thousands, except per unit data)
|
||||||||||
|
Net sales
|
$
|
298,665
|
|
|
$
|
323,672
|
|
|
$
|
302,309
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Cost of product sold — Affiliates
|
9,424
|
|
|
10,791
|
|
|
11,518
|
|
|||
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
62,528
|
|
|
47,284
|
|
|
34,554
|
|
|||
|
|
71,952
|
|
|
58,075
|
|
|
46,072
|
|
|||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Affiliates
|
3,024
|
|
|
4,072
|
|
|
2,277
|
|
|||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
95,934
|
|
|
90,020
|
|
|
93,337
|
|
|||
|
|
98,958
|
|
|
94,092
|
|
|
95,614
|
|
|||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Affiliates
|
13,411
|
|
|
16,118
|
|
|
17,269
|
|
|||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
4,292
|
|
|
4,958
|
|
|
6,873
|
|
|||
|
|
17,703
|
|
|
21,076
|
|
|
24,142
|
|
|||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
27,249
|
|
|
25,578
|
|
|
20,723
|
|
|||
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
215,862
|
|
|
198,821
|
|
|
186,551
|
|
|||
|
Operating income
|
82,803
|
|
|
124,851
|
|
|
115,758
|
|
|||
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Interest expense and other financing costs
|
(6,783
|
)
|
|
(6,294
|
)
|
|
(3,756
|
)
|
|||
|
Interest income
|
30
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
208
|
|
|||
|
Other income, net
|
71
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
65
|
|
|||
|
Total other income (expense)
|
(6,682
|
)
|
|
(6,127
|
)
|
|
(3,483
|
)
|
|||
|
Income before income tax expense (benefit)
|
76,121
|
|
|
118,724
|
|
|
112,275
|
|
|||
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
(28
|
)
|
|
108
|
|
|
52
|
|
|||
|
Net income
|
$
|
76,149
|
|
|
$
|
118,616
|
|
|
$
|
112,223
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Net income per common unit — basic
|
$
|
1.04
|
|
|
$
|
1.62
|
|
|
1.54
|
|
|
|
Net income per common unit — diluted
|
$
|
1.04
|
|
|
$
|
1.62
|
|
|
1.53
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average common units outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Basic
|
73,115
|
|
|
73,072
|
|
|
73,039
|
|
|||
|
Diluted
|
73,139
|
|
|
73,228
|
|
|
73,193
|
|
|||
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
73
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
76,149
|
|
|
$
|
118,616
|
|
|
$
|
112,223
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Change in fair value of interest rate swaps
|
(229
|
)
|
|
(211
|
)
|
|
(1,322
|
)
|
|||
|
Net loss reclassified into income on settlement of interest rate swaps
|
1,090
|
|
|
1,063
|
|
|
959
|
|
|||
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
861
|
|
|
852
|
|
|
(363
|
)
|
|||
|
Total comprehensive income
|
$
|
77,010
|
|
|
$
|
119,468
|
|
|
$
|
111,860
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
74
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' CAPITAL
|
|
Common Units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Units
Issued
|
|
Amount
|
|
General
Partner
Interest
|
|
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Income/(Loss) |
|
Total
|
|||||||||
|
|
(in thousands, except unit data)
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Balance at December 31, 2011
|
73,030,936
|
|
|
$
|
491,876
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(2,388
|
)
|
|
$
|
489,489
|
|
|
Cash distributions to common unitholders — Affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
(112,380
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(112,380
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash distributions to common unitholders — Non-affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
(48,814
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(48,814
|
)
|
||||
|
Share-based compensation — Affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
6,343
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
6,343
|
|
||||
|
Share-based compensation
|
—
|
|
|
492
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
492
|
|
||||
|
Modification and reclassification of equity share-based compensation to a liability based award
|
—
|
|
|
(492
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(492
|
)
|
||||
|
Issuance of units under LTIP — Affiliates
|
47,463
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Redemption of common units
|
(13,256
|
)
|
|
(305
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(305
|
)
|
||||
|
Net Income
|
—
|
|
|
112,223
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
112,223
|
|
||||
|
Net gains (losses) on interest rate swaps
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(363
|
)
|
|
(363
|
)
|
||||
|
Balance at December 31, 2012
|
73,065,143
|
|
|
$
|
448,943
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(2,751
|
)
|
|
$
|
446,193
|
|
|
Cash distributions to common unitholders — Affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
(77,539
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(77,539
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash distributions to common unitholders — Non-affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
(49,970
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(49,970
|
)
|
||||
|
Share-based compensation — Affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
2,254
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,254
|
|
||||
|
Issuance of units under LTIP — Affiliates
|
74,251
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Redemption of common units
|
(26,443
|
)
|
|
(485
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(485
|
)
|
||||
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
118,616
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
118,616
|
|
||||
|
Net gains (losses) on interest rate swaps
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
852
|
|
|
852
|
|
||||
|
Balance at December 31, 2013
|
73,112,951
|
|
|
$
|
441,819
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(1,899
|
)
|
|
$
|
439,921
|
|
|
Cash distributions to common unitholders
—
Affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
(54,877
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(54,877
|
)
|
||||
|
Cash distributions to common unitholders
—
Non-affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
(48,213
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(48,213
|
)
|
||||
|
Share-based compensation — Affiliates
|
—
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
140
|
|
||||
|
Issuance of units under LTIP — Affiliates
|
14,288
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Redemption of common units
|
(4,242
|
)
|
|
(50
|
)
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
||||
|
Net income
|
—
|
|
|
76,149
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
76,149
|
|
||||
|
Net gains (losses) on interest rate swaps
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
861
|
|
|
861
|
|
||||
|
Balance at December 31, 2014
|
73,122,997
|
|
|
$
|
414,968
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(1,038
|
)
|
|
$
|
413,931
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
75
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||||||
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
76,149
|
|
|
$
|
118,616
|
|
|
$
|
112,223
|
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
27,249
|
|
|
25,578
|
|
|
20,723
|
|
|||
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
(16
|
)
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|||
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
964
|
|
|
964
|
|
|
964
|
|
|||
|
(Gain) loss on disposition of assets
|
218
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
|
300
|
|
|||
|
Share-based compensation — Affiliates
|
1,628
|
|
|
2,254
|
|
|
6,343
|
|
|||
|
Share-based compensation
|
157
|
|
|
573
|
|
|
497
|
|
|||
|
Change in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Accounts receivable
|
429
|
|
|
(710
|
)
|
|
2,525
|
|
|||
|
Inventories
|
(2,550
|
)
|
|
(4,115
|
)
|
|
(5,824
|
)
|
|||
|
Insurance receivable
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
(1,026
|
)
|
|||
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
3,111
|
|
|
(7,587
|
)
|
|
(126
|
)
|
|||
|
Other long-term assets
|
149
|
|
|
(361
|
)
|
|
(325
|
)
|
|||
|
Accounts payable
|
(4,967
|
)
|
|
(549
|
)
|
|
9,404
|
|
|||
|
Deferred revenue
|
12,917
|
|
|
(269
|
)
|
|
(8,054
|
)
|
|||
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
3,553
|
|
|
(5,095
|
)
|
|
(3,638
|
)
|
|||
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
(113
|
)
|
|
(223
|
)
|
|
(481
|
)
|
|||
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
118,878
|
|
|
129,009
|
|
|
133,497
|
|
|||
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Capital expenditures
|
(21,076
|
)
|
|
(43,754
|
)
|
|
(82,151
|
)
|
|||
|
Proceeds from sale of assets
|
110
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
—
|
|
|||
|
Insurance proceeds from UAN reactor rupture
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,026
|
|
|||
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
(20,966
|
)
|
|
(43,721
|
)
|
|
(81,125
|
)
|
|||
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Cash distributions to common unitholders
—
Affiliates
|
(54,877
|
)
|
|
(77,539
|
)
|
|
(112,380
|
)
|
|||
|
Cash distribution to common unitholders — Non-affiliates
|
(48,213
|
)
|
|
(49,970
|
)
|
|
(48,814
|
)
|
|||
|
Redemption of common units
|
(50
|
)
|
|
(485
|
)
|
|
(305
|
)
|
|||
|
Net cash used in financing activities
|
(103,140
|
)
|
|
(127,994
|
)
|
|
(161,499
|
)
|
|||
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
(5,228
|
)
|
|
(42,706
|
)
|
|
(109,127
|
)
|
|||
|
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period
|
85,142
|
|
|
127,848
|
|
|
236,975
|
|
|||
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period
|
$
|
79,914
|
|
|
$
|
85,142
|
|
|
$
|
127,848
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Cash paid for income taxes, net
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
71
|
|
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
Cash paid for interest, net of capitalized interest of $85, $597 and $3,205 in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively
|
$
|
5,819
|
|
|
$
|
5,372
|
|
|
$
|
3,175
|
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Construction in progress additions included in accounts payable
|
$
|
1,066
|
|
|
$
|
1,866
|
|
|
$
|
18,671
|
|
|
Change in accounts payable related to construction in progress additions
|
$
|
(800
|
)
|
|
$
|
(16,805
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,826
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
76
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(1) Formation of the Partnership, Organization and Nature of Business
CVR Partners, LP (referred to as "CVR Partners" or the "Partnership") is a Delaware limited partnership, formed in June 2007 by CVR Energy, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, but excluding the Partnership and its subsidiaries, "CVR Energy") to own Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC ("CRNF"), previously a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy. CRNF is an independent producer and marketer of upgraded nitrogen fertilizer products sold in North America. CRNF operates a dual-train coke gasifier plant that produces high-purity hydrogen, most of which is subsequently converted to ammonia and upgraded to urea ammonium nitrate ("UAN").
CRNF produces and distributes nitrogen fertilizer products, which are used primarily by farmers to improve the yield and quality of their crops. CRNF's principal products are UAN and ammonia. These products are manufactured at CRNF's facility in Coffeyville, Kansas. CRNF's product sales are heavily weighted toward UAN and all of its products are sold on a wholesale basis.
In October 2007, CVR Energy, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Coffeyville Resources, LLC ("CRLLC"), transferred CRNF, CRLLC's nitrogen fertilizer business, to the Partnership. This transfer was not considered a business combination as it was a transfer of assets among entities under common control and, accordingly, balances were transferred at their historical cost. The Partnership became the sole member of CRNF. In consideration for CRLLC transferring its nitrogen fertilizer business to the Partnership, (1) CRLLC directly acquired
30,333
special LP units, representing a
0.1%
limited partner interest in the Partnership, (2) the Partnership's special general partner, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CRLLC, acquired
30,303,000
special GP units, representing a
99.9%
general partner interest in the Partnership, and (3) the managing general partner, then owned by CRLLC, acquired a managing general partner interest and incentive distribution rights ("IDRs") of the Partnership. Immediately prior to CVR Energy's initial public offering, CVR Energy sold the managing general partner interest (together with the IDRs) to Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC ("CALLC III"), an entity owned by funds affiliated with Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Kelso & Company, L.P. and members of CVR Energy's management team, for its fair market value on the date of sale. As a result of CVR Energy's indirect ownership of the Partnership's special general partner, it initially owned all of the interests in the Partnership (other than the managing general partner interest and the IDRs) and initially was entitled to all cash distributed by the Partnership.
Initial Public Offering of CVR Partners, LP
On April 13, 2011, CVR Partners completed its initial public offering (the "Initial Public Offering") of
22,080,000
common units priced at
$16.00
per unit. The common units, which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, began trading on April 8, 2011 under the symbol "UAN."
The net proceeds to CVR Partners from the Initial Public Offering were approximately
$324.2 million
, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. The net proceeds from the Initial Public Offering were used to make certain distributions, purchase (and subsequently extinguish) the IDRs owned by the general partner, pay fees resulting from the credit facility, and the balance was used for or will be used for general partnership purposes, including our UAN expansion, and approximately
$39.5 million
which was used to fund other profit and growth capital expenses since the Initial Public Offering.
In connection with the Initial Public Offering, the Partnership's special LP units were converted into common units, the Partnership's special GP units were converted into common units, and the Partnership's special general partner was merged with and into CRLLC, with CRLLC continuing as the surviving entity. Additionally, in conjunction with CVR GP, LLC selling its IDRs to the Partnership, which were then extinguished, CALLC III sold CVR GP, LLC to CRLLC for a nominal amount.
Subsequent to the closing of the Initial Public Offering, common units held by public security holders represented approximately
30%
of all outstanding limited partner interests and CRLLC held common units approximating
70%
of all outstanding limited partner interests.
77
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Secondary Offering of CVR Partners, LP
On May 28, 2013, CRLLC completed a registered public offering (the “Secondary Offering”) whereby CRLLC sold
12,000,000
of the Partnership’s common units to the public at a price of
$25.15
per unit. The net proceeds to CRLLC from the Secondary Offering were approximately
$292.6 million
, after deducting approximately
$9.2 million
in underwriting discounts and commissions. The Partnership did not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of common units by CRLLC. In connection with the Secondary Offering, the Partnership incurred approximately
$0.5 million
in offering costs.
Subsequent to the closing of the Secondary Offering and as of
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, public security holders held approximately
47%
of the Partnership's common units and CRLLC held approximately
53%
of the Partnership's common units and the general partner interest.
Management and Operations
CVR GP, LLC (“CVR GP” or the “general partner”) manages and operates the Partnership. Common unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting the Partnership. In addition, common unitholders have no right to elect the general partner's directors on an annual or continuing basis.
The Partnership is operated by a combination of the general partner's senior management team and CVR Energy's senior management team pursuant to a services agreement among CVR Energy, CVR GP and the Partnership. In October 2007, the Partnership's partners at that time entered into an amended and restated limited partnership agreement setting forth their various rights and responsibilities. The Partnership also entered into a number of agreements with CVR Energy and CVR GP to regulate certain business relations between the Partnership and the other parties thereto.
See Note 14
("
Related Party Transactions
") for further discussion. In connection with the Initial Public Offering, certain of these agreements, including the amended and restated limited partnership agreement, were amended and/or restated.
CVR Energy Transaction Agreement
On April 18, 2012, CVR Energy entered into a Transaction Agreement (the “Transaction Agreement”) with an affiliate of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (“IEP”). Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, IEP's affiliate offered (the “Offer”) to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of CVR Energy’s common stock for a price of
$30.00
per share in cash, without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes, plus
one
non-transferable contingent cash payment (“CCP”) right for each share which represented the contractual right to receive an additional cash payment per share if a definitive agreement for the sale of CVR Energy was executed on or before August 18, 2013 and such transaction closed. As no sale of CVR Energy was executed by the date outlined in the Transaction Agreement, the CCPs expired on August 19, 2013.
On May 7, 2012, IEP's affiliate announced that control of CVR Energy had been acquired through the Offer. As of
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, IEP and its affiliates owned approximately
82%
of the shares of CVR Energy.
(2) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Principles of Consolidation
The accompanying Partnership consolidated financial statements include the accounts of CVR Partners and CRNF, its wholly-owned subsidiary. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Partnership considers all highly liquid money market accounts with original maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Under the Partnership's cash management system, checks issued but not presented to banks frequently result in book overdraft balances for accounting purposes and are classified within accounts payable in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The change in book overdrafts are reported in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows as a component of operating cash flows for accounts payable as they do not represent bank overdrafts. The amount of these checks included in accounts payable as of
December 31, 2014
and
2013
was
$2.0 million
and
$0.9 million
, respectively.
78
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Accounts Receivable, net
CVR Partners grants credit to its customers. Credit is extended based on an evaluation of a customer's financial condition; generally, collateral is not required. Accounts receivable are due on negotiated terms and are stated at amounts due from customers, net of an allowance for doubtful accounts. Accounts outstanding longer than their contractual payment terms are considered past due. CVR Partners determines its allowance for doubtful accounts by considering a number of factors, including the length of time trade accounts are past due, the customer's ability to pay its obligations to CVR Partners, and the condition of the general economy and the industry as a whole. CVR Partners writes off accounts receivable when they become uncollectible, and payments subsequently received on such receivables are credited to the allowance for doubtful accounts. Amounts collected on accounts receivable are included in net cash provided by operating activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. At
December 31, 2014
,
one
customer represented approximately
28%
of the total accounts receivable balance (excluding accounts receivable with affiliates). At
December 31, 2013
,
two
customers individually represented greater than
10%
and collectively represented approximately
31%
of the total accounts receivable balance (excluding accounts receivable with affiliates). The largest concentration of credit for any
one
customer at
December 31, 2013
was approximately
17%
of the total accounts receivable balance (excluding accounts receivable with affiliates).
Inventories
Inventories consist of fertilizer products which are valued at the lower of first-in, first-out ("FIFO") cost, or market. Inventories also include raw materials, precious metals, parts and supplies, which are valued at the lower of moving-average cost, which approximates FIFO, or market. The cost of inventories includes inbound freight costs.
Property, Plant, and Equipment
Additions to property, plant and equipment, including capitalized interest and certain costs allocable to construction and property purchases, are recorded at cost. Capitalized interest is added to any capital project over
$1.0 million
in costs which is expected to take more than
six
months to complete. Depreciation is computed using principally the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the various classes of depreciable assets. The lives used in computing depreciation for such assets are as follows:
|
Asset
|
Range of Useful
Lives, in Years
|
|
Improvements to land
|
30
|
|
Buildings
|
30
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
5 to 30
|
|
Automotive equipment
|
5
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
3 to 7
|
|
Railcars
|
25 to 40
|
Leasehold improvements are depreciated on the straight-line method over the shorter of the contractual lease term or the estimated useful life. Expenditures for routine maintenance and repair costs are expensed when incurred. Such expenses are reported in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) in the Partnership's Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of an acquired entity over the fair value of the assets acquired less liabilities assumed. Goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment annually or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate the asset might be impaired. The Partnership uses November 1 of each year as its annual valuation date for its goodwill impairment test.
See Note 7
("
Goodwill
") for further discussion.
Deferred Financing Costs
In connection with the credit facility, the Partnership has incurred lender and other third-party costs. The costs associated with the credit facility have been deferred and are being amortized over the term of the credit facility as interest expense using the effective-interest amortization method for the term loan facility and the straight-line method for the revolving credit facility.
79
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Planned Major Maintenance Costs
The direct-expense method of accounting is used for maintenance activities, including planned major maintenance activities and other less extensive shutdowns. Maintenance costs are recognized as expense when maintenance services are performed. Planned major maintenance activities generally occur every
two
to
three
years. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the nitrogen fertilizer facility completed a major scheduled turnaround. Costs of approximately
$4.8 million
, associated with the 2012 turnaround, are included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for the year ended December 31, 2012.
See Note 17 ("Selected Quarterly Financial Information")
for additional discussion of other downtime.
Cost Classifications
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) includes cost of freight and distribution expenses, pet coke expense and purchased ammonia. Cost of product sold exclude depreciation and amortization of approximately
$0.4 million
,
$0.3 million
and
$0.1 million
for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively.
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) consist primarily of energy and utility costs, direct costs of labor, property taxes, plant-related maintenance services and environmental and safety compliance costs as well as catalyst and chemical costs. Direct operating expenses also include allocated share-based compensation from CVR Energy, as discussed in
Note 3
("
Share‑Based Compensation
"). Direct operating expenses exclude depreciation and amortization of approximately
$26.8 million
,
$25.3 million
and
$20.6 million
for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively.
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) consist primarily of direct and allocated legal expenses, treasury, accounting, marketing, human resources, information technology and maintaining the corporate offices in Texas and Kansas. Selling, general and administrative expenses also include direct and allocated share-based compensation from CVR Energy, as discussed in
Note 3
("
Share‑Based Compensation
"). Depreciation and amortization excluded from selling, general and administrative expenses was nominal the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
.
Income Taxes
CVR Partners is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The income tax liability of the common unitholders is not reflected in the consolidated financial statements of the Partnership. Generally, each common unitholder is required to take into account its respective share of CVR Partners' income, gains, loss and deductions.
The Partnership is not subject to income taxes, except for a franchise tax in the State of Texas and a replacement tax in the State of Illinois. Under the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Accounting Standards Codification Topic ("ASC") 740,
Income Taxes
, taxes based on income like the Texas franchise tax and the Illinois replacement tax are accounted for using the liability method under which deferred income taxes are recognized for the future tax effects of temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and the tax basis of existing assets and liabilities using the enacted statutory tax rates in effect at the end of the period. A valuation allowance for deferred tax assets is recorded when it is more likely than not that the benefit from the deferred tax asset will not be realized. When applicable, penalties and interest related to uncertain tax positions are recorded as income tax expense.
Segment Reporting
The Partnership accounts for segment reporting in accordance with ASC 280,
Segment Reporting
, which establishes standards for entities to report information about the operating segments and geographic areas in which they operate. CVR Partners only operates
one
segment and all of its operations are located in the United States.
80
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
The Partnership accounts for impairment of long-lived assets in accordance with ASC 360,
Property, Plant and Equipment — Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets
("ASC 360"). In accordance with ASC 360, the Partnership reviews long-lived assets (excluding goodwill) for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated undiscounted future net cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated undiscounted future net cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds their fair value. Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of their carrying value or fair value less cost to sell. No impairment charges were recognized for any of the periods presented.
Revenue Recognition
Revenues for products sold are recorded upon delivery of the products to customers, which is the point at which title is transferred, the customer has the assumed risk of loss, and payment has been received or collection is reasonably assured. Deferred revenue represents customer prepayments under contracts to guarantee a price and supply of nitrogen fertilizer in quantities expected to be delivered in the next
12
months in the normal course of business. Taxes collected from customers and remitted to governmental authorities are not included in reported revenues.
Shipping Costs
Pass-through finished goods delivery costs reimbursed by customers are reported in net sales, while an offsetting expense is included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
Derivative Instruments and Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The Partnership uses forward swap contracts primarily to reduce the exposure to changes in interest rates on its debt and to provide a cash flow hedge. These derivative instruments have been designated as hedges for accounting purposes. Accordingly, these instruments are recorded at fair value in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, at each reporting period end. The actual measurement of the cash flow hedge ineffectiveness will be recognized in earnings, if applicable. The effective portion of the gain or loss on the swaps will be reported in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) ("AOCI"), in accordance with ASC 815,
Derivatives and Hedging
.
See Note 10 ("Interest Rate Swap Agreements")
for further discussion.
Other financial instruments consisting of cash, accounts receivable, and accounts payable are carried at cost, which approximates fair value, as a result of the short-term nature of the instruments.
Share-Based Compensation
The Partnership has recorded share-based compensation related to the CVR Partners LTIP and has been allocated share-based compensation from CVR Energy and CRLLC. The Partnership accounts for share-based compensation in accordance with ASC 718,
Compensation — Stock Compensation
("ASC 718"). ASC 718 requires that compensation costs relating to share-based payment transactions be recognized in a company's financial statements. ASC 718 applies to transactions in which an entity exchanges its equity instruments for goods or services and also may apply to liabilities an entity incurs for goods or services that are based on the fair value of those equity instruments.
See Note 3 ("Share‑Based Compensation")
for further discussion.
Environmental Matters
Liabilities related to future remediation costs of past environmental contamination of properties are recognized when the related costs are considered probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, internal and third-party assessments of contamination, available remediation technology, site-specific costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting environmental liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries. Loss contingency accruals, including those for environmental remediation, are subject to revision as further information develops or circumstances change and such accruals can take into account the legal liability of other parties. Environmental expenditures are capitalized at the time of the expenditure when such costs provide future economic benefits.
Use of Estimates
The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), using management's best estimates and judgments where appropriate. These estimates and judgments affect the
81
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates and judgments.
Related Party Transactions
CVR Energy, a related party, provides a variety of services to the Partnership, including cash management and financing services, employee benefits provided through CVR Energy's benefit plans, administrative services provided by CVR Energy's employees and management, insurance and office space leased in CVR Energy's headquarters building and other locations. As such, the accompanying consolidated financial statements include costs that have been incurred by CVR Energy on behalf of the Partnership. These amounts incurred by CVR Energy are then billed or allocated to the Partnership and are properly classified on the Consolidated Statements of Operations as either direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) or as selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization). The billing and allocation of such costs are governed by the services agreement originally entered into by CVR Energy, Inc. and CVR Partners, LP and affiliated companies in October 2007, amended in connection with the Initial Public Offering and subsequently amended. The services agreement provides guidance for the treatment of certain general and administrative expenses and certain direct operating expenses incurred on the Partnership's behalf. Such expenses include, but are not limited to, salaries, benefits, share-based compensation expense, insurance, accounting, tax, legal and technology services. Costs are specifically incurred on behalf of the Partnership and are billed directly to the Partnership. See
Note 14
("
Related Party Transactions
") for a detailed discussion of the billing procedures and the basis for calculating the charges for specific products and services.
The Partnership's general partner manages the Partnership's operations and activities as specified in the partnership agreement. The general partner of the Partnership is managed by its board of directors. The partnership agreement provides that the Partnership will reimburse its general partner for all direct and indirect expenses it incurs or payments it makes on behalf of the Partnership (including salary, bonus, incentive compensation and other amounts paid to any person to perform services for the Partnership or for its general partner in connection with operating the Partnership). See
Note 14
("
Related Party Transactions
") for a detailed discussion of the operation of the general partner and the basis of the reimbursements.
The table below reflects amounts billed by CVR Energy to the Partnership in accordance with the services agreement and the Partnership's limited partnership agreement for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
. Additionally, see
Note 3
("
Share‑Based Compensation
") for amounts incurred by CVR Energy and allocated to the Partnership with respect to share-based compensation arrangements excluded from the table below.
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||||||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
$
|
3,758
|
|
|
$
|
4,821
|
|
|
$
|
2,990
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
11,927
|
|
|
13,686
|
|
|
11,103
|
|
|||
|
|
$
|
15,685
|
|
|
$
|
18,507
|
|
|
$
|
14,093
|
|
See Note 14 ("Related Party Transactions")
for further discussion on related party transactions.
Subsequent Events
The Partnership evaluated subsequent events, if any, that would require an adjustment to the Partnership's consolidated financial statements or require disclosure in the notes to the consolidated financial statements through the date of issuance of the consolidated financial statements.
See Note 6 ("Partners’ Capital and Partnership Distributions")
for further discussion on cash distributions declared.
New Accounting Pronouncements
In February 2013, the FASB issued Accounting Standard Update ("ASU") No. 2013-02, "
Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
" ("ASU 2013-02"). ASU 2013-02 requires the Partnership to present information about reclassification adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive income in the financial statements in a single footnote or parenthetically on the face of the financial statements based on the source and the statement of operations line items affected by the reclassification. The standard is effective for interim and annual periods beginning January
82
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
1, 2013 and is to be applied prospectively. The Partnership adopted this standard as of January 1, 2013. The adoption of this standard did not materially expand the Partnership's consolidated financial statements and footnote disclosures.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09,
"Revenue from Contracts with Customers"
("ASU 2014-09"), which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. ASU 2014-09 will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective. The standard is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. Early adoption is not permitted. The Partnership has not yet selected a transition method and is currently evaluating the standard and the impact on its consolidated financial statements and footnote disclosures.
(3) Share‑Based Compensation
Certain employees of CVR Partners and employees of CVR Energy who perform services for the Partnership under the services agreement with CVR Energy participate in equity compensation plans of CVR Partners' affiliates. Accordingly, CVR Partners has recorded compensation expense for these plans in accordance with SAB Topic 1-B, "
Allocations of Expenses and Related Disclosures in Financial Statements of Subsidiaries, Divisions or Lesser Business Components of Another Entity,"
and in accordance with guidance regarding the accounting for share-based compensation granted to employees of an equity method investee. All compensation expense related to these plans for full-time employees of CVR Partners has been allocated
100%
to the Partnership. For employees of CVR Energy, the Partnership records share-based compensation relative to the percentage of time spent by each employee providing services to the Partnership as compared to the total calculated share-based compensation by CVR Energy. The Partnership is not responsible for payment of the allocated share-based compensation for certain plans as discussed below. Allocated expense amounts related to plans for which the Partnership is not responsible for payment are reflected as an increase or decrease to partners' capital.
The Partnership has been allocated share-based compensation expense for restricted stock units, performance units and incentive units from CVR Energy. The Partnership is not responsible for payment of cash related to any restricted stock units allocated to the Partnership by CVR Energy; however, the Partnership is responsible for payment of cash on both the performance units and incentive units. For restricted stock units, the Partnership recognizes the costs of the share-based compensation incurred by CVR Energy on its behalf in selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) and direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) and a corresponding increase or decrease to partners' capital/divisional equity, as the costs are incurred on the Partnership's behalf, following the guidance issued by the FASB regarding the accounting for equity instruments that are issued to other than employees for acquiring, or in conjunction with selling goods or services, which require remeasurement at each reporting period through the performance commitment period, or in the Partnership's case, through the vesting period. For performance units and incentive units, the Partnership recognizes the costs of the share-based compensation incurred by CVR Energy on its behalf in selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) and direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization), and a corresponding increase or decrease to accrued expenses and other current liabilities.
Long-Term Incentive Plan — CVR Energy
CVR Energy has a Long-Term Incentive Plan (“CVR Energy LTIP”) that permits the grant of options, stock appreciation rights, restricted shares, restricted stock units, dividend equivalent rights, share awards and performance awards (including performance share units, performance units and performance based restricted stock). As of
December 31, 2014
, only grants of restricted stock units and performance units under the CVR Energy LTIP remain outstanding. Individuals who are eligible to receive awards and grants under the CVR Energy LTIP include CVR Energy’s or its subsidiaries’ (including the Partnership) employees, officers, consultants and directors.
Restricted Stock Units
Through the CVR Energy LTIP, shares of restricted common stock and restricted stock units (collectively "restricted shares") have been granted to employees of CVR Energy and CRNF. Restricted shares, when granted, were historically valued at the closing market price of CVR Energy's common stock on the date of issuance. These restricted shares are generally graded-vesting awards, which vest over a
three
-year period. Compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the respective tranche of the award.
The change of control and the Transaction Agreement as described in
Note 1
("
Formation of the Partnership, Organization and Nature of Business
"), triggered a modification to outstanding awards under the CVR Energy LTIP. Pursuant to the
83
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Transaction Agreement, all restricted shares scheduled to vest in 2012 were converted to a cash award in which the recipient received the offer price of
$30.00
per share in cash plus
one
CCP upon vesting. The CCPs expired on August 19, 2013. Restricted shares scheduled to vest in 2013, 2014 and 2015 were converted to restricted stock units whereby the awards will be settled in cash upon vesting in an amount equal to the lesser of the offer price or the fair market value of CVR Energy's common stock as determined at the most recent valuation date of December 31 of each year. As a result of the modification, additional share-based compensation of
$1.9 million
was recorded by the Partnership during the year ended December 31, 2012 to revalue unvested shares to fair value upon modification. For awards vesting subsequent to 2012, the awards will be remeasured at each subsequent reporting date until they vest.
In December 2012 and subsequent periods, restricted stock units and dividend equivalent rights were granted to certain employees of CVR Energy and its subsidiaries. The awards are expected to vest over
three
years with one-third of the award vesting each year with the exception of awards granted to certain executive officers of CVR Energy that vested over
one
year. The award granted in December 2012 to Mr. Lipinski, CVR Energy's Chief Executive Officer and President, was canceled in 2013 in connection with the issuance of certain performance unit awards as discussed further below. Each restricted stock unit and dividend equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the fair market value of
one
share of CVR Energy’s common stock, plus (b) the cash value of all dividends declared and paid per share of CVR Energy’s common stock from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The awards will be remeasured at each subsequent reporting date until they vest.
Assuming the allocation of costs from CVR Energy remains consistent with the allocation percentages in place at
December 31, 2014
, there was approximately
$0.1 million
of total unrecognized compensation cost related to restricted stock units and associated dividend equivalent rights to be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately
1.0
year.
Inclusion of a vesting table would not be meaningful due to changes in allocation percentages that may occur from time to time. The unrecognized compensation expense has been determined by the number of restricted stock units and associated dividend equivalent rights and respective allocation percentage for individuals for whom, as of
December 31, 2014
, compensation expense has been allocated to the Partnership. Total compensation expense recorded for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, related to the restricted stock units, was approximately
$0.2 million
,
$1.8 million
and
$4.6 million
, respectively. The Partnership is not responsible for payment of CVR Energy restricted stock unit awards, and accordingly, the expenses recorded for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
have been reflected as an increase to partners' capital.
Performance Unit Awards
In December 2013, CVR Energy entered into Performance Unit Award Agreements with Mr. Lipinski. Certain of the Performance Unit Awards were entered into in connection with the cancellation of Mr. Lipinski's December 2012 restricted stock unit award, as discussed above. In accordance with accounting guidance related to the modification of share-based and other compensatory award arrangements, CVR Energy concluded that the cancellation and concurrent issuance of the performance awards created a substantive service period from the original grant date of the December 2012 restricted stock unit award through the end of the performance period for the related performance awards. Compensation cost for the related awards is being recognized over the substantive service period. Compensation expense recorded for the years ended
December 31, 2014
and
2013
related to the performance unit awards was
$0.7 million
and
$0.4 million
, respectively. The Partnership will be responsible for reimbursing CVR Energy for its allocated portion of the performance unit awards.
On June 30, 2014, the first award of Mr. Lipinski's Performance Unit Award Agreements vested. The Partnership reimbursed CVR Energy approximately
$0.5 million
for its allocated portion of the performance unit award payment on July 15, 2014 as a result of the vesting. On December 15, 2014 and December 31, 2014, the second and third awards of Mr. Lipinski's Performance Unit Award Agreements vested. The Partnership reimbursed CVR Energy approximately
$0.3 million
for its allocation portion of the second award. As of
December 31, 2014
, the Partnership has a liability of
$0.3 million
for vested and unreimbursed performance unit awards, which is recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Incentive Unit Awards — CVR Energy
In December 2013 and during 2014, CVR Energy granted awards of incentive units and distribution equivalent rights to certain employees of CRLLC and CVR Energy who provide shared services to CVR Energy and its subsidiaries (including the Partnership). The awards are generally graded-vesting awards, which are expected to vest over
three
years, with one-third of the award vesting each year. Compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the respective tranche of the award. Each incentive unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash
84
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
payment equal to (a) the average fair market value of
one
common unit of CVR Refining, LP ("CVR Refining") in accordance with the award agreement, plus (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by CVR Refining from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The awards, which are liability-classified, will be remeasured at each subsequent reporting date until they vest.
Assuming the allocation of costs from CVR Energy remains consistent with the allocation percentages in place at
December 31, 2014
, there was approximately
$1.0 million
of total unrecognized compensation cost related to the incentive units and associated distribution equivalent rights to be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately
1.9
years. Inclusion of a vesting table would not be meaningful due to changes in allocation percentages that may occur from time to time. The unrecognized compensation expense has been determined by the number of incentive units and respective allocation percentage for individuals for whom, as of
December 31, 2014
, compensation expense has been allocated to the Partnership. Compensation expense for the year ended
December 31, 2014
related to the incentive unit awards was
$0.5 million
. Compensation expense for the year ended
December 31, 2013
related to the incentive unit awards was nominal. The Partnership will be responsible for reimbursing CVR Energy for its allocated portion of the awards.
As of
December 31, 2014
, the Partnership had a liability related to these awards of
$0.2 million
which is recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The liability related to these awards as of
December 31, 2013
was nominal. For the year ended
December 31, 2014
, the Partnership reimbursed CVR Energy
$0.3 million
for its allocated portion of the incentive unit award payments.
Long-Term Incentive Plan — CVR Partners
In connection with the Initial Public Offering, the board of directors of the general partner adopted the CVR Partners, LP Long-Term Incentive Plan ("CVR Partners LTIP"). The Partnership grants awards pursuant to the CVR Partners LTIP to (1) employees of the Partnership and its subsidiaries (2) employees of the general partner, (3) members of board of directors of the general partner and (4) CVR Partners' parent's employees, consultants and directors. The CVR Partners LTIP provides for the grant of options, unit appreciation rights, distribution equivalent rights, restricted units, phantom units and other unit-based awards, each in respect of common units.
Through the CVR Partners LTIP, phantom and common units have been awarded to employees of the Partnership and the general partner and to members of the board of directors of the general partner. Phantom unit awards made to employees and members of the board of directors of the general partner are considered a non-employee equity based award and are required to be marked-to-market each reporting period until they vest. Awards to employees of the Partnership and employees of the general partner vest over a
three
year period and awards to members of the board of directors of the general partner generally vest immediately on the grant date. The maximum number of common units issuable under the CVR Partners LTIP is
5,000,000
. As of
December 31, 2014
, there were
4,820,215
common units available for issuance under the CVR Partners LTIP. As phantom unit awards discussed below are cash-settled awards, they do not reduce the number of common units outstanding.
Common Units and Certain Phantom Units Awards
In December 2012, the board of directors of the general partner approved an amendment to modify the terms of certain phantom unit awards granted to employees of the Partnership and its subsidiaries. Prior to the amendment, the phantom units, when granted, were valued at the closing market price of the Partnership's common units on the date of issuance and amortized to compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the units. These phantom units generally vest over a
three
-year period. The amendment triggered a modification to the awards by providing the phantom units would be settled in cash rather than in common units of the Partnership. For awards vesting subsequent to amendment, the awards will be remeasured at each subsequent reporting date until they vest. As a result of the modification of the awards, the classification changed from equity-classified awards to liability-classified awards.
In December 2013 and during 2014, awards of phantom units and distribution equivalent rights were granted to certain employees of the Partnership and its subsidiaries' employees and the employees of the general partner. The awards are generally graded-vesting awards, which are expected to vest over
three
years with one-third of the award vesting each year. Compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the respective tranche of the award. Each phantom unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the average fair market value of
one
unit of the Partnership's common units in accordance with the award agreement, plus (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by the Partnership from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The awards, which are liability-classified, will be remeasured at each subsequent reporting date until they vest.
85
A summary of the common units and phantom units (collectively "Units") activity and changes under the CVR Partners LTIP during the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
is presented below:
|
|
Units
|
|
Weighted-
Average
Grant Date
Fair Value
|
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|||||
|
Non-vested at December 31, 2011
|
164,571
|
|
|
$
|
22.99
|
|
|
$
|
4,085
|
|
|
Granted
|
95,370
|
|
|
24.53
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vested
|
(58,129
|
)
|
|
23.08
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Forfeited
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Non-vested at December 31, 2012
|
201,812
|
|
|
$
|
23.70
|
|
|
$
|
5,094
|
|
|
Granted
|
58,536
|
|
|
16.13
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Vested
|
(89,229
|
)
|
|
23.24
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Forfeited
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Non-vested at December 31, 2013
|
171,119
|
|
|
$
|
21.34
|
|
|
$
|
2,817
|
|
|
Granted
|
198,141
|
|
|
9.44
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Vested
|
(48,310
|
)
|
|
20.95
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Forfeited
|
(77,004
|
)
|
|
23.49
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Non-vested at December 31, 2014
|
243,946
|
|
|
$
|
11.07
|
|
|
$
|
2,376
|
|
Unrecognized compensation expense associated with the unvested phantom units at December 31,
2014
was approximately
$2.2 million
, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of
1.9
years. In conjunction with Mr. Kelley's resignation that was effective January 1, 2014, all awards granted to him that were non-vested at the resignation date were forfeited. The associated change to the non-vested units forfeited was reflected at the resignation date and is included in the summary above. Compensation expense recorded for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
related to the awards under the CVR Partners LTIP was approximately
$0.3 million
,
$0.7 million
and
$2.2 million
, respectively. Compensation expense related to the awards issued to employees and members of the board of directors of the general partner under the CVR Partners LTIP has been recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — affiliates and direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — affiliates as the expense has been incurred for the benefit of directors or employees of the general partner.
At each of December 31,
2014
and
2013
, the Partnership had a liability of
$0.2 million
for cash settled non-vested phantom unit awards and associated distribution equivalent rights, which is recorded in personnel accruals on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. For the year ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, the Partnership paid cash of
$0.4 million
,
$0.2 million
and
$0.3 million
, respectively, to settle liability-classified awards upon vesting.
Performance-Based Phantom Unit Award
In May 2014, the Partnership entered into a Phantom Unit Agreement with Mr. Pytosh, Chief Executive Officer, that included performance-based phantom units and distribution equivalent rights. Compensation cost for these awards is being recognized over the performance cycles of May 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 and January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, as the services are provided. Each phantom unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the average closing price of the Partnership's common units in accordance with the agreement, multiplied by a performance factor that is based upon the level of the Partnership’s production of UAN, and (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by the Partnership from the grant date to and including the vesting date. Assuming the allocation of costs from CVR Energy remains consistent with the allocation percentages in place at December 31,
2014
, unrecognized compensation expense associated with the unvested units at December 31,
2014
was approximately
$0.1 million
and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of
1.5 years
. Compensation expense recorded for the year ended December 31,
2014
related to the award was nominal. The Partnership will be reimbursed by CVR Energy and CVR Refining for the portion of the award attributable to time Mr. Pytosh spends working on matters for those companies. As of December 31,
2014
, the Partnership had a nominal liability for the non-
86
vested phantom unit award and associated distribution equivalent rights, which is recorded in personnel accruals on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On December 31, 2014, the first award of Mr. Pytosh's Phantom Unit Agreement vested and a nominal amount will be paid in 2015.
(4) Inventories
Inventories consisted of the following:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||
|
Finished goods
|
$
|
12,393
|
|
|
$
|
8,849
|
|
|
Raw materials and precious metals
|
9,333
|
|
|
8,546
|
|
||
|
Parts and supplies
|
13,888
|
|
|
15,669
|
|
||
|
|
$
|
35,614
|
|
|
$
|
33,064
|
|
(5) Property, Plant, and Equipment
A summary of costs and accumulated depreciation for property, plant, and equipment is as follows:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||
|
Land and improvements
|
$
|
5,263
|
|
|
$
|
5,032
|
|
|
Buildings and improvements
|
2,266
|
|
|
2,191
|
|
||
|
Machinery and equipment
|
559,210
|
|
|
548,282
|
|
||
|
Automotive equipment
|
497
|
|
|
450
|
|
||
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
882
|
|
|
893
|
|
||
|
Railcars
|
14,524
|
|
|
7,902
|
|
||
|
Construction in progress
|
6,515
|
|
|
5,294
|
|
||
|
|
$
|
589,157
|
|
|
$
|
570,044
|
|
|
Less: Accumulated depreciation
|
184,223
|
|
|
157,088
|
|
||
|
Total net, property, plant, and equipment
|
$
|
404,934
|
|
|
$
|
412,956
|
|
Capitalized interest recognized as a reduction of interest expense for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
totaled approximately
$0.1 million
,
$0.6 million
, and
$3.2 million
, respectively.
(6) Partners’ Capital and Partnership Distributions
The Partnership has
two
types of partnership interests outstanding:
|
•
|
common units; and
|
|
•
|
a general partner interest, which is not entitled to any distributions, and which is held by the general partner.
|
At December 31,
2014
and 2013, the Partnership had a total of
73,122,997
and
73,112,951
common units issued and outstanding, respectively, of which
38,920,000
common units were owned by CRLLC, representing approximately
53%
of the total Partnership units outstanding.
The board of directors of the Partnership's general partner has a policy for the Partnership to distribute all available cash generated on a quarterly basis. Cash distributions will be made to the common unitholders of record on the applicable record
87
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
date, generally within
60
days after the end of each quarter. Available cash for each quarter will be determined by the board of directors of the general partner following the end of such quarter.
Beginning with the first quarter ended March 31, 2013, the available cash calculation for each quarter begins with Adjusted EBITDA reduced for cash needed for (i) net interest expense (excluding capitalized interest) and debt service and other contractual obligations; (ii) maintenance capital expenditures; and (iii) to the extent applicable, major scheduled turnaround expense incurred and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of the general partner deems necessary or appropriate, if any. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as EBITDA (net income before interest expense, net, income tax expense, depreciation and amortization) further adjusted for the impact of non-cash share-based compensation, and, where applicable, major scheduled turnaround expense and loss on disposition of assets. Available cash for distributions may be increased by previously established cash reserves, if any, at the discretion of the board of directors of our general partner.
Available cash for each quarter through the end of 2012 was calculated based on our cash flow from operations for the quarter, less cash needed for maintenance capital expenditures, debt service and other contractual obligations and reserves for future operating or capital needs that the board of directors of our general partner deemed necessary or appropriate. The Partnership also retained cash on hand associated with prepaid sales at each quarter end for future distributions to common unitholders based upon the recognition into income of the prepaid sales.
The following is a summary of cash distributions paid to the unitholders during the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
for the respective quarters to which the distributions relate:
|
|
December 31,
2013 |
|
March 31,
2014 |
|
June 30,
2014 |
|
September 30,
2014 |
|
Total Cash
Distributions
Paid in 2014
|
||||||||||
|
|
($ in millions, except per common unit amounts)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Amount paid to CRLLC
|
$
|
16.7
|
|
|
$
|
14.8
|
|
|
$
|
12.8
|
|
|
$
|
10.5
|
|
|
$
|
54.9
|
|
|
Amounts paid to public unitholders
|
14.7
|
|
|
13.0
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
48.2
|
|
|||||
|
Total amount paid
|
$
|
31.4
|
|
|
$
|
27.8
|
|
|
$
|
24.1
|
|
|
$
|
19.7
|
|
|
$
|
103.1
|
|
|
Per common unit
|
$
|
0.43
|
|
|
$
|
0.38
|
|
|
$
|
0.33
|
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
$
|
1.41
|
|
|
Common units outstanding (in thousands)
|
73,113
|
|
|
73,113
|
|
|
73,114
|
|
|
73,117
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
December 31,
2012 |
|
March 31,
2013 |
|
June 30,
2013 |
|
September 30,
2013 |
|
Total Cash
Distributions
Paid in 2013
|
||||||||||
|
|
($ in millions, except per common unit amounts)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Amount paid to CRLLC
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
31.1
|
|
|
$
|
22.7
|
|
|
$
|
14.0
|
|
|
$
|
77.5
|
|
|
Amounts paid to public unitholders
|
4.2
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
19.9
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
50.0
|
|
|||||
|
Total amount paid
|
$
|
14.0
|
|
|
$
|
44.6
|
|
|
$
|
42.6
|
|
|
$
|
26.3
|
|
|
$
|
127.5
|
|
|
Per common unit
|
$
|
0.192
|
|
|
$
|
0.610
|
|
|
$
|
0.583
|
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
$
|
1.745
|
|
|
Common units outstanding (in thousands)
|
73,065
|
|
|
73,065
|
|
|
73,075
|
|
|
73,078
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
December 31,
2011 |
|
March 31,
2012 |
|
June 30,
2012 |
|
September 30,
2012 |
|
Total Cash
Distributions
Paid in 2012
|
||||||||||
|
|
($ in millions, except per common unit amounts)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Amount paid to CRLLC
|
$
|
29.9
|
|
|
$
|
26.6
|
|
|
$
|
30.5
|
|
|
$
|
25.3
|
|
|
$
|
112.4
|
|
|
Amounts paid to public unitholders
|
13.0
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
48.8
|
|
|||||
|
Total amount paid
|
$
|
42.9
|
|
|
$
|
38.2
|
|
|
$
|
43.8
|
|
|
$
|
36.2
|
|
|
$
|
161.2
|
|
|
Per common unit
|
$
|
0.588
|
|
|
$
|
0.523
|
|
|
$
|
0.600
|
|
|
$
|
0.496
|
|
|
$
|
2.207
|
|
|
Common units outstanding (in thousands)
|
73,031
|
|
|
73,031
|
|
|
73,043
|
|
|
73,046
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
88
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
On
February 18, 2015
, the Board of Directors of the general partner of the Partnership declared a cash distribution for the fourth quarter of
2014
in the amount of $
0.41
per common unit, or $
30.0
million in aggregate. The cash distribution will be paid on
March 9, 2015
to the Partnership's unitholders of record at the close of business on
March 2, 2015
. Total cash distributions paid and to be paid based upon available cash for
2014
were approximately $
1.39
per common unit.
(7) Goodwill
In connection with the 2005 acquisition by CALLC of all of the outstanding stock owned by Coffeyville Holdings Group, LLC, CRNF recorded goodwill of approximately
$41.0 million
. CVR Partners completes its annual test for impairment of goodwill as of November 1 each year. The Partnership elected to perform a qualitative evaluation for the years ending
December 31, 2014
and
2013
to determine whether it was necessary to perform the quantitative two step goodwill analysis described in ASC 350, "
Intangibles - Goodwill and Other
". After assessing the totality of events and circumstances, it was determined that it was not more likely than not that the fair value of the Partnership was less than the carrying value, and so it was not necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment analysis. Based on the results of the tests, no impairment of goodwill was recorded for any of the periods presented.
(8) Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities were as follows:
|
|
December 31,
2014 |
|
December 31,
2013 |
||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||
|
Property taxes
|
$
|
1,376
|
|
|
$
|
1,373
|
|
|
Current interest rate swap liabilities
|
855
|
|
|
883
|
|
||
|
Accrued interest
|
458
|
|
|
458
|
|
||
|
Railcar maintenance accruals
|
2,827
|
|
|
—
|
|
||
|
Other accrued expenses and liabilities(1)
|
4,046
|
|
|
2,345
|
|
||
|
|
$
|
9,562
|
|
|
$
|
5,059
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Other accrued expenses and liabilities include amounts owed by the Partnership to Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC ("CRRM"), a related party, under the feedstock and shared services agreement. Refer to
Note 14
("
Related Party Transactions
") for additional discussion.
|
(9) Credit Facility
The credit facility includes a term loan facility of
$125.0 million
and a revolving credit facility of
$25.0 million
with an uncommitted incremental facility of up to
$50.0 million
.
No
amounts were outstanding under the revolving credit facility at
December 31, 2014
or
2013
. There is no scheduled amortization and the credit facility matures in April 2016.
Borrowings under the credit facility bear interest at either a Eurodollar rate or a base rate plus a margin based on a pricing grid determined by the trailing
four
quarter leverage ratio. The margin for borrowings under the credit facility ranges from
3.50%
to
4.25%
for Eurodollar loans and
2.50%
to
3.25%
for base rate loans. Currently, the interest rate is either the
Eurodollar rate
plus a margin of
3.50%
or, for base rate loans, the
prime rate
plus
2.50%
. Under its terms, the lenders under the credit facility were granted a first priority security interest (subject to certain customary exceptions) in substantially all of the assets of CVR Partners and CRNF.
The credit facility requires CVR Partners to maintain a minimum interest coverage ratio and a maximum leverage ratio and contains customary covenants for a financing of this type that limit, subject to certain exceptions, the incurrence of additional indebtedness or guarantees, creation of liens on assets, and the ability to dispose assets, make restricted payments, investments or acquisitions, enter into sale-leaseback transactions or enter into affiliate transactions. The credit facility provides that the Partnership can make distributions to holders of the Partnership's common units provided the Partnership is in compliance with our leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio covenants on a pro forma basis after giving effect to such distribution and there is
89
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
no default or event of default under the facility. As of
December 31, 2014
, CRNF was in compliance with the covenants of the credit facility.
The Partnership is required to prepay outstanding amounts under our term facility in an amount equal to the net proceeds from the sale of assets or from insurance or condemnation awards related to collateral, in each case subject to certain reinvestment rights. In addition, the Partnership is required to prepay outstanding amounts under the term facility with the net proceeds from certain issuances of debt (other than debt permitted to be incurred under the credit facility).
In connection with establishment of the credit facility in 2011, the Partnership incurred lender and other third-party costs of approximately
$4.8 million
. The costs associated with the credit facility have been deferred and are being amortized over the term of the credit facility as interest expense using the effective-interest amortization method for the term loan facility and the straight-line method for the revolving credit facility.
(10) Interest Rate Swap Agreements
CRNF has
two
floating-to-fixed interest rate swap agreements for the purpose of hedging the interest rate risk associated with a portion of its
$125.0 million
floating rate term debt which matures in April 2016, as discussed further in
Note 9
(“
Credit Facility
”). The aggregate notional amount covered under these agreements, which commenced on August 12, 2011 and expires on February 12, 2016, totals
$62.5 million
(split evenly between the two agreement dates). Under the terms of the interest rate swap agreement entered into on June 30, 2011, CRNF receives a floating rate based on
three month LIBOR
and pays a fixed rate of
1.94%
. Under the terms of the interest rate swap agreement entered into on July 1, 2011, CRNF receives a floating rate based on
three month LIBOR
and pays a fixed rate of
1.975%
. Both swap agreements will be settled every
90 days
. The effect of these swap agreements is to lock in a fixed rate of interest of approximately
1.96%
plus the applicable margin paid to lenders over
three month LIBOR
as governed by the CRNF credit facility. At
December 31, 2014
, the effective rate was approximately
4.56%
. The agreements were designated as cash flow hedges at inception and accordingly, the effective portion of the gain or loss on the swap is reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) ("AOCI"), and will be reclassified into interest expense when the interest rate swap transaction affects earnings. Any ineffective portion of the gain or loss will be recognized immediately in interest expense. The realized loss on the interest rate swap reclassified from AOCI into interest expense and other financing costs on the Consolidated Statements of Operations was
$1.1 million
,
$1.1 million
and
$1.0 million
for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively.
The interest rate swap agreements held by the Partnership also provide for the right to offset. However, as the interest rate swaps are both in a liability position, there are no amounts offset in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
December 31, 2014
and
2013
.
See Note 15 ("Fair Value of Financial Instruments")
for discussion of the fair value of the interest rate swap agreements.
(11) Net Income Per Common Unit
The Partnership's net income is allocated wholly to the common unitholders as the general partner does not have an economic interest. Basic and diluted net income per common unitholder is calculated by dividing net income by the weighted-average number of common units outstanding during the period and, when applicable, gives effect to phantom units and unvested common units granted under the CVR Partners LTIP. The common units issued during the period are included on a weighted-average basis for the days in which they were outstanding.
(12) Benefit Plans
CRLLC sponsors and administers a defined-contribution 401(k) plan (the "Plan") for the employees of CRNF. Participants in the Plan may elect to contribute up to
100%
of their annual salaries and up to
100%
of their annual bonus received pursuant to CVR Energy's income sharing plan. CRNF matches up to
100%
of the first
6%
of the participant's contribution. Participants in the Plan are immediately vested in their individual contributions. The Plan has a
three
year vesting schedule for CRNF's matching funds and contains a provision to count service with any predecessor organization. For the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, CRNF's contributions under the Plan were
$0.7 million
,
$0.7 million
and
$0.6 million
, respectively.
90
(13) Commitments and Contingencies
Leases and Unconditional Purchase Obligations
The minimum required payments for operating leases and unconditional purchase obligations are as follows:
|
|
Operating
Leases
|
|
Unconditional
Purchase
Obligations(1)
|
||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||
|
Year ending December 31, 2015
|
$
|
5,188
|
|
|
$
|
19,352
|
|
|
Year ending December 31, 2016
|
4,462
|
|
|
13,103
|
|
||
|
Year ending December 31, 2017
|
2,827
|
|
|
13,279
|
|
||
|
Year ending December 31, 2018
|
2,014
|
|
|
13,278
|
|
||
|
Year ending December 31, 2019
|
1,415
|
|
|
12,251
|
|
||
|
Thereafter
|
3,501
|
|
|
69,042
|
|
||
|
|
$
|
19,407
|
|
|
$
|
140,305
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
This includes the Partnership's purchase obligation for pet coke from CVR Refining and has been derived from a calculation of the average pet coke price paid to CVR Refining over the preceding
two
year period.
|
CRNF leases railcars and facilities under long-term operating leases. Lease expense for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
totaled approximately
$4.6 million
,
$4.7 million
and
$4.3 million
, respectively. The lease agreements have various remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at CRNF's option, for additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire.
During 2005, CRNF entered into the Amended and Restated On-Site Product Supply Agreement with The BOC Group, Inc. (as predecessor in interest to Linde LLC). Pursuant to the agreement, which expires in 2020, CRNF is required to take as available and pay approximately
$0.3 million
to
$0.4 million
per month, which amount is subject to annual inflation adjustments, for the supply of oxygen and nitrogen to the fertilizer operation. Expenses associated with this agreement are included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) and for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, totaled approximately
$4.0 million
,
$3.9 million
and
$4.3 million
, respectively.
The Partnership entered into a pet coke supply agreement with HollyFrontier Corporation which became effective on March 1, 2012. The term of this agreement ends in December
2015
and may be renewed. The delivered cost of this pet coke totaled approximately
$4.3 million
,
$4.8 million
and
$6.0 million
for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively, which was recorded in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
Litigation
From time to time, the Partnership is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under "Environmental, Health, and Safety ("EHS") Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that management's estimates of the outcomes will change within the next year due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s results of operations or financial condition. There can be no assurance that management's beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters are accurate.
CRNF received a
ten
year property tax abatement from Montgomery County, Kansas in connection with the construction of the nitrogen fertilizer plant that expired on December 31, 2007. In connection with the expiration of the abatement, the county reclassified and reassessed CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant for property tax purposes. The reclassification and reassessment resulted in an increase in CRNF's annual property tax expense by an average of approximately
$10.7 million
per year for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009,
$11.7 million
for the year ended December 31, 2010,
$11.4 million
for the year ended December 31, 2011 and
$11.3 million
for the year ended December 31, 2012. CRNF protested the classification and
91
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
resulting valuation for each of those years to the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals ("COTA"), followed by an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. However, CRNF fully accrued and paid the property taxes the county claimed were owed for the years ended December 31, 2008 through 2012. The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion dated August 9, 2013, reversed the COTA decision in part and remanded the case to COTA, instructing COTA to classify each asset on an asset by asset basis instead of making a broad determination that the entire plant was real property as COTA did originally. The County filed a motion for rehearing with the Kansas Court of Appeals and a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court, both of which have been denied. CRNF believes that when that asset by asset determination is done, the majority of the plant will be classified as personal property which would result in significantly lower property taxes for CRNF for 2008 and for those years after the conclusion of the property tax settlement noted below as compared to the taxes paid by CRNF prior to the settlement.
On February 25, 2013, Montgomery County and CRNF agreed to a settlement for tax years 2009 through 2012, which has lowered and will lower CRNF's property taxes by about
$10.7 million
per year (as compared to the 2012 tax year) for tax years 2013 through 2016 based on current mill levy rates. In addition, the settlement provides that Montgomery County will support CRNF's application before COTA for a
ten
year tax exemption for the UAN expansion. Finally, the settlement provides that CRNF will continue its appeal of the 2008 reclassification and reassessment as discussed above. During the years ended December 31,
2014
and
2013
, CRNF recognized
$1.3 million
and
$1.4 million
, respectively, in property tax expense included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
Environmental, Health, and Safety ("EHS") Matters
CRNF is subject to various stringent federal, state, and local EHS rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries. All liabilities are monitored and adjusted regularly as new facts emerge or changes in law or technology occur.
CRNF owns and operates a facility utilized for the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizers. Therefore, CRNF has exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past and present EHS conditions at this location. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons can include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances.
CRNF is also subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local, environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, and the storage, handling, use and transportation of nitrogen products. The ultimate impact of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that our operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs.
Management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate.
EHS expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. EHS capital expenditures for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
were approximately
$0.2 million
,
$44,000
and
$0.4 million
, respectively. These expenditures were incurred to improve the environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations.
CRNF believes it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described above or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, or results of operations of the Partnership.
92
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
(14) Related Party Transactions
Registration Rights Agreement
On August 29, 2012, the Partnership's registration statement on Form S-3 was declared effective by the SEC, enabling CRLLC to sell, from time to time, in one or more public offerings or direct placements, up to
50,920,000
common units. For the year ended December 31, 2012, the Partnership recognized approximately
$0.4 million
in expenses related to this registration statement, along with
$0.7 million
for a prior registration for the benefit of CRLLC in accordance with CVR Partners' Registration Rights Agreement. These amounts included filing fees, printer fees and external accounting and external legal fees incurred in conjunction with the filing of this registration statement.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Partnership recognized approximately
$0.5 million
in expenses for the benefit of CRLLC in connection with CRLLC’s Secondary Offering in accordance with CVR Partners’ Registration Rights Agreement. These amounts included filing fees, printer fees, external accounting and external legal fees incurred in conjunction with the filing of the Secondary Offering.
Related Party Agreements
In connection with the formation of CVR Partners and the initial public offering of CVR Energy in October 2007, CVR Partners and CRNF entered into several agreements with CVR Energy and its subsidiaries (including CRRM) that govern the business relations among CVR Partners, its general partner and CRNF on the one hand, and CVR Energy and its subsidiaries, on the other hand. Certain of the agreements described below were subsequently amended and restated; the agreements are described as in effect at
December 31, 2014
. Amounts owed to CVR Partners and CRNF from CVR Energy and its subsidiaries with respect to these agreements are included in prepaid expenses and other currents assets, and other long-term assets, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Conversely, amounts owed to CVR Energy and its subsidiaries by CVR Partners and CRNF with respect to these agreements are included in accounts payable, personnel accruals, accrued expenses and other current liabilities, and other long-term liabilities, on the Partnership's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
CVR Refining completed its initial public offering (the "Refining Partnership IPO") in January 2013. Following the Refining Partnership IPO, CVR Energy indirectly owns the general partner of CVR Refining and approximately
66%
of CVR Refining's outstanding common units. Although certain of CVR Energy's subsidiaries that are parties to the related party agreements discussed below were contributed to CVR Refining in connection with the Refining Partnership IPO, the Refining Partnership IPO had no impact on these and the Partnership's business relations with these subsidiaries.
Feedstock and Shared Services Agreement
CRNF entered into a feedstock and shared services agreement with CRRM which was most recently amended in December 2013, under which the
two
parties provide feedstocks and other services to one another. These feedstocks and services are utilized in the respective production processes of CRRM's Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant.
Pursuant to the feedstock agreement, CRNF and CRRM have agreed to transfer excess hydrogen to one another; provided CRNF is not required to sell hydrogen to CRRM if such hydrogen is required for operation of CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant, if such sale would adversely affect the Partnership's classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, or if such sale would not be in CRNF's best interest. Net monthly sales of hydrogen to CRRM have been reflected as net sales for CVR Partners. Net monthly receipts of hydrogen from CRRM have been reflected in cost of product sold for CVR Partners. For the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, the net sales generated from the sale of hydrogen to CRRM were approximately
$10.1 million
,
$11.4 million
and
$6.3 million
, respectively. For the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, CVR Partners also recognized
$41,000
,
$0.6 million
and
$0.2 million
, respectively, of cost of product sold related to the transfer of excess hydrogen from the refinery. At
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, approximately
$1.3 million
and
$2.6 million
, respectively, of receivables were included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with unpaid balances related to hydrogen sales.
CRNF is also obligated to make available to CRRM any nitrogen produced by the Linde air separation plant that is not required for the operation of the nitrogen fertilizer plant, as determined by CRNF in a commercially reasonable manner. Reimbursed direct operating expenses associated with nitrogen for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, were approximately
$1.0 million
,
$0.5 million
and
$1.4 million
, respectively.
The agreement also provides a mechanism pursuant to which CRNF transfers a tail gas stream to CRRM. CRNF receives the benefit of eliminating a waste gas stream and recovers the fuel value of the tail gas system. For the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, net sales generated from the sale of tail gas to CRRM were nominal. In April 2011, in
93
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
connection with the tail gas stream transfers to CRRM, CRRM installed a pipe between the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer plant to transfer the tail gas. CRNF has agreed to pay CRRM the cost of installing the pipe over the next
three
years and, in 2014, provided an additional
15%
to cover the cost of capital. At
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, an asset of approximately
$0.2 million
and
$0.2 million
was included in other current assets and approximately
$1.0 million
and
$1.1 million
, respectively, was included in other long-term assets with an offset liability of approximately
$0.1 million
and
$0.3 million
, respectively, in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and approximately
$0
and
$0.1 million
other long-term liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
CRNF also provided finished product tank capacity to CRRM during 2013 and 2012 under the agreement. Approximately
$0.3 million
and
$0.1 million
were reimbursed by CRRM for the use of tank capacity for the years ended December 31,
2013
and
2012
, respectively. This reimbursement was recorded as a reduction to direct operating expenses.
The agreement has an initial term of
20
years, which will be automatically extended for successive
five
year renewal periods. Either party may terminate the agreement, effective upon the last day of a term, by giving notice no later than
three
years prior to a renewal date. The agreement will also be terminable by mutual consent of the parties or if
one
party breaches the agreement and does not cure within applicable cure periods and the breach materially and adversely affects the ability of the terminating party to operate its facility. Additionally, the agreement may be terminated in some circumstances if substantially all of the operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant or the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery are permanently terminated, or if either party is subject to a bankruptcy proceeding or otherwise becomes insolvent.
At
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, receivables of
$0.2 million
and
$0.3 million
, respectively, were included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets associated for amounts yet to be received related to components of the feedstock and shared services agreement other than amounts related to hydrogen sales and tail gas discussed above. At
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, payables of
$1.1 million
and
$1.0 million
, respectively, were included in accounts payable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with unpaid balances related to components of the feedstock and shared services agreement, other than amounts related to hydrogen transfers.
Coke Supply Agreement
CRNF entered into a coke supply agreement with CRRM pursuant to which CRRM supplies CRNF with pet coke. This agreement provides that CRRM must deliver to CRNF during each calendar year an annual required amount of pet coke equal to the lesser of (i)
100 percent
of the pet coke produced at CRRM's Coffeyville, Kansas petroleum refinery or (ii)
500,000
tons of pet coke. CRNF is also obligated to purchase this annual required amount. If during a calendar month CRRM produces more than
41,667
tons of pet coke, then CRNF will have the option to purchase the excess at the purchase price provided for in the agreement. If CRNF declines to exercise this option, CRRM may sell the excess to a third party.
CRNF obtains most (over
70%
on average during the last
five
years) of the pet coke it needs from CRRM's adjacent crude oil refinery pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement, and procures the remainder through a contract with HollyFrontier Corporation and on the open market. The price CRNF pays pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement is based on the lesser of a pet coke price derived from the price received for UAN, or the UAN-based price, and a pet coke price index. The UAN-based price begins with a pet coke price of
$25
per ton based on a price per ton for UAN (exclusive of transportation cost), or netback price, of
$205
per ton, and adjusts up or down
$0.50
per ton for every
$1.00
change in the netback price. The UAN-based price has a ceiling of
$40
per ton and a floor of
$5
per ton.
CRNF will also pay any taxes associated with the sale, purchase, transportation, delivery, storage or consumption of the pet coke. CRNF will be entitled to offset any amount payable for the pet coke against any amount due from CRRM under the feedstock and shared services agreement between the parties.
The agreement has an initial term of
20
years, which will be automatically extended for successive
five
year renewal periods. Either party may terminate the agreement by giving notice no later than
three
years prior to a renewal date. The agreement is also terminable by mutual consent of the parties or if a party breaches the agreement and does not cure within applicable cure periods. Additionally, the agreement may be terminated in some circumstances if substantially all of the operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant or the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery are permanently terminated, or if either party is subject to a bankruptcy proceeding or otherwise becomes insolvent.
The cost of pet coke associated with the transfer of pet coke from CRRM to CRNF were approximately
$9.2 million
,
$9.8 million
and
$10.2 million
for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively, and included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Payables of
$0.5 million
and
94
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
$0.6 million
related to the coke supply agreement were included in accounts payable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, respectively.
Lease Agreement
CRNF entered into a lease agreement with CRRM under which it leases certain office and laboratory space. The initial term of the lease will expire in October 2017, provided, however, that CRNF may terminate the lease at any time during the initial term by providing
180
days prior written notice. In addition, CRNF has the option to renew the lease agreement for up to
five
additional
one
-year periods by providing CRRM with notice of renewal at least
60
days prior to the expiration of the then existing term. For the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
, expense incurred related to the use of the office and laboratory space totaled approximately
$112,000
,
$107,000
and
$105,000
, respectively. There were no amounts outstanding with respect to the lease agreement as of
December 31, 2014
and
2013
.
Environmental Agreement
CRNF entered into an environmental agreement with CRRM which provides for certain indemnification and access rights in connection with environmental matters affecting the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer plant. Generally, both CRNF and CRRM have agreed to indemnify and defend each other and each other's affiliates against liabilities associated with certain hazardous materials and violations of environmental laws that are a result of or caused by the indemnifying party's actions or business operations. This obligation extends to indemnification for liabilities arising out of off-site disposal of certain hazardous materials. Indemnification obligations of the parties will be reduced by applicable amounts recovered by an indemnified party from third parties or from insurance coverage.
The agreement provides for indemnification in the case of contamination or releases of hazardous materials that are present but unknown at the time the agreement is entered into to the extent such contamination or releases are identified in reasonable detail through October 2012. The agreement further provides for indemnification in the case of contamination or releases which occur subsequent to the execution of the agreement.
The term of the agreement is for at least
20
years, or for so long as the feedstock and shared services agreement is in force, whichever is longer.
Services Agreement
CVR Partners obtains certain management and other services from CVR Energy pursuant to a services agreement between the Partnership, CVR GP and CVR Energy. Under this agreement, the Partnership's general partner has engaged CVR Energy to conduct its day-to-day business operations. CVR Energy provides CVR Partners with the following services under the agreement, among others:
|
•
|
services from CVR Energy's employees in capacities equivalent to the capacities of corporate executive officers, except that those who serve in such capacities under the agreement shall serve the Partnership on a shared, part-time basis only, unless the Partnership and CVR Energy agree otherwise;
|
|
•
|
administrative and professional services, including legal, accounting services, human resources, insurance, tax, credit, finance, government affairs and regulatory affairs;
|
|
•
|
management of the Partnership's property and the property of its operating subsidiary in the ordinary course of business;
|
|
•
|
recommendations on capital raising activities to the board of directors of the Partnership's general partner, including the issuance of debt or equity interests, the entry into credit facilities and other capital market transactions;
|
|
•
|
managing or overseeing litigation and administrative or regulatory proceedings, and establishing appropriate insurance policies for the Partnership, and providing safety and environmental advice;
|
|
•
|
recommending the payment of distributions; and
|
|
•
|
managing or providing advice for other projects, including acquisitions, as may be agreed by CVR Energy and its general partner from time to time.
|
95
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
As payment for services provided under the agreement, the Partnership, its general partner or CRNF must pay CVR Energy (i) all costs incurred by CVR Energy or its affiliates in connection with the employment of its employees, other than administrative personnel, who provide the Partnership services under the agreement on a full-time basis, but excluding certain share-based compensation; (ii) a prorated share of costs incurred by CVR Energy or its affiliates in connection with the employment of its employees, including administrative personnel, who provide the Partnership services under the agreement on a part-time basis, but excluding certain share-based compensation, and such prorated share shall be determined by CVR Energy on a commercially reasonable basis, based on the percentage of total working time that such shared personnel are engaged in performing services for the Partnership; (iii) a prorated share of certain administrative costs, including office costs, services by outside vendors, other sales, general and administrative costs and depreciation and amortization; and (iv) various other administrative costs in accordance with the terms of the agreement, including travel, insurance, legal and audit services, government and public relations and bank charges.
Either CVR Energy or the Partnership's general partner may temporarily or permanently exclude any particular service from the scope of the agreement upon
180
days' notice. The Partnership's general partner may terminate the agreement upon at least
180
days' notice, but not more than
one
year's notice. Furthermore, the Partnership's general partner may terminate the agreement immediately if CVR Energy becomes bankrupt or dissolves or commences liquidation or winding-up procedures.
In order to facilitate the carrying out of services under the agreement, CVR Partners and CVR Energy have granted one another certain royalty-free, non-exclusive and non-transferable rights to use one another's intellectual property under certain circumstances.
The agreement also contains an indemnity provision whereby the Partnership, its general partner, and its subsidiaries, as indemnifying parties, agree to indemnify CVR Energy and its affiliates (other than the indemnifying parties themselves) against losses and liabilities incurred in connection with the performance of services under the agreement or any breach of the agreement, unless such losses or liabilities arise from a breach of the agreement by CVR Energy or other misconduct on its part, as provided in the agreement. The agreement contains a provision stating that CVR Energy is an independent contractor under the agreement and nothing in the agreement may be construed to impose an implied or express fiduciary duty owed by CVR Energy, on the one hand, to the recipients of services under the agreement, on the other hand. The agreement prohibits recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages from CVR Energy or certain affiliates.
Net amounts incurred under the services agreement for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
were as follows:
|
|
December 31,
|
||||||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
||||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||||||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
$
|
3,415
|
|
|
$
|
4,428
|
|
|
$
|
2,990
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization)
|
11,193
|
|
|
10,013
|
|
|
7,142
|
|
|||
|
Total
|
$
|
14,608
|
|
|
$
|
14,441
|
|
|
$
|
10,132
|
|
For services performed in connection with the services agreement, the Partnership recognized personnel costs, excluding amounts related to share based compensation that are disclosed in
Note 3 ("Share‑Based Compensation")
, of
$5.1 million
,
$4.4 million
and
$3.4 million
, respectively, for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
. At
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, payables of
$2.6 million
and
$2.7 million
, respectively, were included in accounts payable and accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets with respect to amounts billed in accordance with the services agreement. At
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, receivables of
$0.1 million
and
$0
, respectively, were included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets associated for amounts yet to be received related to components of the services agreement.
96
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
GP Services Agreement
The Partnership is party to a GP Services Agreement dated November 29, 2011 and subsequently amended between the Partnership, CVR GP and CVR Energy. This agreement allows CVR Energy to engage CVR GP, in its capacity as the Partnership's general partner, to provide CVR Energy with (i) business development and related services and (ii) advice or recommendations for such other projects as may be agreed between the Partnership's general partner and CVR Energy from time to time. As payment for certain specific services provided under the agreement, CVR Energy must pay a prorated share of costs incurred by the Partnership or its general partner in connection with the employment of the certain employees who provide CVR Energy services on a part-time basis, as determined by the Partnership's general partner on a commercially reasonable basis based on the percentage of total working time that such shared personnel are engaged in performing services for CVR Energy. CVR Energy is not required to directly pay any compensation, salaries, bonuses or benefits to any of the Partnership's or general partner's employees who provide services to CVR Energy on a full-time or part-time basis, thus the Partnership will continue to pay their compensation.
Either CVR Energy or the Partnership's general partner may temporarily or permanently exclude any particular service from the scope of the agreement upon
180
days' notice. The Partnership's general partner also has the right to delegate the performance of some or all of the services to be provided pursuant to the agreement to one of its affiliates or any other person or entity, though such delegation does not relieve the Partnership's general partner from its obligations under the agreement. Either CVR Energy or the Partnership's general partner may terminate the agreement upon at least
180
days' notice, but not more than
one
year's notice. Furthermore, CVR Energy may terminate the agreement immediately if the Partnership, or its general partner, become bankrupt, or dissolve and commence liquidation or winding-up.
Limited Partnership Agreement
The Partnership's general partner manages the Partnership's operations and activities as specified in the partnership agreement. The general partner of the Partnership is managed by its board of directors. CRLLC has the right to select the directors of the general partner. Actions by the general partner that are made in its individual capacity are made by CRLLC as the sole member of the general partner and not by its board of directors. The members of the board of directors of the general partner are not elected by the unitholders and are not subject to re-election on a regular basis in the future. The officers of the general partner manage the day-to-day affairs of the Partnership's business.
The partnership agreement provides that the Partnership will reimburse its general partner for all direct and indirect expenses it incurs or payments it makes on behalf of the Partnership (including salary, bonus, incentive compensation and other amounts paid to any person to perform services for the Partnership or for its general partner in connection with operating the Partnership). The Partnership reimbursed its general partner for the years ended
December 31, 2014
,
2013
and
2012
approximately
$2.6 million
,
$4.1 million
and
$4.0 million
, respectively, pursuant to the partnership agreement primarily for personnel costs related to the compensation of executives at the general partner, who manage the Partnership's business. At
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, amounts due of
$1.1 million
and
$2.0 million
, respectively, were included in personnel accruals on the Consolidated Balance Sheets with respect to amounts outstanding in accordance with the limited partnership agreement.
Railcar Lease Agreement
From March 2009 through June 2013, the Partnership leased
199
railcars from American Railcar Leasing, LLC ("ARL"), a company controlled by Mr. Carl C. Icahn, CVR Energy's majority stockholder. On June 13, 2013, the Partnership purchased the railcars from ARL for approximately
$5.0 million
. Rent expense related to the railcar leases is included in cost of product sold in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. For the years ended December 31,
2013
and
2012
, rent expense of
$0.4 million
and
$1.1 million
, respectively, was recorded related to this agreement.
Railcar Purchases and Maintenance
In 2014, the Partnership purchased
fifty
new UAN railcars from American Railcar Industries, Inc. ("ARI") for approximately
$6.7 million
and
twelve
used UAN railcars from ARL for approximately
$1.1 million
. Both ARI and ARL are controlled by Mr. Carl C. Icahn, CVR Energy's majority shareholder. Also, ARI performed railcar maintenance for the Partnership and the expenses associated with this maintenance were approximately
$50,000
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
.
97
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
Insight Portfolio Group
Insight Portfolio Group LLC ("Insight Portfolio Group") is an entity formed by Mr. Icahn in order to maximize the potential buying power of a group of entities with which Mr. Icahn has a relationship in negotiating with a wide range of suppliers of goods, services and tangible and intangible property at negotiated rates. In January 2013, CVR Energy acquired a minority equity interest in Insight Portfolio Group. The Partnership participates in Insight Portfolio Group’s buying group through its relationship with CVR Energy. The Partnership may purchase a variety of goods and services as members of the buying group at prices and on terms that management believes would be more favorable than those which would be achieved on a stand-alone basis. Transactions with Insight Portfolio Group for each of the reporting periods were nominal.
(15) Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The fair values of financial instruments are estimated based upon current market conditions and quoted market prices for the same or similar instruments. Management estimates that the carrying value approximates fair value for all of the Partnerships' assets and liabilities that fall under the scope of ASC 825,
Financial Instruments
.
Fair value measurements are derived using inputs (assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability) including assumptions about risk. ASC 820,
Fair Value Measurements
, categorizes inputs used in fair value measurements into three broad levels as follows:
|
•
|
(Level 1) Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
|
|
•
|
(Level 2) Observable inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1, such as quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, similar assets and liabilities in markets that are not active or can be corroborated by observable market data.
|
|
•
|
(Level 3) Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. This includes valuation techniques that involve significant unobservable inputs.
|
The following table sets forth the assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis, by input level, as of
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, respectively.
|
|
December 31, 2014
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
||||||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Financial Statement Caption and Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Cash equivalents (money market account)
|
$
|
53,323
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
53,323
|
|
|
Other current liabilities (interest rate swaps)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
855
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
855
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities (interest rate swaps)
|
—
|
|
|
183
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
183
|
|
||||
|
Total Liabilities
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,038
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,038
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (interest rate swaps)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,038
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,038
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2013
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
||||||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Financial Statement Caption and Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Cash equivalents (money market account)
|
$
|
65,299
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
65,299
|
|
|
Other current liabilities (interest rate swaps)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
883
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
883
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities (interest rate swaps)
|
—
|
|
|
1,016
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,016
|
|
||||
|
Total Liabilities
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,899
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,899
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (interest rate swaps)
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,899
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,899
|
|
98
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
As of
December 31, 2014
and
2013
, the only financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis are the Partnership’s money market accounts and derivative instruments. The carrying value of the Partnership’s debt approximates fair value. The Partnership has an interest rate swap that is measured at fair value on a recurring basis using Level 2 inputs. See further discussion in
Note 10
("
Interest Rate Swap Agreements
"). The fair values of these interest rate swap instruments are based on discounted cash flow models that incorporate the cash flows of the derivatives, as well as the current LIBOR rate and a forward LIBOR curve, along with other observable market inputs. The Partnership had no transfers of assets or liabilities between any of the above levels during the years ended
December 31, 2014
and
2013
.
(16) Major Customers and Suppliers
Sales of nitrogen fertilizer to major customers, as a percentage of total net sales, were as follows:
The Partnership maintains contracts with CVR Energy and its affiliates. See
Note 14
("
Related Party Transactions
"). The Partnership also maintains long-term contracts with
one
third-party supplier. Purchases from this supplier as a percentage of direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) were as follows:
|
|
December 31,
|
|||||||
|
|
2014
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
|||
|
Supplier A
|
4
|
%
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
5
|
%
|
99
(17) Selected Quarterly Financial Information
(Unaudited):
Summarized quarterly financial data for December 31,
2014
and
2013
:
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2014
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Quarter
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
First
|
|
Second
|
|
Third
|
|
Fourth
|
||||||||
|
|
(in thousands, except per unit data)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Net sales
|
$
|
80,316
|
|
|
$
|
77,215
|
|
|
$
|
66,733
|
|
|
$
|
74,401
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Cost of product sold — Affiliates
|
2,246
|
|
|
2,327
|
|
|
2,232
|
|
|
2,619
|
|
||||
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
19,462
|
|
|
17,109
|
|
|
13,202
|
|
|
12,755
|
|
||||
|
|
21,708
|
|
|
19,436
|
|
|
15,434
|
|
|
15,374
|
|
||||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Affiliates
|
753
|
|
|
817
|
|
|
621
|
|
|
833
|
|
||||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
23,436
|
|
|
26,100
|
|
|
25,487
|
|
|
20,911
|
|
||||
|
|
24,189
|
|
|
26,917
|
|
|
26,108
|
|
|
21,744
|
|
||||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Affiliates
|
3,536
|
|
|
3,973
|
|
|
3,035
|
|
|
2,867
|
|
||||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
1,118
|
|
|
1,297
|
|
|
928
|
|
|
949
|
|
||||
|
|
4,654
|
|
|
5,270
|
|
|
3,963
|
|
|
3,816
|
|
||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
6,667
|
|
|
6,792
|
|
|
6,812
|
|
|
6,978
|
|
||||
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
57,218
|
|
|
58,415
|
|
|
52,317
|
|
|
47,912
|
|
||||
|
Operating income
|
23,098
|
|
|
18,800
|
|
|
14,416
|
|
|
26,489
|
|
||||
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Interest expense and other financing costs
|
(1,659
|
)
|
|
(1,669
|
)
|
|
(1,724
|
)
|
|
(1,731
|
)
|
||||
|
Interest income
|
6
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
11
|
|
||||
|
Other income, net
|
15
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
23
|
|
||||
|
Total other income (expense)
|
(1,638
|
)
|
|
(1,663
|
)
|
|
(1,684
|
)
|
|
(1,697
|
)
|
||||
|
Income before income tax expense (benefit)
|
21,460
|
|
|
17,137
|
|
|
12,732
|
|
|
24,792
|
|
||||
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
7
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
21,453
|
|
|
$
|
17,130
|
|
|
$
|
12,719
|
|
|
$
|
24,847
|
|
|
Net income per common unit — basic
|
$
|
0.29
|
|
|
$
|
0.23
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
0.34
|
|
|
Net income per common unit — diluted
|
$
|
0.29
|
|
|
$
|
0.23
|
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
0.34
|
|
|
Weighted-average common units outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Basic
|
73,113
|
|
|
73,113
|
|
|
73,115
|
|
|
73,117
|
|
||||
|
Diluted
|
73,145
|
|
|
73,146
|
|
|
73,139
|
|
|
73,133
|
|
||||
100
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2013
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
Quarter
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
First
|
|
Second
|
|
Third
|
|
Fourth
|
||||||||
|
|
(in thousands, except per unit data)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Net sales
|
$
|
81,411
|
|
|
$
|
88,834
|
|
|
$
|
69,199
|
|
|
$
|
84,228
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Cost of product sold — Affiliates
|
3,089
|
|
|
2,761
|
|
|
2,529
|
|
|
2,412
|
|
||||
|
Cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
7,565
|
|
|
12,810
|
|
|
10,446
|
|
|
16,463
|
|
||||
|
|
10,654
|
|
|
15,571
|
|
|
12,975
|
|
|
18,875
|
|
||||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Affiliates
|
1,003
|
|
|
1,205
|
|
|
1,058
|
|
|
806
|
|
||||
|
Direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
21,554
|
|
|
23,213
|
|
|
22,696
|
|
|
22,557
|
|
||||
|
|
22,557
|
|
|
24,418
|
|
|
23,754
|
|
|
23,363
|
|
||||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Affiliates
|
4,219
|
|
|
4,153
|
|
|
3,620
|
|
|
4,126
|
|
||||
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) — Third parties
|
1,411
|
|
|
1,439
|
|
|
968
|
|
|
1,141
|
|
||||
|
|
5,630
|
|
|
5,592
|
|
|
4,588
|
|
|
5,267
|
|
||||
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
5,767
|
|
|
6,193
|
|
|
6,563
|
|
|
7,055
|
|
||||
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
44,608
|
|
|
51,774
|
|
|
47,880
|
|
|
54,560
|
|
||||
|
Operating income
|
36,803
|
|
|
37,060
|
|
|
21,319
|
|
|
29,668
|
|
||||
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Interest expense and other financing costs
|
(1,280
|
)
|
|
(1,675
|
)
|
|
(1,663
|
)
|
|
(1,676
|
)
|
||||
|
Interest income
|
30
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
8
|
|
||||
|
Other income, net
|
9
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
5
|
|
||||
|
Total other income (expense)
|
(1,241
|
)
|
|
(1,605
|
)
|
|
(1,617
|
)
|
|
(1,663
|
)
|
||||
|
Income before income tax expense (benefit)
|
35,562
|
|
|
35,455
|
|
|
19,702
|
|
|
28,005
|
|
||||
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
9
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
84
|
|
||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
35,553
|
|
|
$
|
35,437
|
|
|
$
|
19,705
|
|
|
$
|
27,921
|
|
|
Net income per common unit — basic
|
$
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
$
|
0.38
|
|
|
Net income per common unit — diluted
|
$
|
0.49
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
0.27
|
|
|
$
|
0.38
|
|
|
Weighted-average common units outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Basic
|
73,065
|
|
|
73,068
|
|
|
73,076
|
|
|
73,079
|
|
||||
|
Diluted
|
73,233
|
|
|
73,230
|
|
|
73,225
|
|
|
73,224
|
|
||||
Factors Impacting the Comparability of Quarterly Results of Operations
During the three months ended June 30, 2014, the gasification, ammonia and UAN units were taken down for between
5
to
7
days each for a planned installation of a waste heat boiler and our completion of several key tasks in order to upgrade to the pressure swing adsorption unit. Overall results were negatively impacted due to the lost production during the downtime and the resulting reduced sales and associated cost of product sold. The Partnership incurred costs related to the repairs and maintenance and other associated costs of approximately
$0.5 million
, which were recognized in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) during the three months ended June 30, 2014.
The three months ended December 31, 2014 were positively impacted by a non-recurring reimbursement associated with utility costs. During the fourth quarter of 2014, the Partnership reported a credit of approximately
$3.4 million
as a reduction to direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
101
CVR PARTNERS, LP AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)
At the end of July 2013, the gasification, ammonia and UAN units were taken down for
7
days for a planned replacement of the damaged 2nd shift catalyst. Overall results were negatively impacted due to the lost production during the downtime and the resulting reduced sales and associated cost of product sold. Total costs related to replacement of the catalyst were approximately
$1.6 million
. Approximately
$0.5 million
and
$1.1 million
of these costs were recognized during the three months ended June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2013, respectively. These costs were included in direct operating expenses (exclusive of depreciation and amortization).
102
Item 9.
Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A.
Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures.
As of
December 31, 2014
, we have evaluated, under the direction of our Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e). There are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of any system of disclosure controls and procedures, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of the controls and procedures. Accordingly, even effective disclosure controls and procedures can only provide reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives. Based upon and as of the date of that evaluation, our Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Partnership's management, including our Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Under the supervision and with the participation of management, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in the 2013
Internal Control — Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission ("COSO"). Based on that evaluation, our Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of
December 31, 2014
. Our independent registered public accounting firm, that audited the consolidated financial statements included herein under Item 8, has issued a report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. This report can be found under Item 8.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
There has been no change in the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting required by Rule 13a-15 of the Exchange Act that occurred during the fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2014
that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B.
Other Information
None.
103
PART III
Item 10.
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Management of CVR Partners, LP
Our general partner, CVR GP, LLC, manages our operations and activities subject to the terms and conditions specified in our partnership agreement. Our general partner is owned by Coffeyville Resources, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy. The operations of our general partner in its capacity as general partner are managed by its board of directors. Actions by our general partner that are made in its individual capacity are made by Coffeyville Resources as the sole member of our general partner and not by the board of directors of our general partner. Our general partner is not elected by our unitholders and is not subject to re-election on a regular basis in the future. The officers of our general partner manage the day-to-day affairs of our business.
Limited partners are not entitled to elect the directors of our general partner or directly or indirectly participate in our management or operation. Our partnership agreement contains various provisions which replace default fiduciary duties with contractual corporate governance standards. Our general partner is liable, as a general partner, for all of our debts (to the extent not paid from our assets), except for indebtedness or other obligations that are made expressly non-recourse to it. Our general partner therefore may cause us to incur indebtedness or other obligations that are non-recourse to it. Our credit facility is non-recourse to our general partner.
As a publicly traded partnership, we qualify for certain exemptions from the NYSE's corporate governance requirements. Our general partner's board of directors has not and does not currently intend to establish a nominating/corporate governance committee. Additionally, a majority of the directors of our general partner do not need to be independent, and the compensation committee of the board of directors of our general partner does not need to be composed entirely of independent directors. 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 NYSE.
The board of directors of our general partner initially consisted of eight directors in 2014, three of whom the board has affirmatively determined are independent in accordance with the rules of the NYSE. The board of directors of our general partner met three times in 2014, and acted by consent 10 times. All of the directors who served during 2014 attended at least 75% of the total meetings of the board of directors of our general partner and each of the committees on which such director served during their respective tenure on the board, except that Mr. Cho and Mr. Shea were absent from one meeting and Mr. Roberto was absent from two of our board meetings. As of the date of this Report, the board of directors of our general partner consists of seven directors, three of whom the board has affirmatively determined are independent in accordance with the rules of the NYSE (Donna R. Ecton, Frank M. Muller, Jr. and Peter K. Shea). Effective January 1, 2014, Byron R. Kelly resigned from the board of directors of our general partner and his position as chief executive officer and president in connection with his retirement. In addition, effective February 6, 2014, Daniel A. Ninivaggi resigned from, and Andrew Roberto was concurrently appointed to, the board of directors of our general partner. Effective May 5, 2014, Mr. Shea was appointed to the board of directors of our general partner. Effective June 30, 2014, Stanley A. Riemann resigned from the board of directors of our general partner in connection with his retirement.
The board of directors of our general partner has established an audit committee. During 2014, the audit committee was initially comprised of Donna R. Ecton (chairman), Mark A. Pytosh and Frank M. Muller, Jr.. Mr. Shea replaced Mr. Pytosh on the audit committee effective May 5, 2014 following Mr. Pytosh's appointment as chief executive officer and president. Each of the members of the audit committee meets the independence and experience standards established by the NYSE and the Exchange Act. The audit committee's responsibilities are to review our accounting and auditing principles and procedures, accounting functions and internal controls; to oversee the qualifications, independence, appointment, retention, compensation and performance of our independent registered public accounting firm; to recommend to the board of directors the engagement of our independent accountants; to review with the independent accountants the plans and results of the auditing engagement; and to oversee "whistle-blowing" procedures and certain other compliance matters. The audit committee met six times in 2014.
The board of directors has determined that Ms. Ecton qualifies as an "audit committee financial expert," as defined by applicable rules of the SEC, and that each member of the audit committee is "financially literate" under the requirements of the NYSE.
In addition, the board of directors of our general partner has established a conflicts committee. During 2014, the conflicts committee was initially comprised of Donna R. Ecton (chairman), Mark A. Pytosh and Frank M. Muller, Jr. Mr. Pytosh ceased to serve on the conflicts committee effective May 5, 2014 following his appointment as chief executive officer and president. Pursuant to our partnership agreement, the board may, but is not required to, seek the approval of the conflicts committee whenever a conflict arises between our general partner or its affiliates, on the one hand, and us or any public unitholder, on the
104
other. The conflicts committee may then determine whether the resolution of the conflict of interest is in the best interest of the Partnership. The members of the conflicts committee may not be officers or employees of our general partner or directors, officers or employees of its affiliates, and must meet the independence standard established by the NYSE and the Exchange Act to serve on an audit committee of a board of directors. Any matters approved by the conflicts committee are conclusively deemed to be fair and reasonable to us, approved by all of our partners and not a breach by the general partner of any duties it may owe us or our unitholders. The conflicts committee met three times in 2014.
The board of directors of our general partner also created a compensation committee. During 2014, the compensation committee was initially comprised of Frank M. Muller, Jr. (chairman), SungHwan Cho and Daniel A. Ninivaggi. Effective February 6, 2014, Mr. Ninivaggi resigned from, and Andrew Roberto was concurrently appointed to, the compensation committee. In addition, Mr. Cho resigned from the compensation committee on September 23, 2014. As of the date of this Report, the compensation committee consists of Frank M. Muller, Jr. (chairman) and Andrew Roberto.
The compensation committee (1) establishes policies and periodically determines matters involving executive compensation, (2) grants or recommends the grant of equity awards under the CVR Partners LTIP, (3) provides counsel regarding key personnel selection, (4) may elect to retain independent compensation consultants, (5) recommends to the board of directors the structure of non-employee director compensation and (6) assists the board of directors in assessing any risks to the Partnership associated with employee compensation practices and policies. In addition, the compensation committee reviews and discusses our Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management and produces a report on executive compensation for inclusion in our annual report on Form 10-K in compliance with applicable federal securities laws. The compensation committee met two times in 2014.
The board of directors of our general partner has created an environmental, health and safety committee. During 2014, the environmental, health and safety committee was initially comprised of Mark A. Pytosh (chairman), Donna R. Ecton, Frank M. Muller, Jr. and Stanley A. Riemann. Mr. Riemann resigned from the board of directors of our general partner in connection with his retirement effective June 30, 2014. The environmental, health and safety committee's responsibilities are to provide oversight with respect to management's establishment and administration of environmental, health and safety policies, programs, procedures and initiatives. The environmental, health and safety committee met one time in 2014.
Whenever our general partner makes a determination or takes or declines to take an action in its individual, rather than representative, capacity, it is entitled to make such determination or to take or decline to take such other action free of any fiduciary duty or obligation whatsoever to us, any limited partner or assignee, and it is not required to act in good faith or pursuant to any other standard imposed by our partnership agreement or under Delaware law or any other law. Examples include the exercise of its call right or its registration rights, its voting rights with respect to the units it owns and its determination whether or not to consent to any merger or consolidation of the partnership. Actions by our general partner that are made in its individual capacity are made by Coffeyville Resources, the sole member of our general partner, not by its board of directors.
Meetings of Independent or Non-Management Directors and Executive Sessions
To promote open discussion among independent and non-management directors, we schedule regular executive sessions in which our independent or non-management directors meet without management participation. At the end of 2014, three of our seven directors were independent, and five of our seven directors were non-management. Our independent directors met during one executive session in 2014. Ms. Donna R. Ecton (independent) presided over the executive session held by our independent directors. Our non-management directors did not meet in executive session in 2014. The non-management directors determine who will preside over their executive sessions.
Communications with Directors
Unitholders and other interested parties wishing to communicate with our Board may send a written communication addressed to:
CVR Partners, LP
2277 Plaza Drive, Suite 500
Sugar Land, Texas 77479
Attention: Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Our General Counsel will forward all appropriate communications directly to our Board or to any individual director or directors, depending upon the facts and circumstances outlined in the communication. Any unitholder or other interested party who is interested in contacting only the independent directors or non-management directors as a group or the director who presides over the meetings of the independent directors or non-management directors may also send written communications to the contact above and should state for whom the communication is intended.
105
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The board of directors of our general partner has created a compensation committee. During 2014, the compensation committee was initially comprised of Frank M. Muller, Jr. (chairman), SungHwan Cho and Daniel A. Ninivaggi. Effective February 6, 2014, Mr. Ninivaggi resigned from, and Andrew Roberto was concurrently appointed to, the compensation committee. In addition, Mr. Cho resigned from the compensation committee on September 23, 2014. As of the date of this Report, the compensation committee consists of Frank M. Muller, Jr. (chairman) and Andrew Roberto. None of the members of the compensation committee of our general partner during 2014 has, at any time, been an officer or employee of the Partnership or our general partner and none has any relationship requiring disclosure under Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Exchange Act. No interlocking relationship exists between the board of directors or compensation committee of our general partner and the board of directors or compensation committee of any other company.
Executive Officers and Directors
The following table sets forth the names, positions and ages (as of February 17, 2015) of the executive officers and directors of our general partner.
The executive officers named below (other than Mr. Pytosh and Mr. White) are also executive officers of CVR Energy and are providing their services to our general partner and us pursuant to the services agreement entered into among us, CVR Energy and our general partner. The shared executive officers divide their working time between the management of CVR Energy, CVR Refining and us. The approximate weighted-average percentages of the amount of time the shared executive officers spent on management of our partnership in 2014 are as follows: John J. Lipinski (14%), Susan M. Ball (28%), and John R. Walter (28%). Mr. Walter was appointed senior vice president, general counsel and secretary effective January 1, 2015.
Effective April 11, 2014, Christopher G. Swanberg resigned as vice president, environmental, health and safety. Effective June 30, 2014, Stanley Riemann resigned as chief operating officer in connection with his retirement. Effective December 31, 2014, Edmund S. Gross resigned as senior vice president, general counsel and secretary in connection with his retirement.
Effective May 5, 2014, Mark A. Pytosh was appointed as chief executive officer and president of our general partner. Mr. Pytosh also provides services to CVR Energy pursuant to the GP services agreement entered into among us, our general partner and CVR Energy. During 2014, Mr. Pytosh spent approximately 68% of his time on management of our partnership, while the remaining approximately 32% was spent on matters for CVR Energy and CVR Refining. Effective June 23, 2014, William White was appointed as executive vice president, marketing and operations of our general partner. Mr. White spends 100% of his time on management of our partnership.
Effective February 6, 2014, Daniel A. Ninivaggi resigned from, and Andrew Roberto was concurrently appointed to, the board of directors of our general partner. Effective May 5, 2014, Peter K. Shea was appointed to the board of directors of our general partner. Effective June 30, 2014, Stanley A. Riemann resigned from the board of directors of our general partner in connection with his retirement.
|
Name
|
Age
|
|
Position With Our General Partner
|
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
63
|
|
|
Executive Chairman and Director
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh
|
50
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
|
Susan M. Ball
|
51
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
|
John R. Walter
|
38
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
|
|
William White
|
59
|
|
|
Executive Vice President, Marketing and Operations
|
|
SungHwan Cho
|
40
|
|
|
Director
|
|
Donna R. Ecton
|
67
|
|
|
Director
|
|
Frank M. Muller, Jr.
|
72
|
|
|
Director
|
|
Peter K. Shea
|
63
|
|
|
Director
|
|
Andrew Roberto
|
28
|
|
|
Director
|
John J. Lipinski
has served as chairman of the board of our general partner since November 2010 and executive chairman since June 2011. He has been a director of our general partner since October 2007, and was chief executive officer and president from October 2007 to June 2011 and from January 2014 to May 2014. In addition, he has served as CVR Energy's chief executive officer and president and as a member of the board of directors since September 2006, and previously served as the chairman of its board of directors from April 2009 until May 2012. In addition, Mr. Lipinski has served as the chief executive officer, president, and director of CVR Refining's general partner since its inception in September 2012. Mr. Lipinski
106
has over 40 years of experience in the petroleum refining and nitrogen fertilizer industries. He began his career with Texaco Inc. In 1985, Mr. Lipinski joined The Coastal Corporation, eventually serving as Vice President of Refining with overall responsibility for Coastal Corporation's refining and petrochemical operations. Upon the merger of Coastal with El Paso Corporation in 2001, Mr. Lipinski was promoted to Executive Vice President of Refining and Chemicals, where he was responsible for all refining, petrochemical, nitrogen-based chemical processing and lubricant operations, as well as the corporate engineering and construction group. Mr. Lipinski left El Paso in 2002 and became an independent management consultant. In 2004, he became a managing director and partner of Prudentia Energy, an advisory and management firm. Mr. Lipinski currently serves on the board of directors of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, an oil and gas exploration and production company. Mr. Lipinski graduated from Stevens Institute of Technology with a bachelor's degree in Engineering (Chemical) and received a Juris Doctor from Rutgers University School of Law. Mr. Lipinski's over 40 years of experience in the petroleum refining and nitrogen fertilizer industries adds significant value to the board of directors of our general partner, and his in-depth knowledge of the issues, opportunities and challenges facing our business provides the direction and focus the board needs to ensure the most critical matters are addressed.
Mark A. Pytosh
has served as chief executive officer and president of our general partner since May 2014, and has served as a director of our general partner since June 2011. Prior to joining CVR Partners, Mr. Pytosh served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Alberta, Canada-based Tervita Corporation, an environmental and energy services company. From 2006 to 2010, he served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Covanta Energy Corporation, which owns and operates energy-from-waste power facilities, biomass power facilities and independent power plants in the United States, Europe and Asia. Prior to Covanta, Mr. Pytosh served as Executive Vice President from 2004 to 2006, and Chief Financial Officer from 2005 to 2006, for Waste Services, Inc., an integrated solid waste services company that operates in the United States and Canada. Prior to joining the renewable energy and waste industries, Mr. Pytosh spent 18 years in the investment banking industry, working with a broad range of clients in the environmental services, automotive, construction equipment and a variety of other industrial sectors. From 2000 to 2004, he was a Managing Director in investment banking at Lehman Brothers, where he led the firm’s global industrial group. Prior to joining Lehman Brothers, he was a Managing Director at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, where he led the firm’s environmental services and automotive industry groups. Mr. Pytosh received a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He also serves on the Board of Directors for the University of Illinois Foundation. We believe Mr. Pytosh's experience with public companies in the energy industry and strong financial background is an asset to our board.
Susan M. Ball
has served as chief financial officer and treasurer of our general partner and CVR Energy since August 2012. She has previously served as Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Assistant Treasurer of CVR Energy and the general partner of CVR Partners since October 2007 and as Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Assistant Treasurer for Coffeyville Resources since May 2006. In addition, Ms. Ball has also served as the chief financial officer and treasurer of CVR Refining's general partner since its inception in September 2012. Ms. Ball has more than 30 years of experience in the accounting industry, with more than 12 years serving clients in the public accounting industry. Prior to joining CVR Energy, she served as a Tax Managing Director with KPMG LLP, where she was responsible for all aspects of federal and state income tax compliance and tax consulting, which included a significant amount of mergers and acquisition work on behalf of her clients. Ms. Ball received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Missouri Western State University and is a Certified Public Accountant.
John R. Walter
has served as senior vice president, general counsel and secretary of CVR Energy and each of the general partners of CVR Refining and CVR Partners since January 2015. He has served as vice president, associate general counsel since January 2011, assistant secretary since May 2011 and associate general counsel since March 2008. Prior to joining CVR Energy, Mr. Walter was an associate at Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP in Kansas City, Missouri from 2006 to 2008, and was an associate at Seigfreid, Bingham, Levy, Selzer & Gee, P.C. in Kansas City, Missouri from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Walter received a Bachelor of Science in psychology from Colorado State University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Kansas.
William White
has served as executive vice president of marketing and operations of our general partner since June 2014. Mr. White has more than 37 years of experience in the chemical industry. He first joined Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CVR Partners, in 2005 as the director of business development and logistics. He later served as our general partner's vice president of marketing. In 2012, he was promoted to vice president of marketing, development and logistics. Mr. White spent the majority of his career serving in various management positions related to predecessor companies of CVR Partners, such as manager of Farmland Industries, Inc.'s ("Farmland") product distribution system and plant manager at Farmland’s Pollock, La., and Enid, Okla., fertilizer plants. Prior to joining Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, he served as the general manager for EPCO Carbon Dioxide Products, Inc. Mr. White holds a bachelor’s degree in business from the University of Louisiana at Monroe. He currently serves on the board of directors for The Fertilizer Institute.
107
SungHwan Cho
has served as Chief Financial Officer of Icahn Enterprises L.P., a diversified holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including investment, automotive, energy, gaming, railcar, food packaging, metals, real estate and home fashion, since March 2012. Prior to that time, he was Senior Vice President and previously Portfolio Company Associate at Icahn Enterprises since October 2006. Mr. Cho has been a director of: American Railcar Leasing LLC, a lessor and seller of specialized railroad tank and covered hopper railcars, since September 2013; CVR Refining, LP, an independent downstream energy limited partnership, since January 2013; Icahn Enterprises L.P., since September 2012; CVR Energy, Inc., a diversified holding company primarily engaged in the petroleum refining and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing industries, since May 2012; CVR Partners LP, a nitrogen fertilizer company, since May 2012; Federal-Mogul Corporation, a supplier of automotive powertrain and safety components, since May 2012; XO Holdings, a competitive provider of telecom services, since August 2011; American Railcar Industries, Inc., a railcar manufacturing company, since June 2011 (and has been Chairman of the Board of American Railcar Industries since July 2014); WestPoint Home LLC, a home textiles manufacturer, since January 2008; PSC Metals Inc., a metal recycling company, since December 2006; and Viskase Companies, Inc., a meat casing company, since November 2006. Mr. Cho was previously a director of Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., a publisher of interactive entertainment products, from April 2010 to November 2013. American Railcar Leasing, CVR Refining, Icahn Enterprises, CVR Energy, CVR Partners, Federal-Mogul, XO Holdings, American Railcar Industries, WestPoint Home, PSC Metals and Viskase Companies each are indirectly controlled by Carl C. Icahn. Mr. Icahn also had a non−controlling interest in Take-Two Interactive Software through the ownership of securities. Mr. Cho received a B.S. in Computer Science from Stanford University and an MBA from New York University, Stern School of Business. Based upon Mr. Cho's deep understanding of finance and risk obtained from his past experience, including his position as an investment banker at Salomon Smith Barney, we believe that Mr. Cho has the requisite set of skills to serve as a member of our board.
Donna R. Ecton
has been a member of the board of directors of our general partner since March 2008. Ms. Ecton is chairman and chief executive officer of EEI Inc. which she founded in 1998. EEI is a management consulting practice which provides private equity and sub debt firms with turnaround assistance, due diligence through market/operational assessments of companies being considered for acquisition, as well as mentoring and coaching for chief executive officers. Prior to this, she served on the board of directors of PETsMART where she was asked to take over the role of chief operating officer. Other operating experience includes serving as chief executive officer of Business Mail Express, Inc., Van Houten North America and Andes Candies, Inc. Ms. Ecton has also served as a corporate officer of Nutri/System, Inc. and Campbell Soup Company, as well as running the upper Manhattan middle market lending business and the midtown Manhattan banks for Citibank, N.A. Ms. Ecton currently is a member of the board of directors of KAR Auction Services, Inc., a leading provider of vehicle auction services in North America. Previous public company board of director positions have included Mellon Bank Corporation and Mellon Bank N.A., Mellon PSFS, H&R Block, Inc., Tandy Corporation, Barnes Group Inc., Vencor, Inc., and Body Central Corp. Ms. Ecton has also served as a board member or chairman of numerous privately held companies and non-profit organizations. Ms. Ecton also serves on the NYSE Governance Services Advisory Council. Ms. Ecton earned her MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, and received her BA in economics from Wellesley College, graduating as a Durant Scholar. Ms. Ecton was elected and served on the Harvard Board of Overseers, and as president of the Harvard Business School Association’s Executive Council. She also served on the Business Advisory Council of the Carnegie Mellon Graduate School of Industrial Administration. Ms. Ecton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. We believe Ms. Ecton's significant background as both an executive officer and director of public companies and experience in finance is an asset to our board. Her knowledge and experience provide the audit committee with valuable perspective in managing the relationship with our independent accountants and the performance of the financial auditing oversight.
Frank M. Muller, Jr.
has been a member of the board of directors of our general partner since May 2008. Until August 2009, Mr. Muller served as the chairman and chief executive officer of the technology design and manufacturing firm TenX Technology, Inc., which he founded in 1985. He is currently the president of Toby Enterprises, which he founded in 1999 to invest in startup companies, and the chairman of Topaz Technologies, Ltd., a software engineering company. Mr. Muller was a senior vice president of The Coastal Corporation from 1989 to 2001, focusing on business acquisitions and joint ventures, and general manager of the Kensington Company, Ltd. from 1984 to 1989. Mr. Muller started his business career in the oil and chemical industries with Pepsico, Inc. and Agrico Chemical Company. Mr. Muller served in the United States Army from 1965 to 1973. Mr. Muller received a BS and MBA from Texas A&M University. We believe Mr. Muller's experience in the chemical industry and expertise in developing and growing new businesses is an asset to our board.
Andrew Roberto, CFA,
has served as an Analyst at Icahn Enterprises L.P. since May 2012. Icahn Enterprises is a diversified holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including investment, automotive, energy, gaming, railcar, food packaging, metals, real estate and home fashion. Mr. Roberto is responsible for identifying, analyzing and monitoring investment opportunities and portfolio companies for Icahn Enterprises. Prior to joining Icahn Enterprises, Mr. Roberto served as a research analyst at RBS Securities covering the automotive, industrial, coal, homebuilding and building products sectors as a member of the high yield and distressed debt trading team. Mr. Roberto began his career at AllianceBernstein, where he focused on client services and relationship management. Mr. Roberto has been a director of: Voltari Corporation, a mobile data services provider, since August 2014; American Railcar Industries, Inc., a railcar manufacturing company, since February 2014;
108
CVR Energy, Inc., a diversified holding company primarily engaged in the petroleum refining and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing industries, since February 2014; CVR Partners LP, a nitrogen fertilizer company, since February 2014; CVR Refining, LP, an independent downstream energy limited partnership, since February 2014; WestPoint Home LLC, a home textiles manufacturer, since February 2014; and Viskase Companies, Inc., a meat casing company, since February 2014. Mr. Roberto was previously a director of American Railcar Leasing LLC, a lessor and seller of specialized railroad tank and covered hopper railcars, from February 2014 to June 2014. American Railcar Industries, American Railcar Leasing, CVR Energy, CVR Partners, Westpoint Home and Viskase are each indirectly controlled by Carl C. Icahn. Mr. Icahn also has a non−controlling interest in Voltari through the ownership of securities. Mr. Roberto received his B.A. in Economics from Williams College and is a CFA Charterholder. Based upon Mr. Roberto's strong financial background and experience as an analyst, we believe that Mr. Roberto has the requisite set of skills to serve as a member of our board.
Peter K. Shea
has been a member of the board of directors of our general partner since May 2014. Mr. Shea has been a private equity investor since January 2010. He has been a director of Viskase Companies, Inc., a supplier of cellulose and fibrous casings, from October 2006 to the present, where he is currently a member of the audit committee. He also serves as a director of Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (or SPAC), since January 2014, where he is currently a member of the audit committee and chairman of the compensation committee, Sitel Worldwide Corporation, a customer care solutions provider, since October 2011 and Give and Go Prepared Foods, a bakery manufacturer, since January 2012. Mr. Shea also serves as chairman of the board of directors of FeraDyne Outdoors, LLC, a privately-held manufacturer of outdoor products, and Teasdale Foods Inc., a privately-held provider of canned food products. He was a Director of CTI Foods, a processor of protein and soup products for quick serve restaurant chains from May 2010 to July 2013. Mr. Shea was President of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc. from October 2006 to June 2009. Mr. Shea served as a director of each of the following companies from October 2006 to May 2009 (each of which, at such time were indirectly controlled by Carl C. Icahn): XO Holdings, a telecommunications services provider, American Railcar, a manufacturer of covered hopper and tank railcars, WestPoint International, a home textiles manufacturer and PSC Metals, a national operator of scrap yards. From 2002 to 2006 Mr. Shea was an independent consultant to various companies, an advisor to private equity firms and a director of Sabert Company, a packaging company. From 1997 to 2001, he was a Managing Director of H.J. Heinz Company in Europe, a manufacturer and marketer of a broad line of food products across the globe. Mr. Shea has been Chairman, Chief Executive Officer or President of other companies including SMG Corporation, John Morrell & Company and Polymer United. SMG and John Morrell were international meat processing firms and Polymer United was a leading plastics manufacturer operating throughout Central America. Previously, he held various executive positions, including Head of Global Corporate Development, with United Brands Company, a Fortune 100 company with a broad portfolio of companies operating in many sectors. He has also served on the Boards of Premium Standard Farms and New Energy Company of Indiana. Mr. Shea began his career with General Foods Corporation. He has an M.B.A. from the University of Southern California and a B.B.A. from Iona College. We believe Mr. Shea's broad executive, financial and operational experience, combined with his extensive board experience will be an asset to our board.
The directors of our general partner hold office until the earlier of their death, resignation or removal.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our executive officers and directors and each person who owns more than 10% of our outstanding common units, to file reports of their common unit ownership and changes in their ownership of our common units with the SEC and the NYSE. These same people must also furnish us with copies of these reports and representations made to us that no other reports were required. We have performed a general review of such reports and amendments thereto filed in
2014
. Based solely on our review of the copies of such reports furnished to us or such representations, as appropriate, to our knowledge all of our executive officers and directors, and other persons who owned more than 10% of our outstanding common units, fully complied with the reporting requirements of Section 16(a) during
2014
, with the exception of one Form 4 covering one transaction for Peter K. Shea, which was filed late.
Corporate Governance Guidelines and Codes of Ethics
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as our Code of Ethics, which applies to all of our directors, officers and employees, and our Senior Officer Code of Ethics, which applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, controller and other persons performing similar functions, are available free of charge on our website at www.cvrpartners.com. These documents are also available in print without charge to any unitholder requesting them.
109
Item 11.
Executive Compensation
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Overview
The Partnership does not directly employ any of the executives responsible for the management of our business. Our general partner employs Mark A. Pytosh as our chief executive officer and president effective May 5, 2014. In addition, our general partner employs William White, who was appointed as executive vice president, marketing and operations for our general partner as of June 23, 2014. The following additional executives who were responsible for the management of our business during 2014 are employed by CVR Energy: John J. Lipinski (our executive chairman); Susan M. Ball (our chief financial officer); Edmund S. Gross (our former general counsel) and Stanley A. Riemann (our former chief operating officer). Mr. Riemann and Mr. Gross resigned from their positions in connection with their retirement on June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Throughout this Annual Report, Messrs. Lipinski and Pytosh, Ms. Ball, and Messrs. White, Gross and Riemann are referred to collectively as the named executive officers.
The approximate weighted-average percentages of the amount of time that the named executive officers dedicated to the management of our business in 2014 were as follows: John J. Lipinski (14%); Mark A. Pytosh (68%); Susan M. Ball (28%); William White (100%); Edmund S. Gross (25%); and Stanley A. Riemann (30%). These numbers are weighted because the named executive officers may spend a different percentage of their time dedicated to our business each quarter. The remainder of their time, if any, was spent working for CVR Energy or CVR Refining.
Messrs. Pytosh and White were employed and paid by our general partner, whereas Mr. Lipinski and Ms. Ball are, and Messrs. Gross and Riemann were employed and paid by CVR Energy. The compensation of Messrs. Pytosh and White was determined by the general partner of the Partnership. The compensation of Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Ball and Messrs. Gross and Riemann was determined by CVR Energy. In addition, during 2014 all of the named executive officers participated in the welfare and retirement plans of CVR Energy. The Partnership has no control and does not establish or direct the compensation policies or practices of CVR Energy. The Partnership bears an allocated portion of CVR Energy's costs of providing compensation and benefits to the CVR Energy employees who serve as executive officers of our general partner pursuant to the services agreement described below. Pursuant to such services agreement, we are required to pay all compensation amounts allocated to us by CVR Energy, except for share-based compensation awarded by CVR Energy prior to December 2013, although we may object to amounts that we deem unreasonable. We also pay our allocated portion of performance units and incentive units issued by CVR Energy in December 2013 and during 2014 to those personnel providing services to the Partnership via the services agreement.
Pursuant to the services agreement between us, our general partner and CVR Energy, among other matters:
|
•
|
CVR Energy makes available to our general partner the services of the CVR Energy executive officers and employees, certain of whom serve as executive officers of our general partner; and
|
|
•
|
We, our general partner and our operating subsidiary, as the case may be, are obligated to reimburse CVR Energy for any allocated portion of the costs that CVR Energy incurs in providing compensation and benefits to such CVR Energy employees, with the exception of costs attributable to certain share-based compensation awarded by CVR Energy prior to December 2013. We also pay our allocated portion of performance units and incentive units issued by CVR Energy in December 2013 and during 2014 to those personnel providing services to the Partnership via the services agreement.
|
Under the services agreement, either our general partner, CRNF (our subsidiary) or we pay CVR Energy: (i) all costs incurred by CVR Energy or its affiliates in connection with the employment of its employees, other than administrative personnel, who provide us services under the agreement on a full-time basis, but excluding certain share-based compensation, except for performance units and incentive units issued in December 2013 and during 2014; (ii) a prorated share of costs incurred by CVR Energy or its affiliates in connection with the employment of its employees, including administrative personnel, who provide us services under the agreement on a part-time basis, but excluding certain share-based compensation except as noted for performance units and incentive units issued in December 2013 and during 2014, with such prorated share determined by CVR Energy on a commercially reasonable basis, based on the percent of total working time that such shared personnel are engaged in performing services for us; (iii) a prorated share of certain administrative costs, including office costs, services by outside vendors, other sales, general and administrative costs and depreciation and amortization; and (iv) various other administrative costs in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Either CVR Energy or our general partner may terminate the services agreement upon at least 180 days' notice. For more information on this services agreement, see "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence — Agreements with CVR Energy." In addition, pursuant to the GP Services Agreement entered into among the Partnership, our general partner and CVR Energy, CVR Energy must pay a prorated share of costs incurred by the Partnership or its general partner in connection with the provision of services to CVR
110
Energy on a part-time basis by employees of the Partnership, as determined by the general partner on a commercially reasonable basis based on the percentage of total working time that such shared personnel are engaged in performing services for CVR Energy. During 2014, Mr. Pytosh spent approximately 32% of his time on matters for CVR Energy. Mr. White did not provide any services to CVR Energy.
Based on an internal review by the compensation committee of our general partner of our material compensation programs and its understanding of the material compensation programs of CVR Energy, the compensation committee of our general partner has concluded that there are no plans that provide meaningful incentives for employees, including the named executive officers, to take risks that would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Partnership.
As discussed above, 2014 compensation for Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Ball and Messrs. Gross and Riemann was set by CVR Energy, while the 2014 compensation for Messrs. Pytosh and White was set by our general partner. The remainder of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis is divided into two sections; the first focuses on CVR Partners' compensation programs and the second focuses on CVR Energy's compensation programs.
CVR Partners' Compensation Programs
The following discussion relates to the 2014 compensation of the named executive officers who were employees of our general partner through December 31, 2014, Messrs. Pytosh and White. Accordingly, references to the named executive officers in this section shall refer solely to Messrs. Pytosh and White. In addition, all references to our compensation committee refer to the compensation committee of the board of directors of our general partner.
Compensation Objectives
CVR Partners' executive compensation objectives are threefold:
|
•
|
To align the executive officers' interest with that of the unitholders and stakeholders, which provides long-term economic benefits to the unitholders;
|
|
•
|
To provide competitive financial incentives in the form of salary, bonuses and benefits with the goal of retaining and attracting talented and highly motivated executive officers; and
|
|
•
|
To maintain a compensation program whereby the executive officers, through exceptional performance and equity-based incentive awards, have the opportunity to realize economic rewards commensurate with appropriate gains of other unitholders and stakeholders.
|
CVR Partners takes these main objectives into consideration when creating its compensation programs, setting each element of compensation under those programs, and determining the proper mix of the various compensation elements.
Elements of Compensation Program
For 2014, the three primary components of CVR Partners' compensation program were base salary, an annual performance-based cash bonus and equity-based incentive awards. While these three components are related, they are viewed as separate and analyzed as such. The named executive officers are also provided with benefits that are generally available to CVR Partners' salaried employees.
CVR Partners believes that equity-based compensation is the primary motivator in attracting and retaining executive officers. Salary and cash bonuses are viewed as secondary. However, the compensation committee views a competitive level of salary and cash bonus as critical to retaining talented individuals.
The compensation committee has not adopted any formal or informal policies or guidelines for allocating compensation between long-term and current compensation, between cash and non-cash compensation, or among different forms of compensation other than its belief that the most crucial component is equity-based compensation. The decision is strictly made on a subjective and individual basis after consideration of all relevant factors. The executive chairman and chief executive officer of CVR Partners, while not members of the compensation committee, review information provided by the committee's compensation consultant, Longnecker & Associates ("Longnecker"), as well as other relevant market information and actively provides guidance and recommendations to the committee regarding the amount and form of the compensation of other executives and key employees.
Longnecker was engaged by CVR Partners on behalf of its compensation committee to assist the committee with benchmarking of certain executive compensation levels and to generally assess the level of compensation increases from 2013 to 2014 and 2015. The compensation committee utilized this information, in addition to Longnecker's 2013 study, to review and approve executive compensation levels. Longnecker's 2013 study included an analysis regarding executive compensation levels and the mix of compensation as compared to peer companies, companies of similar size and other relevant market
111
information. Management reviewed this compilation of information and then provided it to the compensation committee for its use in making decisions regarding the salary, bonus and other compensation amounts paid to named executive officers. The following companies were included in the 2013 report and analysis prepared by Longnecker as members of CVR Partners' "peer group" — Alliance Holdings GP L.P., AmeriGas Partners L.P., Atlas Pipeline Partners L.P., Calumet Specialty Products Partners, LP, Copano Energy LLC, DCP Midstream Partners, LP, Eagle Rock Energy Partners L.P., Ferrellgas Partners L.P., Genesis Energy L.P., Natural Resource Partners, LP and PVR Partners, LP. Although no specific target for total compensation or any particular element of compensation was set relative to CVR Partners' peer group, the focus of Longnecker's 2013 recommendations was centered on compensation levels between the 50th and 75th percentile of the peer group.
Base Salary.
Mr. Pytosh has an employment agreement with our general partner that sets forth his initial base salary. Mr. White does not have an employment agreement. Base salaries are set at a level intended to enable CVR Partners to hire and retain executives, to enhance the executive's motivation in a highly competitive and dynamic environment, and to reward individual and company performance. In determining base salary levels, the compensation committee takes into account the following factors: (i) CVR Partners' financial and operational performance for the year; (ii) the previous years' compensation level for each executive; (iii) peer or market survey information for comparable public companies; and (iv) recommendations of the executive chairman and chief executive officer, based on individual responsibilities and performance, including each executive's commitment and ability to (A) strategically meet business challenges, (B) achieve financial results, (C) promote legal and ethical compliance, (D) lead their own business or business team for which they are responsible and (E) diligently and effectively respond to immediate needs of the volatile industry and business environment.
Rather than establishing compensation solely on a formula-driven basis, decisions by our compensation committee are made using an approach that considers several important factors in developing compensation levels. For example, the compensation committee considers whether individual base salaries reflect responsibility levels and are reasonable, competitive and fair. In addition, in setting base salaries, the compensation committee reviews published survey and peer group data prepared by Longnecker and considers the applicability of the salary data in view of the individual positions within CVR Partners.
Salaries are reviewed annually by the compensation committee with periodic informal reviews throughout the year. Adjustments, if any, are usually made effective January 1 of the year immediately following the review. The compensation committee most recently reviewed the level of base salary and cash bonus for each of the named executive officers in 2014 in conjunction with their responsibilities and expectations for 2015. They concluded their review in December 2014, and set the following base salaries for the named executive officers as of January 1, 2015: $510,000 for Mr. Pytosh and $270,000 for Mr. White. Individual performance, the practices of our peer group of companies as reflected in the analysis and report of Longnecker, and changes in the named executive officers' positions and levels of responsibility were considered. Among these three factors, slightly more weight was given to the report and findings of Longnecker.
Annual Bonus.
CVR Partners' annual bonus program is designed to meet each of its compensation objectives. Specifically, CVR Partners' annual bonus program rewards executives only for measured company performance, thereby aligning the executive's interest with those of its unitholders and encouraging executives to focus on targeted performance. Further, the program also provides executives with the opportunity to earn additional compensation, thereby making our total compensation package more competitive.
Information about total cash compensation paid by members of CVR Partners' peer group is used in determining both the level of bonus award and the ratio of salary to bonus, as the compensation committee believes that maintaining a level of bonus and a ratio of fixed salary to bonus (which may fluctuate) that is in line with those of our competitors is an important factor in attracting and retaining executives. The compensation committee also believes that a significant portion of an executive's compensation should be at risk, which means that a portion of the executive's overall compensation is not guaranteed and is determined based on individual and company performance. Executives have greater potential bonus awards as the authority and responsibility of an executive increases. Each of the named executive officers is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus with a target bonus equal to a specified percentage of the relevant executive's annual base salary. For 2014, the target bonuses for the named executive officers were 125% for Mr. Pytosh and 70% for Mr. White. These target percentages were the result of individual negotiations between the named executive officers and our general partner, and were in correlation with the findings and recommendations by Longnecker based upon review of CVR Partners' peer group, companies of similar size and other relevant market information. Specific bonus measures were determined by the compensation committee, following discussions with CVR Partners' management.
In 2012, CVR Partners adopted the CVR Partners, LP Performance Incentive Plan (the "CVR Partners PIP"), pursuant to which Messrs. Pytosh and White had the opportunity to earn bonuses in respect of 2014 performance. The payment of annual bonuses for the 2014 performance year to the named executive officers depended on the achievement of financial, operational and safety measures, which comprised 30%, 50% and 20% of the annual bonuses, respectively. Specific bonus measures were determined by the compensation committee based on its review of peer group information provided by Longnecker and
112
discussions with management, and were selected with the goals of optimizing operations, maintaining financial stability and providing a safe work environment intended to maximize CVR Partners' overall performance resulting in increased unitholder value. The compensation committee also approved the threshold, target and maximum performance goals with respect to each performance measure. No payment will be made with respect to the measures unless the threshold of the relevant performance measure is achieved.
The 2014 financial measure was fertilizer adjusted EBITDA, which was derived from fertilizer earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, and adjusted for total cash and non-cash share-based compensation expense, turnaround expenses, and board-directed actions.
The 2014 operational measure was UAN production volume as adjusted at discretion of our compensation committee for downtime caused by third parties.
The 2014 safety measures included the following: fertilizer OSHA recordable injury statistics (based upon nitrogen segment OSHA injuries); OSHA lost time injury statistics (based upon nitrogen segment OSHA lost time injuries); EH&S severity statistics (based upon nitrogen segment EH&S severity); air reportable releases (based upon nitrogen segment EPA reportable quantity releases); air reportable release quantity (based upon nitrogen segment EPA reportable quantity releases); tier 1 process safety events (based upon nitrogen segment API process safety events); tier 1 severity (based upon nitrogen segment API process safety events); and tier 2 process safety events (based upon nitrogen segment API process safety events).
113
The table below reflects: (i) the financial, operational and safety measures used to determine 2014 bonuses for Messrs. Pytosh and White; (ii) the threshold, target and maximum performance levels for each measure; (iii) the actual results with respect to each measure; and (iv) the portion of the 2014 bonus determined based on each such measure. The named executive officers could have received 0% or 50% for threshold levels, 100% for target levels, and 150% for maximum levels, respectively.
|
2014 Performance Measure
|
2014 Performance Goals
Threshold/Target/Maximum
|
|
2014 Actual Results
|
|
Portion of Target Bonus Allocable to Measure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fertilizer Adjusted EBITDA
|
Threshold: $77.0 million
Target: $102.6 million
Maximum: $132.6 million
|
|
$112.6 million
|
|
30% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UAN Production Measure
|
Threshold: 916,097 tons
Target: 1,006,700 tons
Maximum: 1,036,901 tons
|
|
978,790 tons
|
|
50% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OSHA recordable injury statistics
|
Threshold: 2 recordable events
Target: 1 recordable events
Maximum: 0 recordable events
|
|
3 recordable events
|
|
2% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OSHA lost time injury statistics
|
Threshold: 2 recordable events
Target: 1 recordable events
Maximum: 0 recordable events
|
|
1 recordable event
|
|
2% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EH&S severity statistics
|
Threshold: 2 recordable events
Target: 1 recordable events
Maximum: 0 recordable events
|
|
0 recordable events
|
|
2% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Air reportable release
|
Threshold: 24 recordable events
Target: 20 recordable events
Maximum: 16 recordable events
|
|
28 recordable events
|
|
3.4% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Air reportable release quantity
|
Threshold: 60,000 pounds
Target: 45,000 pounds
Maximum: 30,000 pounds
|
|
41,987 pounds
|
|
3.4% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 process safety events
|
Threshold: 2 recordable events
Target: 1 recordable events
Maximum: 0 recordable events
|
|
1 recordable event
|
|
2.4% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 Severity process safety events
|
Threshold: 2 recordable events
Target: 1 recordable events
Maximum: 0 recordable events
|
|
1 recordable event
|
|
2.4% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 2 process safety events
|
Threshold: 3 recordable events
Target: 2 recordable events
Maximum: 1 recordable events
|
|
0 recordable events
|
|
2.4% of bonus for Messrs. Pytosh and White
|
As a result of these levels of performance, Messrs. Pytosh and White earned approximately 94.44% of their respective target annual bonuses.
Equity-Based Incentive Awards
CVR Partners also uses equity-based incentives to reward long-term performance of its named executive officers. The issuance of equity-based incentives to named executive officers is intended to satisfy CVR Partners' compensation program objectives by generating significant future value for each named executive officer if CVR Partners' performance is outstanding and the value of CVR Partners' partners' capital increases for all of its unitholders. The compensation committee believes that its equity-based incentives promote long-term retention of executives.
CVR Partners established its long term incentive plan in March 2011 (the "CVR Partners LTIP") in connection with the completion of its initial public offering in April 2011. The compensation committee may elect to make grants of restricted units, options, phantom units or other equity-based awards under the CVR Partners LTIP in its discretion or may recommend grants to the board of directors of our general partner for its approval, as determined by the committee in its discretion. In 2014, Messrs. Pytosh and White received phantom unit awards pursuant to the CVR Partners LTIP. Mr. Pytosh also received an incentive unit award from CVR Energy, the terms of which are described below.
114
Perquisites.
The total value of all perquisites and personal benefits provided by CVR Partners to each of its named executive officers in 2014 was less than $10,000.
Other Forms of Compensation.
Mr. Pytosh has provisions in his employment agreement with our general partner that provide for severance benefits in the event of a termination of his employment under certain circumstances. These severance provisions are described below in " — Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" and were negotiated by Mr. Pytosh and CVR Partners.
CVR Energy's Compensation Programs
The following discussion relates to the 2014 compensation of the named executive officers who are (Mr. Lipinski and Ms. Ball) or were (Messrs. Gross and Riemann) employed by CVR Energy. Accordingly, references to the named executive officers in this section shall refer solely to Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Ball and Messrs. Gross and Riemann. In addition, all references to the compensation committee refer to the compensation committee of the board of directors of CVR Energy.
Compensation Objectives
CVR Energy's executive compensation objectives are threefold:
|
•
|
To align the executive officers' interest with that of the stockholders and stakeholders, which provides long-term economic benefits to the stockholders;
|
|
•
|
To provide competitive financial incentives in the form of salary, bonuses and benefits with the goal of retaining and attracting talented and highly motivated executive officers; and
|
|
•
|
To maintain a compensation program whereby the executive officers, through exceptional performance and equity-based incentive, have the opportunity to realize economic rewards commensurate with appropriate gains of other equity holders and stakeholders.
|
CVR Energy takes these main objectives into consideration when creating its compensation programs, when setting each element of compensation under those programs, and when determining the proper mix of the various compensation elements.
Elements of Compensation Program
For 2014, the three primary components of CVR Energy's compensation program were base salary, an annual performance-based cash bonus and equity-based incentive awards. While these three components are related, they are viewed as separate and analyzed as such. The named executive officers are also provided with benefits that are generally available to CVR Energy's salaried employees.
CVR Energy believes that equity-based compensation is the primary motivator in attracting and retaining executive officers. Salary and cash bonuses are viewed as secondary. However, the compensation committee views a competitive level of salary and cash bonus as critical to retaining talented individuals.
The compensation committee has not adopted any formal or informal policies or guidelines for allocating compensation between long-term and current compensation, between cash and non-cash compensation, or among different forms of compensation other than its belief that the most crucial component is equity-based compensation. The decision is strictly made on a subjective and individual basis after consideration of all relevant factors. The chief executive officer of CVR Energy, while not a member of the compensation committee, reviews information provided by the committee's compensation consultant, Longnecker, as well as other relevant market information and actively provides guidance and recommendations to the committee regarding the amount and form of the compensation of other executives and key employees.
Longnecker has been engaged by CVR Energy on behalf of its compensation committee to assist the committee with benchmarking of certain executive compensation levels and to generally assess the level of compensation increases from 2013 to 2014 and 2015. The compensation committee utilized this information, in addition to Longnecker's 2013 study, to review and approve executive compensation levels. Longnecker's 2013 study included an analysis regarding executive compensation levels and the mix of compensation as compared to peer companies, companies of similar size and other relevant market information. Management reviewed this compilation of information and then provided it to the compensation committee for its use in making decisions regarding the salary, bonus and other compensation amounts paid to named executive officers. The following companies were included in the 2013 report and analysis prepared by Longnecker as members of CVR Energy's "peer group" — the independent refining companies of HollyFrontier Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, as well as PBF Energy, Inc. and Rentech, Inc. Although no specific target for total compensation or any particular element of compensation was set relative to CVR Energy's peer group, the focus of Longnecker's 2013 recommendations was centered on compensation levels between the 50th and 75th percentile of the peer group.
115
Base Salary.
Each of the named executive officers has, or in the case of Messrs. Gross and Riemann, had, an employment agreement with CVR Energy that sets forth their initial base salaries. Base salaries are set at a level intended to enable CVR Energy to hire and retain executives, to enhance the executive's motivation in a highly competitive and dynamic environment, and to reward individual and company performance. In determining base salary levels, the compensation committee takes into account the following factors: (i) CVR Energy's financial and operational performance for the year; (ii) the previous years' compensation level for each executive; (iii) peer or market survey information for comparable public companies; and (iv) recommendations of the chief executive officer, based on individual responsibilities and performance, including each executive's commitment and ability to (A) strategically meet business challenges, (B) achieve financial results, (C) promote legal and ethical compliance, (D) lead their own business or business team for which they are responsible and (E) diligently and effectively respond to immediate needs of the volatile industry and business environment.
Rather than establishing compensation solely on a formula-driven basis, decisions by the compensation committee are made using an approach that considers several important factors in developing compensation levels. For example, the compensation committee considers whether individual base salaries reflect responsibility levels and are reasonable, competitive and fair. In addition, in setting base salaries, CVR Energy's compensation committee reviews published survey and peer group data prepared by Longnecker and considers the applicability of the salary data in view of the individual positions within CVR Energy.
Salaries are reviewed annually by the compensation committee with periodic informal reviews throughout the year. Adjustments, if any, are usually made effective January 1 of the year immediately following the review. The compensation committee, with the assistance of Longnecker, most recently reviewed the level of base salary and cash bonus for each of the named executive officers (excluding Messrs. Riemann and Gross, who retired) in 2014 in conjunction with their responsibilities and expectations for 2015. They concluded their review in December 2014, and set the following base salaries for the named executive officers as of January 1, 2015: $1,000,000 for Mr. Lipinski (which is not a change from his 2014 salary) and $415,000 for Ms. Ball. Individual performance, the practices of our peer group of companies as reflected in the analysis and report of Longnecker, and changes in the named executive officers' positions and levels of responsibility were considered. Among these three factors, slightly more weight was given to the report and findings of Longnecker.
Annual Bonus.
CVR Energy's annual bonus program is designed to meet each of its compensation objectives. Specifically, CVR Energy's annual bonus programs rewards executives only for measured company performance, thereby aligning the executive's interest with those of its equity holders and encouraging executives to focus on targeted performance. Further, the program also provides executives with the opportunity to earn additional compensation, thereby making its total compensation package more competitive.
Information about total cash compensation paid by members of CVR Energy's peer group is used in determining both the level of bonus award and the ratio of salary to bonus, as the compensation committee believes that maintaining a level of bonus and a ratio of fixed salary to bonus (which may fluctuate) that is in line with those of our competitors is an important factor in attracting and retaining executives. The compensation committee also believes that a significant portion of an executive's compensation should be at risk, which means that a portion of the executive's overall compensation is not guaranteed and is determined based on individual and company performance. Executives have greater potential bonus awards as the authority and responsibility of an executive increases. Each of the named executive officers is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus with a target bonus equal to a specified percentage of the relevant executive's annual base salary. For 2014, the target bonuses for the named executive officers were: John J. Lipinski (250%), Susan M. Ball (100%), Edmund S. Gross (100%) and Stanley A. Riemann (200%). Mr. Riemann's bonus will be prorated based upon his service to the company through June 30, 2014. These target percentages were the result of individual negotiations between the named executive officers and CVR Energy, and were in correlation with the findings and recommendations by Longnecker based upon review of CVR Energy's peer group, companies of similar size and other relevant market information. Specific bonus measures were determined by the compensation committee, following discussions with CVR Energy management.
In March 2011, CVR Energy adopted the CVR Energy, Inc. Performance Incentive Plan (the "CVR Energy PIP"), pursuant to which the named executive officers had the opportunity to earn bonuses in respect of 2014. The payment of annual bonuses for the 2014 performance year to the named executive officers will depend on the achievement of financial, operational and safety measures, which comprised 30%, 50% and 20% of the annual bonuses, respectively. Specific bonus measures were determined by the compensation committee based on its review of peer group information provided by Longnecker and discussions with management, and were selected with the goals of optimizing operations, maintaining financial stability and providing a safe work environment intended to maximize CVR Energy's overall performance resulting in increased stockholder value. The compensation committee also approved the threshold, target and maximum performance goals with respect to each measure. No payment will be made with respect to the measures unless the threshold of the relevant performance measure is achieved.
116
The 2014 financial measure was consolidated adjusted EBITDA for CVR Energy, which was derived from earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, and adjusted for total cash and non-cash share-based compensation expense, first-in, first-out (FIFO) accounting impacts, unrealized gains and losses on derivative transactions, turnaround expenses, and board-directed actions.
The 2014 operational measures were petroleum reliability for the total Coffeyville and Wynnewood refineries, measured by crude throughput barrels per day.
The 2014 safety measures include the aggregated EH&S results for the petroleum segment pursuant to the CVR Energy PIP and for the nitrogen fertilizer segment pursuant to the CVR Partners PIP, which include the following: consolidated OSHA recordable injury statistics (based upon enterprise-wide OSHA injuries and inclusive of petroleum, fertilizer and crude transportation); consolidated OSHA lost time injury statistics (based upon enterprise-wide OSHA lost time injuries and inclusive of petroleum, fertilizer and crude transportation); consolidated EH&S severity statistics (based upon enterprise-wide EH&S severity and inclusive of petroleum, fertilizer and crude transportation); consolidated air reportable releases (based upon enterprise-wide EPA reportable quantity releases and inclusive of petroleum and fertilizer operations); consolidated air reportable release quantity (based upon enterprise-wide EPA reportable quantity releases and inclusive of petroleum and fertilizer operations); consolidated tier 1 process safety events (based upon enterprise-wide API process safety events of petroleum and fertilizer operations); consolidated tier 1 severity (based on enterprise-wide API process safety events of petroleum and fertilizer operations); consolidated tier 2 process safety events (based upon enterprise-wide API process safety events of petroleum and fertilizer operations); reportable quantity spills for pipeline (based upon EPA reportable quantity releases inclusive of transportation operations); spills to waters of U.S. pipelines (based upon EPA spills to U.S. waters inclusive of transportation operations); reportable quantity spills for trucking (based upon EPA reportable quantity releases inclusive of transportation operations); spills to waters of U.S. trucking (based upon EPA spills to U.S. waters inclusive of transportation operations); trucking incidents for on-road operations (based upon on-road, fault of CRCT and inclusive of transportation operations); and severity of trucking incidents (based upon EH&S applied factors inclusive of transportation operations).
The table below reflects: (i) the financial, operational and safety measures used to determine 2014 bonuses for the named executive officers; (ii) the threshold, target and maximum performance levels for each measure; (iii) the actual results with respect to each measure; and (iv) the portion of the 2014 bonus that will be determined based on each such measure. The executives may receive 0% or 50% related to threshold levels, 100% for target levels, and 150% for maximum levels, respectively.
|
2014 Performance Measure
|
2014 Performance Goals
Threshold/Target/Maximum
|
|
2014 Actual Results
|
|
Portion of Target Bonus Allocable to Measure
|
|
Consolidated adjusted EBITDA for CVR Energy
|
Threshold: $535.3 million
Target: $761.8 million
Maximum: $1,126.6 million
|
|
$717.8 million
|
|
30% of bonus for Messrs. Lipinski, Gross and Riemann and Ms. Ball
|
|
Petroleum Reliability Measures
|
Threshold: 166,000 bpd
Target: 177,000 bpd
Maximum: 188,000 bpd
|
|
196,545 bpd
|
|
50% of bonus for Messrs. Lipinski, Gross and Riemann and Ms. Ball
|
|
Petroleum Environmental Health & Safety Measures
|
Threshold: 0% of refining payout levels
Target: 20% of refining payout levels
Maximum: 30% of refining payout levels
|
|
12.50%
|
|
15% of bonus for Messrs. Lipinski, Gross and Riemann and Ms. Ball
|
|
Nitrogen Environmental Health & Safety Measures
|
Threshold: 0% of nitrogen payout levels
Target: 20% of nitrogen payout levels
Maximum: 30% of nitrogen payout levels
|
|
17.14%
|
|
5% of bonus for Messrs. Lipinski, Gross and Riemann and Ms. Ball
|
As a result of these performance levels, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Ball and Messrs. Riemann and Gross earned approximately 115.76% of their respective target annual bonuses.
Equity-Based Incentive Awards
CVR Energy also uses equity-based incentives to reward long-term performance of its named executive officers. The issuance of equity incentives to executive officers is intended to satisfy CVR Energy's compensation program objectives by generating significant future value for each named executive officer if CVR Energy's performance is outstanding and the value of CVR Energy's equity increases for all of its stockholders. The compensation committee believes that its equity-based incentives promote long-term retention of executives.
117
CVR Energy established a long-term incentive plan in October 2007 (the "CVR Energy LTIP") in connection with its initial public offering . The compensation committee may elect to make grants of restricted stock, options, restricted stock units or other equity-based grants under the LTIP in its discretion or may recommend grants to the Board for its approval, as determined by the committee in its discretion.
Perquisites.
CVR Energy pays for the cost of supplemental life insurance for certain of its named executive officers. Except for the premiums associated with such supplemental life insurance, the total value of all perquisites and personal benefits provided to each of its named executive officers in 2014 was less than $10,000.
Other Forms of Compensation.
Each of the named executive officers (other than Mr. Riemann) has provisions in their respective employment agreements with CVR Energy that provide for severance benefits in the event a termination of their employment under certain circumstances. These severance provisions are described below in " — Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" and were negotiated between the applicable named executive officers and CVR Energy.
Compensation Committee Report
The compensation committee of our general partner has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based on this review and discussion, the compensation committee recommended to the board of directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Annual Report.
|
|
Compensation Committee
Frank M. Muller, Jr. (Chairman)
Andrew Roberto
|
118
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth the compensation paid to the named executive officers during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012. In the case of named executive officers who are employed by CVR Energy, all compensation paid to such named executive officers is reflected in the table, not only the portion of compensation attributable to services performed for our business. Equity awards granted by CVR Energy are not included in this table prior to December 2013 as we have not historically been obligated under the services agreement to reimburse CVR Energy for any portion of the previous awards made by CVR Energy. Commencing with awards made in December 2013, we are now obligated to pay for our allocated portion of performance unit and incentive unit awards made to those personnel providing services to CVR Partners via the services agreement.
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
Salary ($)
|
|
Bonus
($)(1)
|
|
Stock
Awards
($)(2)
|
|
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(3)
|
|
All Other
Compensation
($)(4)
|
|
Total ($)
|
||||||
|
John J. Lipinski,
|
|
2014
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,894,000
|
|
|
30,604
|
|
|
3,924,604
|
|
|
Executive Chairman
|
|
2013
|
|
950,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
2,889,236
|
|
|
9,442,250
|
|
|
29,933
|
|
|
13,311,419
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
950,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
3,771,738
|
|
|
25,105
|
|
|
4,746,843
|
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh,
|
|
2014
|
|
313,630
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
|
1,653,350
|
|
|
370,240
|
|
|
16,188
|
|
|
2,478,408
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer (5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Susan M. Ball,
|
|
2014
|
|
390,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
930,002
|
|
|
451,464
|
|
|
18,230
|
|
|
1,789,696
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer (6)
|
|
2013
|
|
360,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
896,838
|
|
|
468,720
|
|
|
17,629
|
|
|
1,743,187
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
281,189
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
379,886
|
|
|
16,869
|
|
|
677,944
|
|
|
William White
|
|
2014
|
|
244,336
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
270,002
|
|
|
161,525
|
|
|
19,084
|
|
|
694,947
|
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Marketing and Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
|
2014
|
|
380,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
439,888
|
|
|
29,672
|
|
|
849,560
|
|
|
Senior Vice President,
|
|
2013
|
|
380,000
|
|
|
|
|
797,197
|
|
|
494,760
|
|
|
29,941
|
|
|
1,701,898
|
|
|
|
General Counsel, and Secretary
|
|
2012
|
|
380,000
|
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
603,478
|
|
|
25,115
|
|
|
1,008,593
|
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann,
|
|
2014
|
|
245,000
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
567,224
|
|
|
22,860
|
|
|
1,435,084
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer (7)
|
|
2013
|
|
490,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,275,960
|
|
|
29,933
|
|
|
1,795,893
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,429,290
|
|
|
25,105
|
|
|
1,904,395
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
The amount included in this column for Mr. Riemann for 2014 includes a $600,000 retention bonus paid for the period of January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014. The amount in this column for Mr. Pytosh includes a $125,000 relocation bonus.
|
|
(2)
|
Amounts in this column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of phantom units and certain performance units granted during 2014 to Mr. Pytosh and phantom units granted during 2014 to Mr. White pursuant to the CVR Partners LTIP, computed in accordance with FASB ASC 718. Assumptions relied upon in such valuation are set forth in footnote 3 to our audited financial statements. The phantom and performance units generally vest over three years, provided that the executive continues to serve as an employee of the Partnership or one of its subsidiaries or parents on each such date, and subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances as described in more detail in the section titled "Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" below. The grant date fair value of the performance based phantom units included for Mr. Pytosh was $633,339. Assuming the highest level of performance attainment, the value would be $696,673.The table does not include amounts with respect to equity awards granted by CVR Energy prior to December 2013 to certain of the named executive officers pursuant to the CVR Energy LTIP because such amounts were not reimbursed by us. For 2014, the above table reflects the aggregate grant date fair value for incentive units granted to Ms. Ball and Mr. Pytosh by CVR Energy. For 2013, the above table reflects the aggregate grant date fair value for certain performance units granted in December 2013 to Mr. Lipinski and for incentive units granted to Ms. Ball and Mr. Gross by CVR Energy. We now pay for our allocated portion of performance and incentive units pursuant to the services agreement.
|
119
|
(3)
|
For Messrs. Pytosh and White, amounts in this column for 2014 reflect amounts earned pursuant to the CVR Partners PIP in respect of 2014 which were paid in 2015. For Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Ball and Messrs. Gross and Riemann, amounts in this column for 2014, 2013 and 2012 reflect amounts earned pursuant to the CVR Energy PIP in respect of performance during 2014, 2013 and 2012, which were paid in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. For Mr. Lipinski, the amount for 2013 also reflects the aggregate grant date fair value for certain performance units granted in December 2013 that are valued based on a performance factor that is tied to certain operational performance metrics.
|
|
(4)
|
Amounts in this column for 2014 include the following: (a) a company contribution under the CVR Energy 401(k) plan of $15,600 for each named executive officer; (b) $11,440 for Mr. Lipinski, $1,692 for Ms. Ball, $2,539 for Mr. White, $11,458 for Mr. Gross and $5,518 for Mr. Riemann in premiums paid by CVR Energy on behalf of the executive officer with respect to its executive life insurance program; and (c) $3,564 for Mr. Lipinski, $588 for Mr. Pytosh, $939 for Ms. Ball, $944 for Mr. White, $2,614 for Mr. Gross and $1,743 for Mr. Riemann in premiums paid by CVR Energy on behalf of the executive officer with respect to its basic life insurance program.
|
|
(5)
|
Mr. Pytosh's compensation for 2014 has been pro-rated to reflect amounts earned starting on May 5, 2014, the date he became employed by our general partner.
|
|
(6)
|
Ms. Ball became employed as chief financial officer and treasurer on August 7, 2012. Prior to such date, Ms Ball served as vice president and chief accounting officer of our general partner.
|
|
(7)
|
Mr. Riemann's compensation for 2014 has been pro-rated to reflect amounts earned through June 30, 2014, the date of his retirement.
|
As described in more detail in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, named executive officers other than Messrs. Pytosh and White are employed by CVR Energy and dedicated only a portion of their time to our business in 2014. Furthermore, Mr. Pytosh dedicated a portion of his time to CVR Energy and CVR Refining matters during 2014.
The following table outlines 2014 cash compensation paid to the named executive officers who are employed by CVR Energy and was attributable to their service to our business, based on the approximate percentage of time that each of them dedicated to our business during 2014.
|
Name
|
Salary ($)
|
|
Stock Awards ($)
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive
Compensation($)
|
|
Other (a) ($)
|
||
|
John J. Lipinski
|
140,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
405,160
|
|
4,285
|
|
|
Susan M. Ball
|
109,200
|
|
|
260,401
|
|
126,410
|
|
5,105
|
|
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
95,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
109,972
|
|
7,418
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
73,500
|
|
|
—
|
|
170,167
|
|
186,858
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(a)
|
For Mr. Riemann, this total includes amounts payable for his retention bonus.
|
The following table outlines 2014 cash compensation paid to Mr. Pytosh for time he spent attributable to service to CVR Energy and CVR Refining.
|
Name
|
Salary ($)
|
|
Stock Awards ($)
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Compensation ($)
|
|
Other ($)
|
||||
|
Mark A. Pytosh
|
100,362
|
|
|
529,072
|
|
|
118,477
|
|
|
45,180
|
|
Grants of Plan-Based Awards
The following table sets forth information concerning amounts that could have been earned by our named executive officers under the CVR Energy PIP, CVR Partners PIP and CVR Partners LTIP, as applicable, during 2014, as well as certain incentive unit awards made to our named executive officers.
120
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
All Other Stock
Awards: Number
of Shares of
Stock or Units (#)
|
|
Grant Date Fair Value of Stock Awards (2)($)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Name
|
Grant Date
|
|
Threshold
($)
|
|
Target
($)
|
|
Maximum
($)
|
|
|||||||||
|
John J. Lipinski
|
—
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
2,500,000
|
|
|
3,750,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh
|
—
|
|
|
156,815
|
|
|
392,038
|
|
|
580,056
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
5/5/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,116
|
|
|
633,339
|
|
|||
|
|
12/26/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,999
|
|
|
408,002
|
|
|||
|
|
12/26/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,595
|
|
|
612,008
|
|
|||
|
Susan M. Ball
|
—
|
|
|
156,000
|
|
|
390,000
|
|
|
585,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
12/26/2014
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
52,424
|
|
|
930,002
|
|
|
William White
|
—
|
|
|
68,414
|
|
|
171,035
|
|
|
256,553
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
12/26/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,380
|
|
|
270,002
|
|
|||
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
—
|
|
|
152,000
|
|
|
380,000
|
|
|
570,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
—
|
|
|
196,000
|
|
|
490,000
|
|
|
735,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Amounts in these columns reflect amounts that could have been earned by the named executive officers under the CVR Partners PIP (with respect to Messrs. Pytosh and White) or under the CVR Energy PIP (with respect to Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Ball and Messrs. Gross and Riemann) in respect of 2014 performance at the threshold, target and maximum levels with respect to each performance measure. The performance measures and related goals for 2014 set by the compensation committee of our general partner and the compensation committee of CVR Energy, as applicable, are described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.
|
|
(2)
|
Reflects the grant date fair value of certain incentive units awarded to Ms. Ball and Mr. Pytosh by CVR Energy during 2014, computed in accordance with FASB ASC 718. Reflects the grant date fair value of phantom units awarded to Mr. Pytosh and Mr. White under the CVR Partners LTIP during 2014, computed in accordance with FASB ASC 718.
|
Employment Agreements
John J. Lipinski.
On July 12, 2005, Coffeyville Resources, LLC entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Lipinski, as chief executive officer, which was subsequently assumed by CVR Energy and amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008, January 1, 2010, January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2014. The agreement has a three year term continuing through January 1, 2017, unless otherwise terminated by CVR Energy or Mr. Lipinski; provided CVR Energy may extend the agreement in one-year increments by providing 90 days' notice prior to the expiration of the initial term or then current renewal term. Mr. Lipinski receives an annual base salary of $1,000,000 effective as of January 1, 2014. Mr. Lipinski is also eligible to receive a performance-based annual cash bonus with a target payment equal to 250% of his annual base salary to be based upon individual and/or company performance criteria as established by the compensation committee of the board of directors of CVR Energy for each fiscal year. In addition, Mr. Lipinski is entitled to participate in such health, insurance, retirement and other employee benefit plans and programs of CVR Energy as in effect from time to time on the same basis as other senior executives of CVR Energy. The agreement requires Mr. Lipinski to abide by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure and non-disparagement and also includes covenants relating to non-solicitation and non-competition that govern during his employment and thereafter for the period severance is paid and, if no severance is paid, for one year following termination of employment. In addition, Mr. Lipinski's agreement provides for certain severance payments that may be due following the termination of his employment under certain circumstances, which are described below under " — Change-in-Control and Termination Payments."
Mark A. Pytosh.
CVR GP, LLC, our general partner, entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Pytosh effective as of May 5, 2014, as amended December 19, 2014. The agreement has a term extending through December 31, 2016, unless otherwise terminated by CVR GP or Mr. Pytosh. The agreement provides for an annual base salary of $475,000. Mr. Pytosh is also eligible to receive a performance-based annual cash bonus with a target payment equal to 125% of his annual base salary to be based upon individual and/or company performance criteria as established by the compensation committee of the board of directors of CVR GP for each fiscal year; provided, in 2015, a portion of his bonus will be based upon individual and/or company performance criteria established by the compensation committee of the board of directors of CVR Energy to the extent Mr. Pytosh performs services for CVR Energy. Mr. Pytosh is also entitled to participate in such health, insurance, retirement and other employee benefit plans and programs as in effect from time to time on the same basis as other senior executives. The agreement requires Mr. Pytosh to abide by perpetual restrictive covenants relating to non-disclosure and non-
121
disparagement, and also include covenants relating to non-solicitation and non-competition during his employment and for six months following termination of employment. In addition, the agreement provides for certain severance payments that may be due following the termination of employment under certain circumstances, which are described below under " — Change-in-Control and Termination Payments."
Susan M. Ball.
On October 23, 2007, CVR Energy entered into an employment agreement with Ms. Ball, which was amended on March 5, 2009 and October 9, 2009, and amended and restated on each of January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. This agreement was subsequently amended and restated effective as of on August 7, 2012 in connection with Ms. Ball's promotion to the role of chief financial officer and treasurer, and amended again on December 31, 2013. The agreement has a term extending through December 31, 2015, unless otherwise terminated by CVR Energy or Ms. Ball. The annual salary in effect for Ms. Ball effective January 1, 2014 was $390,000. Ms. Ball is also eligible to receive a performance-based annual cash bonus with a target payment equal to 100% of her annual base salary to be based upon individual and/or performance criteria as established by the compensation committee of the board of directors of CVR Energy for each fiscal year. In addition, Ms. Ball is entitled to participate in such health, insurance, retirement and other employee benefit plans and programs of CVR Energy as in effect from time to time on the same basis as other senior executives of CVR Energy. The agreement requires Ms. Ball to abide by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure and also includes covenants relating to non-solicitation and non-competition that govern during her employment and for one year following termination of employment. In addition, the agreement provides for certain severance payments that may be due following the termination of employment under certain circumstances, which are described below under " — Change-in-Control and Termination Payments."
William White
. Mr. White does not have an employment agreement. Mr. White is also entitled to participate in such health, insurance, retirement and other employee benefit plans and programs as in effect from time to time on the same basis as other senior executives.
Edmund S. Gross.
On July 12, 2005, CRLLC entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Gross, which was subsequently assumed by CVR Energy and amended and restated effective as of December 29, 2007. The agreement was amended and restated effective January 1, 2010 and on January 1, 2011, and amended again on December 31, 2013. The agreement with Mr. Gross has a term extending through December 31, 2014, unless otherwise terminated earlier by CVR Energy or Mr. Gross. The employment agreement provides for an annual base salary and also provide that Mr. Gross is eligible to receive a performance-based annual cash bonus to be based upon individual and/or company performance criteria as established by the compensation committee of the board of directors of CVR Energy for each fiscal year. The base annual salary in effect for Mr. Gross effective as of January 1, 2014 was $380,000 and the target annual bonus percentage was 100%. Mr. Gross was also entitled to participate in such health, insurance, retirement and other employee benefit plans and programs of CVR Energy as in effect from time to time on the same basis as other senior executives of CVR Energy. The agreement required Mr. Gross to abide by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure and also include covenants relating to non-solicitation during his employment and for one year following termination of employment. In addition, the employment agreements provide for certain severance payments that may be due following the termination of employment under certain circumstances, which are described below under “— Change-in-Control and Termination Payments.”
Stanley A. Riemann.
On July 12, 2005, Coffeyville Resources, LLC entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Riemann, which was subsequently assumed by CVR Energy and amended and restated effective as of December 29, 2007. This agreement was amended and restated effective January 1, 2010 and again on January 1, 2011 and has a term of three years that expires in January 2014, unless otherwise terminated earlier by either party. Mr. Riemann is also eligible to receive a performance-based annual cash bonus to be based upon individual and/or company performance criteria as established by the compensation committee of the board of directors of CVR Energy for each fiscal year. The target annual bonus percentage for Mr. Riemann is 200%. Mr. Riemann is also entitled to participate in such health, insurance, retirement and other employee benefit plans and programs of CVR Energy as in effect from time to time on the same basis as other senior executives of CVR Energy. The agreement requires Mr. Riemann to abide by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure and also include covenants relating to non-solicitation and non-competition during his employment and for one year following termination of employment. Mr. Riemann's employment agreement expired on January 1, 2014. On November 29, 2013, CVR Energy and Mr. Riemann entered into a letter agreement extending his employment from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014. Under the letter agreement, Mr. Riemann’s base salary continued at the rate in effect immediately prior January 1, 2014 ($490,000). As a result of his continued employment through, and retirement on, June 30, 2014, Mr. Riemann will be entitled to receive a pro-rata bonus based on the actual performance of CVR Energy for 2014, payable when bonuses for 2014 are paid generally to CVR Energy’s executive officers, and Mr. Riemann received a cash payment of $600,000. In addition, Mr. Riemann remains subject to the restrictive covenant obligations contained in his prior employment agreement.
122
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End
The following table sets forth information concerning outstanding equity awards granted pursuant to the CVR Partners LTIP that were held by certain of the named executive officers as of December 31, 2014, as well as outstanding incentive unit awards made by CVR Energy and for which, the Partnership will share in the expense.
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|||||
|
Name
|
Number of Shares or Units of Stock
That Have Not Vested (#)
|
|
Market Value of Shares or Units of
Stock That Have Not Vested ($)(1)
|
|||
|
Mark A. Pytosh
|
20,077
|
|
(2
|
)
|
207,596
|
|
|
|
66,595
|
|
(3
|
)
|
648,635
|
|
|
|
22,999
|
|
(4
|
)
|
386,383
|
|
|
Susan M. Ball
|
26,432
|
|
(5
|
)
|
521,503
|
|
|
|
52,424
|
|
(4
|
)
|
880,723
|
|
|
William White
|
3,261
|
|
(6
|
)
|
31,762
|
|
|
|
10,162
|
|
(7
|
)
|
113,306
|
|
|
|
29,380
|
|
(3
|
)
|
286,161
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
This column represents the number of unvested units outstanding on such date, multiplied by the closing price of the units on December 31, 2014, which: (a) for purposes of the phantom units described in footnote (2) below, was $10.34 (the closing price of $9.74 plus $0.60 in accrued distributions); (b) for purposes of the phantom units described in footnotes (3) and (6) below, was $9.74; (c) for purposes of the incentive units described in footnote (4) below was $16.80; (d) for purposes of the incentive units described in footnote (5) below, was $19.73 (the closing price of $16.80 plus $2.93 in accrued distributions); (e) for purposes of the phantom units described in footnote (7) below was $11.15 (the closing price of 9.74 plus $1.41 in accrued distributions).
|
|
(2)
|
The phantom units reflected were issued on May 5, 2014. The remaining unvested units are scheduled to vest in one-half increments on performance cycles ended December 31, 2015 and 2016 provided the executive continue to serve as an employee of our general partner, a subsidiary or parent on such date, subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances as described in more detail in the section titled "Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" below.
|
|
(3)
|
The phantom units reflected were issued on December 26, 2014 and are scheduled to vest in one-third annual increments on the first three anniversaries of the date of grant, provided the executive continues to serve as an employee of our general partner, a subsidiary or parent on such date, subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances as described in more detail in the section titled "Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" below.
|
|
(4)
|
The incentive units reflected were issued on December 26, 2014 and are scheduled to vest in one-third annual increments on the first three anniversaries of the date of grant, provided the executive continues to serve as an employee of CVR Energy or one of its subsidiaries on such date, subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances as described in more detail in the section titled "Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" below. The Partnership will share in its prorated share of the costs associated with these awards based on the percentage of time that the executive dedicates to our business during the vesting term.
|
|
(5)
|
The incentive units reflected were issued on December 31, 2013. The remaining unvested units are scheduled to vest in one-half increments on December 27, 2015 and 2016, provided the executive continues to serve as an employee of CVR Energy or one of its subsidiaries on such date, subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances as described in more detail in the section titled "Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" below. The Partnership will share in its prorated share of the costs associated with these awards based on the percentage of time that the executive dedicates to our business during the vesting term.
|
|
(6)
|
The phantom units reflected were issued on December 28, 2012. The remaining unvested units are scheduled to vest on December 28, 2015, provided the executive continues to serve as an employee of the Partnership or one of its subsidiaries or parents on each such date, subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances as described in more detail in the section titled "Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" below.
|
|
(7)
|
The phantom units reflected were issued on December 27, 2013. The remaining unvested units are scheduled to vest in one-half increments on December 27, 2015 and 2016, provided the executive continues to serve as an employee of
|
123
the Partnership or one of its subsidiaries or parents on each such date, subject to accelerated vesting under certain circumstances as described in more detail in the section titled "Change-in-Control and Termination Payments" below.
Equity Awards Vested During Fiscal Year 2014
This table reflects the portion of phantom units granted pursuant to the CVR Partners LTIP as well as incentive and performance unit awards made by CVR Energy for which the Partnership will share in the expense that became vested during 2014.
|
|
Equity Awards
|
|
||||
|
Named Executive Officer
|
Number of Shares or Units
Acquired on Vesting (#)
|
|
Value Realized
on Vesting ($)
|
|
||
|
Mark A. Pytosh
|
10,039
|
|
|
79,509
|
|
(1)
|
|
William White
|
3,265
|
|
|
29,809
|
|
(2)
|
|
|
3,261
|
|
|
29,936
|
|
(2)
|
|
|
5,082
|
|
|
57,782
|
|
(3)
|
|
John L. Lipinski
|
132,170
|
|
|
1,562,249
|
|
(4)
|
|
Susan M. Ball
|
13,216
|
|
|
312,426
|
|
(5)
|
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
11,748
|
|
|
277,723
|
|
(5)
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
For phantom units that became vested during fiscal year 2014, the amount reflected includes a per unit value equal to (a) the average closing price of CVR Partners' common units in accordance with the agreement, multiplied by a performance factor that is based upon the level of CVR Partners' production of UAN, and (b) accrued distributions of $0.60 per unit.
|
|
(2)
|
For phantom units that became vested during fiscal year 2014, the amounts reflected are calculated by multiplying the number of units that became vested by the closing market price of our units on the NYSE on the applicable vesting date.
|
|
(3)
|
For phantom units that became vested during fiscal year 2014, the amount reflected includes a per unit value equal to (a) the average closing price of CVR Partners' common units in accordance with the agreement, and (b) accrued distributions of $1.41 per unit.
|
|
(4)
|
For phantom units that became vested during fiscal year 2014, the amount reflected includes a per unit value equal to (a) the average closing price of CVR Refining's common units in accordance with the agreement and (b) accrued distributions of $2.93 per unit, multiplied by a performance factor that is based upon CVR Energy's consolidated adjusted EBITDA, certain CVR Refining reliability measures, and aggregated environmental, health and safety results for CVR Refining and CVR Partners.
|
|
(5)
|
For incentive units that became vested during fiscal year 2014, the amount reflected includes a per unit value equal to (a) the average closing price of CVR Refining's common units in accordance with the agreement, and (b) accrued distributions of $2.93 per unit.
|
Reimbursement of Expenses of Our General Partner
Our general partner and its affiliates are reimbursed for expenses incurred on our behalf under the services agreement. See "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence — Agreements with CVR Energy and CVR Refining — Services Agreement" for a description of our services agreement. These expenses include the costs of employee, officer and director compensation and benefits properly allocable to us, and all other expenses necessary or appropriate to the conduct of our business and allocable to us. These expenses also include costs incurred by CVR Energy or its affiliates in rendering corporate staff and support services to us pursuant to the services agreement, including a pro-rata portion of the compensation of CVR Energy's executive officers who provide management services to us based on the amount of time such executive officers devote to our business. For the year ending December 31, 2014, the total amount paid to our general partner and its affiliates (including amounts paid to CVR Energy pursuant to the services agreement) was approximately $17.2 million.
Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner determines which of its affiliates' expenses are allocable to us and the services agreement provides that CVR Energy invoice us monthly for services provided thereunder. Our general partner may dispute the costs that CVR Energy charges us under the services agreement, but we are not entitled to a refund of any
124
disputed cost unless it is determined not to be a reasonable cost incurred by CVR Energy in connection with services it provided.
Change-in-Control and Termination Payments
Under the terms of certain of the named executive officers' employment agreements with our general partner or CVR Energy (as applicable), they are entitled to severance and other benefits from us or CVR Energy following the termination of their employment under certain circumstances. The amounts of potential post-employment payments and benefits in the narrative and table below assume that the triggering event took place on December 31, 2014, are based on salaries as of December 31, 2014, assume the payment of bonuses at 100% of target, assume Mr. Pytosh was employed by our general partner as of January 1, 2014 (instead of his actual hire date of May 5, 2014), and for purposes of retirement, assumes the individual is eligible for retirement. Pursuant to the services agreement that we entered into with CVR Energy, we are responsible only for the payment of severance and other benefits costs following the termination of employment of the executive officers that are expected to devote 100% of their time to managing our business, which excludes all of our named executive officers employed by CVR Energy.
John J. Lipinski.
If Mr. Lipinski's employment is terminated either by CVR Energy without cause and other than for disability or by Mr. Lipinski for good reason (as these terms are defined in his employment agreement), then in addition to any accrued amounts, including any base salary earned but unpaid through the date of termination, any earned but unpaid annual bonus for completed fiscal years, any unused accrued paid time off and any unreimbursed expenses ("Accrued Amounts"), Mr. Lipinski is entitled to receive as severance: (a) salary continuation for the lesser of (A) 36 months and (B) the greater of (x) the remainder of the term of the employment agreement and (y) 12 months (such period, the “Post-Employment Period”); (b) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs based on actual results; and (c) and the continuation of medical, dental, vision and life insurance benefits ("Welfare Benefits") during the Post-Employment Period, or if earlier, until he becomes eligible for such benefits from a subsequent employer. In addition, if Mr. Lipinski's employment is terminated either by CVR Energy without cause and other than for disability or by Mr. Lipinski for good reason (as these terms are defined in his employment agreement) within one year following a change in control (as defined in his employment agreement) or in specified circumstances prior to and in connection with a change in control, Mr. Lipinski will receive 1/12 of his target bonus for the year of termination for each month of the Post-Employment Period.
If Mr. Lipinski's employment is terminated as a result of his disability, then in addition to any Accrued Amounts and any payments to be made to Mr. Lipinski under disability plan(s), Mr. Lipinski is entitled to (a) disability payments during the Post-Employment Period equal to, in the aggregate, Mr. Lipinski's base salary as in effect immediately before his disability (the estimated total amount of this payment is set forth in the relevant table below) and (b) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs based on actual results. As a condition to receiving these severance payments and benefits, Mr. Lipinski must (a) execute, deliver and not revoke a general release of claims and (b) abide by restrictive covenants as detailed below. If Mr. Lipinski's employment is terminated at any time by reason of his death, then in addition to any Accrued Amounts, Mr. Lipinski's beneficiary (or his estate) will be paid (a) the base salary Mr. Lipinski would have received had he remained employed through the Post-Employment Period, and (b) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs based on actual results. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CVR Energy may, at its option, purchase insurance to cover the obligations with respect to either Mr. Lipinski's supplemental disability payments or the payments due to Mr. Lipinski's beneficiary or estate by reason of his death. Mr. Lipinski will be required to cooperate in obtaining such insurance. Upon a termination by reason of Mr. Lipinski's retirement after reaching age 62, in addition to any Accrued Amounts, Mr. Lipinski will receive (a) continuation of Welfare Benefits during the Post-Employment Period at active-employee rates or until such time as Mr. Lipinski becomes eligible for such benefits from a subsequent employer, (b) provision of an office at CVR Energy's headquarters and use of CVR Energy's facilities and administrative support during the Post-Employment Period at CVR Energy's expense and, at Mr. Lipinski's request, for two years following the Post-Employment Period at Mr. Lipinski's expense, and (c) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs based on actual results.
In the event that Mr. Lipinski is eligible to receive continuation of Welfare Benefits at active-employee rates but is not eligible to continue to receive benefits under CVR Energy's plans pursuant to the terms of such plans or a determination by the insurance providers, CVR Energy will use reasonable efforts to obtain individual insurance policies providing Mr. Lipinski with such benefits at the same cost to CVR Energy as providing him with continued coverage under CVR Energy's plans. If such coverage cannot be obtained, CVR Energy will pay Mr. Lipinski on a monthly basis during the relevant continuation period, an amount equal to the amount CVR Energy would have paid had he continued participation in CVR Energy's plans.
If any payments or distributions due to Mr. Lipinski would be subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code, then such payments or distributions will be "cut back" only if that reduction would be more beneficial to him on an after-tax basis than if there was no reduction. The estimated total amounts payable to Mr. Lipinski (or his beneficiary or estate in the event of death) in the event of termination of employment under the circumstances described above are set forth in the table below. Mr. Lipinski would solely be entitled to Accrued Amounts, if any, upon the termination of employment by CVR Energy
125
for cause, or by him voluntarily without good reason and not by reason of his retirement. The agreement requires Mr. Lipinski to abide by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure and non-disparagement. The agreement also includes covenants relating to non-solicitation and non-competition during Mr. Lipinski's employment term, and thereafter during the period he receives severance payments or supplemental disability payments, as applicable, or for one year following the end of the term (if no severance or disability payments are payable).
Mark A. Pytosh.
If the employment of Mr. Pytosh is terminated either by our general partner without cause and other than for disability or by Mr. Pytosh for good reason (as such terms are defined in his employment agreements), then Mr. Pytosh is entitled, in addition to any Accrued Amounts, to receive as severance (a) salary continuation for the lesser of six months or the remainder of the term of the agreement, (b) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs based on actual results and (c) subject to his timely election, and the availability thereof, continuation coverage under our general partner's group health plan as provided under Part 6 of Title I of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (as amended) and Section 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended) (collectively, “COBRA”) for the applicable continuation period under COBRA.
As a condition to receiving these severance payments and benefits, Mr. Pytosh must (a) execute, deliver and not revoke a general release of claims and (b) abide by restrictive covenants as detailed below. The agreements provide that if any payments or distributions due to Mr. Pytosh would be subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code, then such payments or distributions will be cut back only if that reduction would be more beneficial to the executive officer on an after-tax basis than if there were no reduction. Mr. Pytosh would solely be entitled to Accrued Amounts, if any, upon the termination of employment by our general partner for cause, or by Mr. Pytosh voluntarily without good reason. The agreement requires Mr. Pytosh to abide by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure and non-disparagement. The agreement also includes covenants relating to non-solicitation and covenants relating to non-competition during the employment term and for six months following the end of the term.
Susan M. Ball and Edmund S. Gross.
If the employment of Ms. Ball is or Mr. Gross was terminated either by CVR Energy without cause and other than for disability or by the executive officer for good reason (as such terms are defined in their respective employment agreements), then these executive officers are or were entitled, in addition to any Accrued Amounts, to receive as severance (a) salary continuation for the lesser of 12 months or the remainder of the term of their respective employment agreement (the "Severance Period"), (b) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs, based on actual results and (c) the continuation of Welfare Benefits during the Severance Period at active-employee rates or until such time as the executive officer becomes eligible for such benefits from a subsequent employer. In addition, if the employment of the named executive officer is or was terminated either by CVR Energy without cause and other than for disability or by the executives for good reason (as these terms are defined in their employment agreements) within one year following a change in control (as defined in their employment agreements) or in specified circumstances prior to and in connection with a change in control, they are also entitled to receive monthly payments equal to
1
/
12
of their respective target bonuses for the year of termination during the Severance Period. Effective upon the termination of Mr. Gross' employment upon retirement on December 31, 2014 after reaching age 62, in addition to any Accrued Amounts, he is entitled to receive (a) a pro-rata bonus for 2014, based on actual results and (b) continuation of Welfare Benefits for 24 months at active-employee rates or until such time as he becomes eligible for such benefits from a subsequent employer. Upon a termination of Ms. Ball's employment upon retirement after reaching age 65, in addition to any Accrued Amounts, she will receive (a) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs, based on actual results and (b) continuation of Welfare Benefits for 24 months at active-employee rates or until such time as they become eligible for such benefits from a subsequent employer.
In the event that Ms. Ball or Mr. Gross are eligible to receive continuation of Welfare Benefits at active-employee rates but are not eligible to continue to receive benefits under CVR Energy's plans pursuant to the terms of such plans or a determination by the insurance providers, CVR Energy will use reasonable efforts to obtain individual insurance policies providing the executives with such benefits at the same cost to CVR Energy as providing them with continued coverage under CVR Energy's plans. If such coverage cannot be obtained, CVR Energy will pay the executives on a monthly basis during the relevant continuation period, an amount equal to the amount CVR Energy would have paid had they continued participation in its plans.
As a condition to receiving these severance payments and benefits, the executives must (a) execute, deliver and not revoke a general release of claims and (b) abide by restrictive covenants as detailed below. The agreements provide that if any payments or distributions due to an executive officer would be subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code, then such payments or distributions will be cut back only if that reduction would be more beneficial to the executive officer on an after-tax basis than if there were no reduction. These executive officers would solely be entitled to Accrued Amounts, if any, upon the termination of employment by CVR Energy for cause, or by the executive voluntarily without good reason and not by reason of retirement, death or disability. The agreements require each of the executive officers to abide by a perpetual restrictive covenant relating to non-disclosure. The agreements also include a covenant relating to non-solicitation
126
and, with respect to Ms. Ball, a covenant relating to non-competition during their employment terms and for one year following the end of the terms.
William White.
Mr. White does not have an employment agreement and is not entitled to any severance and other benefits from our general partner following the termination of his employment.
Stanley A. Riemann.
Mr. Riemann retired effective June 30, 2014. In connection with his retirement, pursuant to the terms of the letter agreement between him and CVR Energy dated November 29, 2013, subject to his execution, delivery and nonrevocation of a release of claims, Mr. Riemann was paid a cash retention bonus of $600,000 and will be entitled to receive a pro-rata bonus based on actual performance of CVR Energy for 2014, payable when bonuses for 2014 are paid generally to CVR Energy’s executive officers. In addition, Mr. Riemann was provided COBRA continuation coverage for six months following his retirement date, and was reimbursed to the extent such COBRA coverage exceeded the premiums at the active employee rate. Mr. Riemann remains subject to the restrictive covenant obligations contained in his prior employment agreement. The table below shows Mr. Riemann's pro-rata bonus for 2014, and the amount of reimbursement for the excess rate associated with his COBRA continuation coverage.
|
|
Cash Severance ($)
|
|
Benefit Continuation ($)(3)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Death
|
|
Disability
|
|
Retirement
|
|
Termination without
Cause or
with Good Reason
|
|
Death
|
|
Disability
|
|
Retirement
|
|
Termination without
Cause or
with Good Reason
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
(2)
|
||||||||||
|
John J. Lipinski
|
4,500,000
|
|
|
4,500,000
|
|
|
2,500,000
|
|
|
4,500,000
|
|
|
9,500,000
|
|
|
25,246
|
|
|
25,246
|
|
|
25,246
|
|
|
25,246
|
|
|
25,246
|
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
831,250
|
|
|
831,250
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Susan M. Ball
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
390,000
|
|
|
780,000
|
|
|
1,170,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,172
|
|
|
2,586
|
|
|
2,586
|
|
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
380,000
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
5,172
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
567,224
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
263
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Severance payments and benefits in the event of termination without cause or resignation for good reason not in connection with a change in control.
|
|
(2)
|
Severance payments and benefits in the event of termination without cause or resignation for good reason in connection with a change in control.
|
|
(3)
|
Beginning in 2014, CVR Energy switched to a self-insured medical plan, and premiums for the named executive officers are paid by the employee only.
|
Each o
f the named executive officers of our general partner who is employed by CVR Energy has been granted restricted stock units pursuant to the CVR Energy LTIP.
The awards that were granted in December 2012 consist of restricted stock units and dividend equivalent rights, which represent the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to the fair market value of one share of CVR Energy common stock, plus the cash value of all dividends that were declared and paid by CVR Energy during the vesting period for that award. Awards of restricted stock units granted prior to the December 2012 grants (which only applies to Ms. Ball) represent the holder's right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to the lesser of $30.00 or the fair market value of a restricted share, as defined in the Transaction Agreement. The awards are subject to transfer restrictions and vesting requirements that lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to immediate vesting under certain circumstances.
The awards that were granted in December 2012 become immediately vested in the event of the relevant named executive officer's death or disability. In addition, (a) the awards become immediately vested in the event of any of the following: (i) such named executive officer's employment is terminated other than for cause within the one-year period following a change in control; (ii) such named executive officer resigns from employment for good reason within the one year period following a change in control; or (iii) such named executive officer's employment is terminated under certain circumstances prior to a change in control; and (b) if such named executive officer is terminated other than for cause or resigns for good reason in the absence of a change in control, then the portion of the award scheduled to vest in the year in which such event occurs becomes immediately vested and the remaining portion is forfeited. The terms disability, cause, good reason and change in control are all defined in the CVR Energy LTIP.
The restricted stock units that were granted prior to December 2012 (which only applies to Ms. Ball) become immediately vested in the event of the relevant named executive officer's death, disability or retirement, or in the event of any of the following: (a) such named executive officer's employment is terminated other than for cause within the one-year period
127
following a change in control; (b) such named executive officer resigns from employment for good reason within the one year period following a change in control; or (c) such named executive officer's employment is terminated under certain circumstances prior to a change in control. The terms disability, retirement, cause, good reason and change in control are all defined in the CVR Energy LTIP. In addition, in the event that Ms. Ball is terminated by CVR Energy without cause and other than for disability at any time on or following the date that she reaches age 60, then Ms. Ball's restricted stock units would vest immediately. This acceleration provision would not apply to Ms. Ball during the term of the award.
In December 2013, CVR Energy granted Mr. Lipinski three separate awards of performance units. Awards 1 and 2 represent the right to receive a cash payment equal to $1,000 multiplied by certain performance factors. Award 3 represents the right to receive a cash payment equal to the product of (a) the 10-day average closing price of CVR Refining common units for the first 10 trading days of December 2014 plus the amount of distributions paid on a share of CVR Refining between December 19, 2013 and the last day of the 10 trading days described above and (b) the applicable performance factor. The awards are subject to transfer restrictions and carry performance cycles ending on June 30, 2014, December 15, 2014 and December 31, 2014. In the event of Mr. Lipinski’s termination of employment prior to, (i) with respect to Award 1 and Award 2, the applicable payment date and (ii) with respect to Award 3, December 31, 2014 (x) by reason of Mr. Lipinski’s death or disability, (y) by CVR Energy other than for cause or (z) by reason of Mr. Lipinski’s resignation for good reason (as each term is defined in the CVR Energy LTIP), all performance units with respect to which a payment date has not yet occurred will remain outstanding, and amounts due to Mr. Lipinski, if any, with respect to such performance units will be paid in the ordinary course as if his employment had not terminated.
Also in December 2013, CVR Energy granted Ms. Ball and Mr. Gross awards consisting of incentive units and distribution equivalent rights. Each incentive unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the average fair market value of one unit of CVR Refining's common units for the first ten trading days in the month of vesting, plus (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by the CVR Refining from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The awards are subject to transfer restrictions and vesting requirements that lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on December 27, 2014, subject to immediate vesting under certain circumstances. The awards become immediately vested in the event of any of the following: (i) such named executive officer's employment is terminated other than for cause within the one-year period following a change in control; (ii) such named executive officer resigns from employment for good reason within the one year period following a change in control; or (iii) such named executive officer's employment is terminated under certain circumstances prior to a change in control. If Ms. Ball or Mr. Gross is terminated other than for cause or resigns for good reason in the absence of a change in control, or if their respective employment is terminated due to death or disability, then the portion of the award scheduled to vest in the year in which such event occurs becomes immediately vested and the remaining portion is forfeited.
In December 2014, CVR Energy granted Ms. Ball and Mr. Pytosh awards consisting of incentive units and distribution equivalent rights. Each incentive unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the average fair market value of one unit of the CVR Refining's common units for the ten trading days preceding vesting, plus (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by CVR Refining from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The awards are subject to transfer restrictions and vesting requirements that lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to immediate vesting under certain circumstances. With respect to Ms. Ball, the awards become immediately vested in the event of any of the following: (i) such named executive officer's employment is terminated other than for cause within the one-year period following a change in control; (ii) such named executive officer resigns from employment for good reason within the one year period following a change in control; or (iii) such named executive officer's employment is terminated under certain circumstances prior to a change in control. If Ms. Ball or Mr. Pytosh is terminated other than for cause or resigns for good reason in the absence of a change in control, or if their respective employment is terminated due to death or disability, then the portion of the award scheduled to vest in the year in which such event occurs becomes immediately vested and the remaining portion is forfeited.
The following table reflects the value of accelerated vesting of the unvested restricted stock units and incentive units held by the named executive officers assuming the triggering event took place on December 31, 2014, and for purposes of retirement, assumes the individual is eligible for retirement. For purposes of: (a) the December 2012 restricted stock unit awards, the value is based on the closing price of the CVR Energy's common stock as of December 31, 2014 date, which was $38.71 per share plus accrued dividends of $19.25 per share; (b) the restricted stock unit awards prior to December 2012, the value is based on a value of $30.00 per share in accordance with the Transaction Agreement; (c) for purposes of the December 2013 incentive unit awards, the value is based on the 10-day average closing price of CVR Refining common units for the first 10 trading days of December 2014, or $20.71 per unit plus accrued distributions of $2.93 per unit; and (d) for purposes of the December 2014 incentive unit awards, the value is based on the 10-day average closing price for the 10 trading days preceding December 31, 2014, or $17.17. For Mr. Riemann, the table reflects the value of an award of restricted stock units that accelerated on June 30, 2014 in connection with his retirement. The table does not take into consideration the value of the performance units held by Mr. Lipinski (which are the only awards held by Mr. Lipinski) since such performance units would
128
not accelerate, but instead pay out in the ordinary course as if his employment had not terminated. Mr. Pytosh does not have any awards from CVR Energy that qualify for acceleration in these circumstances.
Value of Accelerated Vesting of Restricted Stock Unit and Incentive Unit Awards
|
|
Death ($)
|
|
Disability ($)
|
|
Retirement ($)
|
|
Termination without
Cause or
with Good Reason ($)
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
(2)
|
|||||
|
Susan M. Ball
|
380,900
|
|
|
380,900
|
|
|
56,730
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
1,905,873
|
|
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
324,170
|
|
|
324,170
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
879,592
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
794,190
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Termination without cause or resignation for good reason not in connection with a change in control.
|
|
(2)
|
Termination without cause or resignation for good reason in connection with a change in control.
|
Mr. Pytosh and Mr. White have been granted phantom units pursuant to the CVR Partners LTIP.
The phantom units granted to Mr. White in December 2012 represent the right to receive one common unit of the Partnership upon vesting. The award is subject to transfer restrictions and vesting requirements that lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to immediate vesting under certain circumstances. The phantom units granted to Mr. White become immediately vested in the event of Mr. White's death or disability. In addition, (a) the awards become immediately vested in the event Mr. White (i) is terminated other than for cause within the one-year period following a change in control; or (ii) resigns from employment for good reason within the one year period following a change in control; and (b) if Mr. White is terminated other than for cause or such executive resigns for good reason in the absence of a change in control, then the portion of the award scheduled to vest in the year in which such event occurs becomes immediately vested and the remaining portion is forfeited. The terms disability, cause, good reason and change in control are all defined in the CVR Partners LTIP.
In December 2013, CVR Partners granted Mr. White an award consisting of phantom units and distribution equivalent rights. Each phantom unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the average fair market value of one unit of CVR Partners' common units for the first ten trading days in the month of vesting, plus (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by CVR Partners from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The award is subject to transfer restrictions and vesting requirements that lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to immediate vesting under certain circumstances. If Mr. White is terminated other than for cause, or if his employment is terminated due to death or disability, then the portion of the award scheduled to vest in the year in which such event occurs becomes immediately vested and the remaining portion is forfeited.
In May 2014, CVR Partners granted Mr. Pytosh an award of performance-based phantom units and distribution equivalent rights. Each phantom unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the average closing price of CVR Partners' common units in accordance with the agreement, multiplied by a performance factor that is based upon the level of CVR Partners' production of UAN, and (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by CVR Partners from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The awards are subject to transfer restrictions and carry performance cycles ending on December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016. In the event of Mr. Pytosh’s termination of employment prior to December 31, 2016 by reason of Mr. Pytosh’s death or disability or by CVR Partners other than for cause (as each term is defined in the LTIP), all phantom units and distribution equivalent rights with respect to the performance cycle in which the termination occurs and with respect to any performance cycle that has been completed at the time of such termination (but remains unpaid) will remain outstanding, and amounts due to Mr. Pytosh, if any, with respect to such phantom units and distribution equivalent rights will be paid in the ordinary course as if his employment had not terminated (provided, in such instances the performance factor may not exceed 100%).
In December 2014, CVR Partners granted Mr. Pytosh and Mr. White awards consisting of phantom units and distribution equivalent rights. Each phantom unit and distribution equivalent right represents the right to receive, upon vesting, a cash payment equal to (a) the average fair market value of one unit of the CVR Partners' common units for the ten trading days preceding vesting, plus (b) the per unit cash value of all distributions declared and paid by CVR Partners from the grant date to and including the vesting date. The awards are subject to transfer restrictions and vesting requirements that lapse in one-third annual increments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to immediate vesting under certain
129
circumstances. If Mr. Pytosh or Mr. White is terminated other than for cause or if Mr. Pytosh resigns for good reason, or if their respective employment is terminated due to death or disability, then the portion of the award scheduled to vest in the year in which such event occurs becomes immediately vested and the remaining portion is forfeited.
The following table reflects the value of accelerated vesting of the unvested phantom unit awards held by the named executive officers assuming the triggering event took place on December 31, 2014. Only the December 2012 awards have provisions that would trigger acceleration in the relevant circumstances below. For purposes of the December 2012 phantom unit awards, the value is based on the closing price of the CVR Partners' common units as of December 31, 2014, which was $9.74 per unit. The table does not take into consideration the value of the performance-based phantom units held by Mr. Pytosh since such phantom units would not accelerate in the relevant circumstances, but instead pay out in the ordinary course as if his employment had not terminated. Mr. Pytosh does not have any awards from CVR Energy that qualify for acceleration in these circumstances.
Value of Accelerated Vesting of Phantom Unit Awards
|
|
Death ($)
|
|
Disability ($)
|
|
Retirement ($)
|
|
Termination without
Cause or
with Good Reason ($)
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
(2)
|
|||||
|
William White
|
31,762
|
|
|
31,762
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
31,762
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Termination without cause or resignation for good reason not in connection with a change in control.
|
|
(2)
|
Termination without cause or resignation for good reason in connection with a change in control.
|
Compensation of Directors
Directors of our general partner who are not officers, employees or directors of CVR Energy or its affiliates receive compensation for their services. During 2014, independent directors received an annual director fee of $55,000. The audit committee chair received an additional fee of $15,000 per year, while independent directors serving on the audit committee received an additional fee of $7,500 per year. The compensation committee chair received an additional fee of $8,000 per year, while independent directors serving on the compensation committee received an additional fee of $5,000 per year. The chair of the environmental, health and safety committee received an additional fee of $8,000 per year, while independent directors serving on the environmental, health and safety committee received an additional fee of $5,000 per year. In addition, independent directors also received a one-time cash payment of $20,000 (in lieu of the common unit award, which has been discontinued) and were also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attending meetings of the board of directors (and committees thereof) of our general partner and for other director-related education expenses.
The following table sets forth the compensation received by each independent director of our general partner for the year ended December 31, 2014.
|
Name
|
Fees Earned or Paid in
Cash(1)($)
|
|
Unit Awards(2)($)
|
|
Total Compensation ($)
|
||
|
Donna R. Ecton
|
95,000
|
|
—
|
|
|
95,000
|
|
|
Frank M. Muller, Jr.
|
95,500
|
|
—
|
|
|
95,500
|
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh (3)
|
23,500
|
|
—
|
|
|
23,500
|
|
|
Peter K. Shea (4)
|
61,667
|
|
17,135
|
|
|
78,802
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Amounts reflected in this column include annual retainer fees and additional fees for service as committee members, including the chair positions during 2014. This column also reflects $20,000 for Ms. Ecton and Messrs. Muller and Shea that was paid in lieu of common units in December of 2014.
|
|
(2)
|
Mr. Shea was granted 814 common units on May 5, 2014. The number of common units granted was based on the closing price of CVR Partners common units on the day of vesting, or $21.05 per unit. The dollar amounts in the table reflect the grant date fair value of these phantom units in accordance with FASB ASC 718.
|
|
(3)
|
In conjunction with his appointment as Chief Executive Officer on May 5, 2014, Mr. Pytosh was no longer compensated as an independent director.
|
130
|
(4)
|
Effective May 5, 2014, Peter K. Shea was appointed to the board of directors of our general partner.
|
Item 12.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Unitholder Matters
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
The following table presents information regarding beneficial ownership of our common units as of February 17, 2015 by:
|
•
|
our general partner;
|
|
•
|
each of our general partner's directors;
|
|
•
|
each of our named executive officers;
|
|
•
|
each unitholder known by us to beneficially hold five percent or more of our outstanding units; and
|
|
•
|
all of our general partner's executive officers and directors as a group.
|
Beneficial ownership is determined under the rules of the SEC and generally includes voting or investment power with respect to securities. Unless indicated below, to our knowledge, the persons and entities named in the table have sole voting and sole investment power with respect to all common units beneficially owned, subject to community property laws where applicable. The business address for each of our beneficial owners is c/o CVR Partners, LP, 2277 Plaza Drive, Suite 500, Sugar Land, Texas 77479.
|
|
Common Units
Beneficially Owned
|
||||
|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
Number
|
|
Percent
|
||
|
CVR GP, LLC(1)
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Coffeyville Resources, LLC(2)
|
38,920,000
|
|
|
53.2
|
%
|
|
John J. Lipinski(3)
|
187,500
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh(4)
|
55,932
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Stanley A. Riemann
|
30,000
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Susan M. Ball
|
1,800
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Edmund S. Gross
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
SungHwan Cho
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Donna R. Ecton(5)
|
26,469
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Frank M. Muller, Jr.(6)
|
35,122
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
Andrew Roberto
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Peter K. Shea
|
586
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
All directors and executive officers of our general partner as a group (10 persons)(7)
|
309,598
|
|
|
*
|
|
_______________________________________
|
*
|
Less than 1%
|
|
(1)
|
CVR GP, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coffeyville Resources, is our general partner and manages and operates our business and has a non-economic general partner interest.
|
|
(2)
|
Coffeyville Resources is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy, a publicly traded company. CVR Energy may be deemed to have direct beneficial ownership of the common units held by Coffeyville Resources by virtue of its control of Coffeyville Resources. The directors of CVR Energy are Carl C. Icahn, Bob. G. Alexander, SungHwan Cho, Andrew Langham, John J. Lipinski, Courtney Mather, Stephen Mongillo, Andrew Roberto and James M. Strock.
|
|
(3)
|
Mr. Lipinski owns 62,500 common units directly. In addition, Mr. Lipinski may be deemed to be the beneficial owner of an additional 125,000 common units, which are owned by the 2011 Lipinski Exempt Family Trust, which are held in trust for the benefit of Mr. Lipinski's family. Mr. Lipinski's spouse is the trustee of the trust.
|
131
|
(4)
|
Mr. Pytosh purchased 50,000 common units in connection with CVR Partners' Initial Public Offering in April 2011. Mr. Pytosh was awarded 1,478 common units on June 1, 2011, 2,418 common units on December 30, 2011, and 816 common units on December 28, 2012 and 1,220 common units on December 27, 2013. These common units vested immediately.
|
|
(5)
|
Ms. Ecton purchased 12,500 common units in connection with CVR Partners' Initial Public Offering in April 2011. Ms. Ecton was awarded 14,655 phantom units in connection with the Initial Public Offering, subject to a six-month vesting period. Upon vesting in October 2011, the phantom units converted to 14,655 common units, with 4,412 common units being withheld for tax purposes, resulting in a net award of 10,243 common units. Ms. Ecton was also awarded 2,418 common units on December 30, 2011, with 728 common units being withheld for tax purposes, resulting in a net award of 1,690 common units. These common units vested immediately. Ms. Ecton was also awarded 816 common units on December 28, 2012 and 1,220 common units on December 27, 2013. These common units vested immediately.
|
|
(6)
|
Mr. Muller purchased 21,875 common units in connection with CVR Partners' Initial Public Offering in April 2011. Mr. Muller was awarded 8,793 phantom units in connection with the Initial Public Offering, subject to a six-month vesting period. Upon vesting in October 2011, the phantom units converted to 8,793 common units. Mr. Muller was also awarded 2,418 common units on December 30, 2011, 816 common units on December 28, 2012 and 1,220 common units on December 27, 2013. These common units vested immediately.
|
|
(7)
|
The number of common units owned by all of the directors and executive officers of our general partner, as a group, reflects the sum of (1) the 187,500 common units owned directly or indirectly by Mr. Lipinski, the 55,932 common units owned by Mr. Pytosh, the 1,800 common units owned by Ms. Ball and the 2,189 common units owned by William White, (2) the 26,469 common units owned by Ms. Ecton, (3) the 35,122 common units owned by Mr. Muller, (4) the 586 owned by Mr. Shea.
|
The executive officers and directors of our general partner do not own any common stock of CVR Energy.
Equity Compensation Plan
In connection with the Initial Public Offering, the board of directors of our general partner adopted the CVR Partners LTIP. Individuals who are eligible to receive awards under the CVR Partners LTIP include employees, officers, consultants and directors of CVR Partners and the general partner and their respective subsidiaries and parents. The CVR Partners LTIP provides for the grant of options, unit appreciation rights, distribution equivalent rights, restricted units, phantom units and other unit-based awards, each in respect of common units. A maximum of 5,000,000 common units are issuable under the CVR Partners LTIP.
The table below contains information about securities authorized for issuance under the CVR Partners LTIP as of December 31, 2014. The CVR Partners LTIP was approved by the board of directors of our general partner in March 2011.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
|
Plan Category
|
Number of Securities to be
Issued Upon Vesting
|
|
Weighted-Average
Exercise Price of
Outstanding
Securities
|
|
Number of Securities
Remaining Available for
Future Issuance Under Equity
Compensation Plans
|
|
|||
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
CVR Partners, LP Long- Term Incentive Plan
|
7,707
|
|
(1)
|
|
(2)
|
4,820,215
|
|
(3)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Total
|
7,707
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
4,820,215
|
|
|
_______________________________________
|
(1)
|
Represents common and phantom units awarded under the CVR Partners LTIP.
|
|
(2)
|
Units do not have an exercise price. Payout is based on completing a specified period of employment.
|
132
|
(3)
|
Represents units that remain available for future issuance pursuant to the CVR Partners LTIP in connection with awards of options, unit appreciation rights, distribution equivalent rights, restricted units and phantom units. As of December 31, 2014, 255,581 equity-settled common and phantom units had been granted under the CVR Partners LTIP, of which 75,796 common and phantom units have been forfeited and 7,707 remain unvested.
|
Item 13.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Coffeyville Resources, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVR Energy, owns (i)
38,920,000
common units, representing approximately
53%
of our outstanding units and (ii) our general partner with its non-economic general partner interest (which does not entitle it to receive distributions). On August 29, 2012, the Partnership's shelf registration statement on Form S-3 was declared effective by the SEC, enabling CRLLC to sell, from time to time, in one or more public offerings or direct placements, up to 50,920,000 common units. CRLLC has sold 12,000,000 common units to date pursuant to this shelf registration statement.
Agreements with CVR Energy and CVR Refining
In connection with the formation of the Partnership and the initial public offering of CVR Energy in October 2007, we entered into several agreements with CVR Energy and its affiliates that govern the business relations among us, CVR Energy and its affiliates (including entities that were subsequently contributed to CVR Refining in connection with the Refining Partnership IPO) and our general partner. In connection with our Initial Public Offering in April 2011, we amended and restated certain of the intercompany agreements and entered into several new agreements with CVR Energy and its affiliates, including our partnership agreement. These agreements were not the result of arm's-length negotiations and the terms of these agreements are not necessarily at least as favorable to the parties to these agreements as terms which could have been obtained from unaffiliated third parties.
Coke Supply Agreement
We are party to a pet coke supply agreement with CRRM, pursuant to which CRRM supplies us with pet coke. This agreement provides that CRRM must deliver to the Partnership during each calendar year an annual required amount of pet coke equal to the lesser of (i) 100 percent of the pet coke produced at CRRM's Coffeyville, Kansas petroleum refinery or (ii) 500,000 tons of pet coke. We are also obligated to purchase this annual required amount. If during a calendar month CRRM produces more than 41,667 tons of pet coke, then we will have the option to purchase the excess at the purchase price provided for in the agreement. If we decline to exercise this option, CRRM may sell the excess to a third party.
We obtain most (over 70% on average during the last five years) of the pet coke we need from CRRM's adjacent crude oil refinery pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement, and procure the remainder through a contract with HollyFrontier Corporation and on the open market. The price we pay pursuant to the pet coke supply agreement is based on the lesser of a pet coke price derived from the price received for UAN, or the UAN-based price, and a pet coke price index. The UAN-based price begins with a pet coke price of $25 per ton based on a price per ton for UAN (exclusive of transportation cost), or netback price, of $205 per ton, and adjusts up or down $0.50 per ton for every $1.00 change in the netback price. The UAN-based price has a ceiling of $40 per ton and a floor of $5 per ton.
We also pay any taxes associated with the sale, purchase, transportation, delivery, storage or consumption of the pet coke. We will be entitled to offset any amount payable for the pet coke against any amount due from CRRM under the feedstock and shared services agreement between the parties. If we fail to pay an invoice on time, we will pay interest on the outstanding amount payable at a rate of three percent above the prime rate.
In the event CRRM delivers pet coke to us on a short-term basis and such pet coke is off-specification on more than 20 days in any calendar year, there will be a price adjustment to compensate us for costs to modify our equipment to process the pet coke received. If CRRM determines that there will be a change in pet coke quality on a long-term basis, then it will be required to notify us of such change with at least three years' notice. We will then determine the appropriate changes necessary to our nitrogen fertilizer plant in order to process such off-specification pet coke. CRRM will compensate us for the cost of making such modifications and/or adjust the price of pet coke on a mutually agreeable commercially reasonable basis.
The terms of the pet coke supply agreement provide benefits both to us and CRRM's petroleum business. The cost of the pet coke supplied by CRRM to us in most cases will be lower than the price which we otherwise would pay to third parties. The cost to us will be lower both because the actual price paid will be lower and because we will pay significantly reduced transportation costs (since the pet coke is supplied by an adjacent facility which will involve no freight or tariff costs). In addition, because the cost we pay will be formulaically related to the price received for UAN (subject to a UAN based price floor and ceiling), we will enjoy lower pet coke costs during periods of lower revenues regardless of the prevailing pet coke market.
133
In return for CRRM receiving a potentially lower price for pet coke in periods when the pet coke price is impacted by lower UAN prices, it enjoys the following benefits associated with the disposition of a low value by-product of the refining process: avoiding the capital cost and operating expenses associated with handling pet coke; enjoying flexibility in its crude slate and operations as a result of not being required to meet a specific pet coke quality; and avoiding the administration, credit risk and marketing fees associated with selling pet coke.
We may be obligated to provide security for our payment obligations under the agreement if in CRRM's sole judgment there is a material adverse change in our financial condition or liquidity position or in our ability to make payments. This security shall not exceed an amount equal to 21 times the average daily dollar value of pet coke we purchase for the 90-day period preceding the date on which CRRM gives us notice that it has deemed that a material adverse change has occurred. Unless otherwise agreed by CRRM and us, we can provide such security by means of a standby or documentary letter of credit, prepayment, a surety instrument, or a combination of the foregoing. If we do not provide such security, CRRM may require us to pay for future deliveries of pet coke on a cash-on-delivery basis, failing which it may suspend delivery of pet coke until such security is provided and terminate the agreement upon 30 days' prior written notice. Additionally, we may terminate the agreement within 60 days of providing security, so long as we provide five days' prior written notice.
The agreement has an initial term of 20 years, which will be automatically extended for successive five year renewal periods. Either party may terminate the agreement by giving notice no later than three years prior to a renewal date. The agreement is also terminable by mutual consent of the parties or if a party breaches the agreement and does not cure within applicable cure periods. Additionally, the agreement may be terminated in some circumstances if substantially all of the operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant or the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery are permanently terminated, or if either party is subject to a bankruptcy proceeding or otherwise becomes insolvent.
Either party may assign its rights and obligations under the agreement to an affiliate of the assigning party, to a party's lenders for collateral security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all or substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning party related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as applicable, in each case subject to applicable consent requirements.
The agreement contains an obligation to indemnify the other party and its affiliates against liability arising from breach of the agreement, negligence, or willful misconduct by the indemnifying party or its affiliates. The indemnification obligation will be reduced, as applicable, by amounts actually recovered by the indemnified party from third parties or insurance coverage. The agreement also contains a provision that prohibits recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages, from either party or certain affiliates.
The cost of pet coke cost per ton purchased from CRRM averaged
$24
,
$27
and
$30
for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively. Total cost of pet coke from CRRM to CRNF were approximately
$9.2 million
,
$9.8 million
and
$10.2 million
for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively, and included in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Third-party pet coke prices averaged
$41
,
$40
and
$42
for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively. Total purchases of pet coke from third parties were approximately
$4.4 million
,
$4.8 million
and
$6.0 million
for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, respectively.
Feedstock and Shared Services Agreement
We are party to a feedstock and shared services agreement with CRRM which was most recently amended in December 2013, under which we and CRRM provide feedstock and other services to one another. These feedstocks and services are utilized in the respective production processes of CRRM's Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and our nitrogen fertilizer plant. Feedstocks provided under the agreement include, among others, hydrogen, high-pressure steam, nitrogen, instrument air, oxygen and natural gas.
Pursuant to the feedstock agreement, we and CRRM have agreed, to transfer excess hydrogen to one another; provided CRNF is not required to sell hydrogen to CRRM if such hydrogen is required for operation of CRNF's nitrogen fertilizer plant, if such sale would adversely affect the Partnership's classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, or if such sale would not be in CRNF's best interest. The feedstock agreement provides hydrogen supply and pricing terms for sales of hydrogen by both parties. Pricing for sales of hydrogen from us to CRRM is based on ammonia prices for sales of hydrogen up to a designated amount. For sales of hydrogen in excess of such amount, the pricing reverts to a UAN pricing structure to make us whole, as if we had produced UAN for sale. Pricing for sales of hydrogen by CRRM to us is based off of the price of natural gas. The hydrogen sales that we and CRRM make to each other are netted on a monthly basis, and we or CRRM will be paid to the extent that either of us sells more hydrogen than purchased in any given month. Net monthly sales of hydrogen to CRRM have been reflected as net sales for CVR Partners. Net monthly receipts of hydrogen from CRRM have been reflected in cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) for CVR Partners. For the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, the net sales generated from the sale of hydrogen to CRRM were approximately
$10.1 million
,
$11.4 million
and
$6.3
134
million
, respectively. For the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, CVR Partners also recognized
$41,000
,
$0.6 million
and
$0.2 million
, respectively, of cost of product sold (exclusive of depreciation and amortization) related to the transfer of excess hydrogen from the refinery. At December 31,
2014
and
2013
, there was approximately
$1.3 million
and
$2.6 million
, respectively, of receivables included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with unpaid balances related to hydrogen sales.
The agreement provides that both parties must deliver high-pressure steam to one another under certain circumstances. Net reimbursed or (paid) recorded in direct operating expenses during the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
were approximately
$(0.1) million
,
$0.1 million
and
$(11,000)
, respectively, related to high-pressure steam. Reimbursements or paid amounts for each of the years on a gross basis were nominal.
We are also obligated to make available to CRRM any nitrogen produced by the Linde air separation plant that is not required for the operation of the nitrogen fertilizer plant, as determined by us in a commercially reasonable manner. The price for the nitrogen is based on a cost of $0.035 cents per kilowatt hour, as adjusted to reflect changes in our electric bill. Reimbursed direct operating expenses associated with nitrogen for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
were approximately
$1.0 million
,
$0.5 million
and
$1.4 million
, respectively.
The agreement also provides that both we and CRRM must deliver instrument air to one another in some circumstances. We must make instrument air available for purchase by CRRM at a minimum flow rate, to the extent produced by the Linde air separation plant and available to us. The price for such instrument air is $18,000 per month, prorated according to the number of days of use per month, subject to certain adjustments, including adjustments to reflect changes in our electric bill. To the extent that instrument air is not available from the Linde air separation plant and is available from CRRM, CRRM is required to make instrument air available to us for purchase at a price of $18,000 per month, prorated according to the number of days of use per month, subject to certain adjustments, including adjustments to reflect changes in CRRM's electric bill. Reimbursed direct operating expenses or paid amounts for each of the years on a gross or net basis were nominal.
The agreement provides a mechanism pursuant to which we may transfer a tail gas stream to CRRM which installed a pipe between the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer plant to transfer the tail gas. We agreed to pay CRRM the cost of installing the pipe over a two year period and in the third year to provide an additional 15% to cover the cost of capital. At December 31,
2014
and
2013
, an asset of approximately
$0.2 million
was included in other current assets and approximately
$1.0 million
and
$1.1 million
, respectively, was included in other non-current assets with an offset liability of approximately
$0.1 million
and
$0.3 million
, respectively, in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and approximately
$0
and
$0.1 million
, respectively, in other long-term liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheet.
With respect to oxygen requirements, we are obligated to provide oxygen produced by the Linde air separation plant and made available to us to the extent that such oxygen is not required for operation of our nitrogen fertilizer plant. The oxygen is required to meet certain specifications and is to be sold at a fixed price.
The agreement also addresses the means by which we and CRRM obtain natural gas. Currently, natural gas is delivered to both our nitrogen fertilizer plant and the refinery pursuant to a contract between CRRM and Atmos Energy Corp., or Atmos. Under the feedstock and shared services agreement, we reimburse CRRM for natural gas transportation and natural gas supplies purchased on our behalf. At our request or at the request of CRRM, in order to supply us with natural gas directly, both parties will be required to use their commercially reasonable efforts to (i) add us as a party to the current contract with Atmos or reach some other mutually acceptable accommodation with Atmos whereby both we and CRRM would each be able to receive, on an individual basis, natural gas transportation service from Atmos on similar terms and conditions as set forth in the current contract, and (ii) purchase natural gas supplies on their own account.
The agreement also addresses the allocation of various other feedstocks, services and related costs between the parties. Sour water, water for use in fire emergencies, tank storage, costs associated with security services, and costs associated with the removal of excess sulfur are all allocated between the two parties by the terms of the agreement. The agreement also requires us to reimburse CRRM for utility costs related to a sulfur processing agreement between Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. ("Tessenderlo Kerley") and CRRM. We have a similar agreement with Tessenderlo Kerley. Otherwise, costs relating to both our and CRRM's existing agreements with Tessenderlo Kerley are allocated equally between the two parties except in certain circumstances.
The parties may temporarily suspend the provision of feedstocks or services pursuant to the terms of the agreement if repairs or maintenance are necessary on applicable facilities. Additionally, the agreement imposes minimum insurance requirements on the parties and their affiliates.
The agreement has a term of 20 years, and will be automatically extended for successive five-year renewal periods. Either party may terminate the agreement, effective upon the last day of a term, by giving notice no later than three years prior to a renewal date. The agreement will also be terminable by mutual consent of the parties or if one party breaches the agreement and does not cure within applicable cure periods and the breach materially and adversely affects the ability of the terminating
135
party to operate its facility. Additionally, the agreement may be terminated in some circumstances if substantially all of the operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant or the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery are permanently terminated, or if either party is subject to a bankruptcy proceeding or otherwise becomes insolvent. Either party is entitled to assign its rights and obligations under the agreement to an affiliate of the assigning party, to a party's lenders for collateral security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all or substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning party related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as applicable, in each case subject to applicable consent requirements. The agreement contains an obligation to indemnify the other party and its affiliates against liability arising from breach of the agreement, negligence, or willful misconduct by the indemnifying party or its affiliates. The indemnification obligation will be reduced, as applicable, by amounts actually recovered by the indemnified party from third parties or insurance coverage. The agreement also contains a provision that prohibits recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages, from either party or certain affiliates.
Raw Water and Facilities Sharing Agreement
We are party to a raw water and facilities sharing agreement with CRRM which (i) provides for the allocation of raw water resources between the Coffeyville refinery and our nitrogen fertilizer plant and (ii) provides for the management of the water intake system (consisting primarily of a water intake structure, water pumps, meters, and a short run of piping between the intake structure and the origin of the separate pipes that transport the water to each facility) which draws raw water from the Verdigris River for both our facility and CRRM's Coffeyville refinery. This agreement provides that a water management team consisting of one representative from each party to the agreement will manage the Verdigris River water intake system. The water intake system is owned and operated by CRRM. The agreement provides that both companies have an undivided one-half interest in the water rights that allow the water to be removed from the Verdigris River for use at our nitrogen fertilizer plant and CRRM's Coffeyville refinery.
The agreement provides that both our nitrogen fertilizer plant and the Coffeyville refinery are entitled to receive sufficient amounts of water from the Verdigris River each day to enable them to conduct their businesses at their appropriate operational levels. However, if the amount of water available from the Verdigris River is insufficient to satisfy the operational requirements of both facilities, then such water shall be allocated between the two facilities on a prorated basis. This prorated basis will be determined by calculating the percentage of water used by each facility over the two calendar years prior to the shortage, making appropriate adjustments for any operational outages involving either of the two facilities.
Costs associated with operation of the water intake system and administration of water rights are also allocated on a prorated basis, calculated by CRRM based on the percentage of water used by each facility during the calendar year in which such costs are incurred. However, in certain circumstances, such as where one party bears direct responsibility for the modification or repair of the water pumps, one party will bear all costs associated with such activity. Additionally, we must reimburse CRRM for electricity required to operate the water pumps on a prorated basis that is calculated monthly.
Either we or CRRM are entitled to terminate the agreement by giving at least three years' prior written notice. Between the time that notice is given and the termination date, CRRM must cooperate with us to allow us to build our own water intake system on the Verdigris River to be used for supplying water to our nitrogen fertilizer plant. CRRM is required to grant easements and access over its property so that we can construct and utilize such new water intake system, provided that no such easements or access over CRRM's property shall have a material adverse effect on its business or operations at the refinery. We will bear all costs and expenses for such construction if we are the party that terminated the original water sharing agreement. If CRRM terminates the original water sharing agreement, we may either install a new water intake system at our own expense, or require CRRM to sell the existing water intake system to us for a price equal to the depreciated book value of the water intake system as of the date of transfer.
Either party may assign its rights and obligations under the agreement to an affiliate of the assigning party, to a party's lenders for collateral security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all or substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning party related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as applicable, in each case subject to applicable consent requirements. The parties may obtain injunctive relief to enforce their rights under the agreement. The agreement contains an obligation to indemnify the other party and its affiliates against liability arising from breach of the agreement, negligence, or willful misconduct by the indemnifying party or its affiliates. The indemnification obligation will be reduced, as applicable, by amounts actually recovered by the indemnified party from third parties or insurance coverage. The agreement also contains a provision that prohibits recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages from either party or certain affiliates.
The term of the agreement is perpetual unless (1) the agreement is terminated by either party upon three years' prior written notice in the manner described above or (2) the agreement is otherwise terminated by the mutual written consent of the parties.
136
Real Estate Transactions
Cross-Easement Agreement.
We are party to a cross-easement agreement with CRRM so that both we and CRRM can access and utilize each other's land in certain circumstances in order to operate our respective businesses. The agreement grants easements for the benefit of both parties and establishes easements for operational facilities, pipelines, equipment, access, and water rights, among other easements. The intent of the agreement is to structure easements that provide flexibility for both parties to develop their respective properties, without depriving either party of the benefits associated with the continuous reasonable use of the other party's property.
The agreement provides that facilities located on each party's property will generally be owned and maintained by the property-owning party; provided, however, that in certain specified cases where a facility that benefits one party is located on the other party's property, the benefited party will have the right to use, and will be responsible for operating and maintaining, the overlapping facility.
The easements granted under the agreement are non-exclusive to the extent that future grants of easements do not interfere with easements granted under the agreement. The duration of the easements granted under the agreement will vary, and some will be perpetual. Easements pertaining to certain facilities that are required to carry out the terms of our other agreements with CRRM will terminate upon the termination of such related agreements. We have obtained a water rights easement from CRRM that is perpetual in duration. See " — Raw Water and Facilities Sharing Agreement."
The agreement contains an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party against liability arising from negligence or willful misconduct by the indemnifying party. The agreement also requires the parties to carry minimum amounts of employer's liability insurance, commercial general liability insurance, and other types of insurance. If either party transfers its fee simple ownership interest in the real property governed by the agreement, the new owner of the real property will be deemed to have assumed all of the obligations of the transferring party under the agreement, except that the transferring party will retain liability for all obligations under the agreement which arose prior to the date of transfer.
Terminal and Operating Lease Agreement.
On May 4, 2012, CRNF entered into a lease and operating agreement with Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT"), under which it leases the premises located at Phillipsburg, Kansas to be utilized as a UAN terminal. The initial term of the agreement will expire in May 2032, provided, however, that CRNF may terminate the lease at any time during the initial term by providing 180 days prior written notice. In addition, this agreement will automatically renew for successive five-year terms, provided that CRNF may terminate the agreement during any renewal term with at least 180 days written notice. CRNF will pay CRT $1.00 per year for rent, $4.00 per ton of UAN placed into the terminal and $4.00 per ton of UAN taken out of the terminal.
Lease Agreement.
We are party to a lease agreement with CRRM in October 2007 under which we lease certain office and laboratory space. The initial term of the lease will expire in October 2017, provided, however, that we may terminate the lease at any time during the initial term by providing 180 days' prior written notice. In addition, we have the option to renew the lease agreement for up to five additional one-year periods by providing CRRM with notice of renewal at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the then-existing term. There were no amounts outstanding with respect to the lease agreement as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.
Environmental Agreement
CRNF is a party to an environmental agreement with CRRM which provides for certain indemnification and access rights in connection with environmental matters affecting the Coffeyville, Kansas refinery and the nitrogen fertilizer plant.
To the extent that one party's property experiences environmental contamination due to the activities of the other party and the contamination is known at the time the agreement was entered into, the contaminating party is required to implement all government-mandated environmental activities relating to the contamination, or else indemnify the property-owning party for expenses incurred in connection with implementing such measures.
To the extent that liability arises from environmental contamination that is caused by CRRM but is also commingled with environmental contamination caused by us, CRRM may elect in its sole discretion and at its own cost and expense to perform government mandated environmental activities relating to such liability, subject to certain conditions and provided that CRRM will not waive any rights to indemnification or compensation otherwise provided for in the agreement.
The agreement also addresses situations in which a party's responsibility to implement such government-mandated environmental activities as described above may be hindered by the property-owning party's creation of capital improvements on the property. If a contaminating party bears such responsibility but the property-owning party desires to implement a planned and approved capital improvement project on its property, the parties must meet and attempt to develop a soil management plan together. If the parties are unable to agree on a soil management plan 30 days after receiving notice, the
137
property-owning party may proceed with its own commercially reasonable soil management plan. The contaminating party is responsible for the costs of disposing of hazardous materials pursuant to such plan.
If the property-owning party needs to do work that is not a planned and approved capital improvement project but is necessary to protect the environment, health, or the integrity of the property, other procedures will be implemented. If the contaminating party still bears responsibility to implement government-mandated environmental activities relating to the property and the property-owning party discovers contamination caused by the other party during work on the capital improvement project, the property-owning party will give the contaminating party prompt notice after discovery of the contamination, and will allow the contaminating party to inspect the property. If the contaminating party accepts responsibility for the contamination, it may proceed with government-mandated environmental activities relating to the contamination, and it will be responsible for the costs of disposing of hazardous materials relating to the contamination. If the contaminating party does not accept responsibility for such contamination or fails to diligently proceed with government-mandated environmental activities related to the contamination, then the contaminating party must indemnify and reimburse the property-owning party upon the property-owning party's demand for costs and expenses incurred by the property-owning party in proceeding with such government-mandated environmental activities.
Either party is entitled to assign its rights and obligations under the agreement to an affiliate of the assigning party, to a party's lenders for collateral security purposes, or to an entity that acquires all or substantially all of the equity or assets of the assigning party related to the refinery or fertilizer plant, as applicable, in each case subject to applicable consent requirements. The agreement has a term of at least 20 years or for so long as the feedstock and shared services agreement is in force, whichever is longer. The agreement also contains a provision that prohibits recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages, from either party or certain of its affiliates.
The agreement also provides for indemnification in the case of contamination or releases of hazardous materials that are present but unknown at the time the agreement is entered into to the extent such contamination or releases are identified in reasonable detail through October 2012. The agreement further provides for indemnification in the case of contamination or releases that occur subsequent to the execution of the agreement. If one party causes such contamination or release on the other party's property, the latter party must notify the contaminating party, and the contaminating party must take steps to implement all government-mandated environmental activities relating to the contamination, or else indemnify the property-owning party for the costs associated with doing such work.
The agreement also grants each party reasonable access to the other party's property for the purpose of carrying out obligations under the agreement. However, both parties must keep certain information relating to the environmental conditions on the properties confidential. Furthermore, both parties are prohibited from investigating soil or groundwater conditions except as required for government-mandated environmental activities, in responding to an accidental or sudden contamination of certain hazardous materials, or in connection with implementation of our comprehensive pet coke management plan.
The agreement provided for the development of a comprehensive pet coke management plan that established procedures for the management of pet coke and the identification of significant pet coke-related contamination. Also, the parties agreed to indemnify and defend one another and each other's affiliates against liabilities arising under the pet coke management plan or relating to a failure to comply with or implement the pet coke management plan.
Omnibus Agreement
We are party to an omnibus agreement with CVR Energy and our general partner, pursuant to which we have agreed not to, and will cause our controlled affiliates not to, engage in, whether by acquisition or otherwise, (i) the ownership or operation within the United States of any refinery with processing capacity greater than 20,000 bpd whose primary business is producing transportation fuels or (ii) the ownership or operation outside the United States of any refinery, regardless of its processing capacity or primary business, or a refinery restricted business, in either case, for so long as CVR Energy and certain of its affiliates continue to own at least 50% of our outstanding units. The restrictions will not apply to:
|
•
|
any refinery restricted business acquired as part of a business or package of assets if a majority of the value of the total assets or business acquired is not attributable to a refinery restricted business, as determined in good faith by our general partner's board of directors; provided, however, if at any time we complete such an acquisition, we must, within 365 days of the closing of the transaction, offer to sell the refinery-related assets to CVR Energy for their fair market value plus any additional tax or other similar costs that would be required to transfer the refinery-related assets to CVR Energy separately from the acquired business or package of assets;
|
|
•
|
engaging in any refinery restricted business subject to the offer to CVR Energy described in the immediately preceding bullet point pending CVR Energy's determination whether to accept such offer and pending the closing of any offers CVR Energy accepts;
|
138
|
•
|
engaging in any refinery restricted business if CVR Energy has previously advised us that it has elected not to cause it to acquire or seek to acquire such business; or
|
|
•
|
acquiring up to 9.9% of any class of securities of any publicly traded company that engages in any refinery restricted business.
|
Under the omnibus agreement, CVR Energy has agreed not to, and will cause its controlled affiliates other than us not to, engage in, whether by acquisition or otherwise, the production, transportation or distribution, on a wholesale basis, of fertilizer in the contiguous United States, or a fertilizer restricted business, for so long as CVR Energy and certain of its affiliates continue to own at least 50% of our outstanding units. The restrictions do not apply to:
|
•
|
any fertilizer restricted business acquired as part of a business or package of assets if a majority of the value of the total assets or business acquired is not attributable to a fertilizer restricted business, as determined in good faith by CVR Energy's board of directors, as applicable; provided, however, if at any time CVR Energy completes such an acquisition, it must, within 365 days of the closing of the transaction, offer to sell the fertilizer-related assets to us for their fair market value plus any additional tax or other similar costs that would be required to transfer the fertilizer-related assets to us separately from the acquired business or package of assets;
|
|
•
|
engaging in any fertilizer restricted business subject to the offer to us described in the immediately preceding bullet point pending our determination whether to accept such offer and pending the closing of any offers the we accept;
|
|
•
|
engaging in any fertilizer restricted business if we have previously advised CVR Energy that we have elected not to acquire such business; or
|
|
•
|
acquiring up to 9.9% of any class of securities of any publicly traded company that engages in any fertilizer restricted business.
|
Under the omnibus agreement, we have also agreed that CVR Energy will have a preferential right to acquire any assets or group of assets that do not constitute assets used in a fertilizer restricted business. In determining whether to exercise any preferential right under the omnibus agreement, CVR Energy will be permitted to act in its sole discretion, without any fiduciary obligation to us or the unitholders whatsoever. These obligations will continue so long as CVR Energy owns our general partner directly or indirectly.
Services Agreement
We obtain certain management and other services from CVR Energy pursuant to a services agreement between us, CVR GP and CVR Energy. Under this agreement, our general partner has engaged CVR Energy to conduct our day-to-day business operations. CVR Energy provides us with the following services under the agreement, among others:
|
•
|
services from CVR Energy's employees in capacities equivalent to the capacities of corporate executive officers except that those who serve in such capacities under the agreement shall serve us on a shared, part-time basis only, unless we and CVR Energy agree otherwise;
|
|
•
|
administrative and professional services, including legal, accounting, human resources, insurance, tax, credit, finance, government affairs and regulatory affairs;
|
|
•
|
management of our property and the property of our operating subsidiary in the ordinary course of business;
|
|
•
|
recommendations on capital raising activities to the board of directors of our general partner, including the issuance of debt or equity interests, the entry into credit facilities and other capital market transactions;
|
|
•
|
managing or overseeing litigation and administrative or regulatory proceedings, and establishing appropriate insurance policies for us, and providing safety and environmental advice;
|
|
•
|
recommending the payment of distributions; and
|
|
•
|
managing or providing advice for other projects, including acquisitions, as may be agreed by CVR Energy and our general partner from time to time.
|
As payment for services provided under the agreement, we, our general partner or CRNF must pay CVR Energy (i) all costs incurred by CVR Energy or its affiliates in connection with the employment of its employees, other than administrative personnel, who provide the Partnership services under the agreement on a full-time basis, but excluding share-based compensation except for performance units and incentive units issued starting in December 2013; (ii) a prorated share of costs
139
incurred by CVR Energy or its affiliates in connection with the employment of its employees, including administrative personnel, who provide the Partnership services under the agreement on a part-time basis, but excluding share-based compensation except for performance units and incentive units issued starting in December 2013, and such prorated share shall be determined by CVR Energy on a commercially reasonable basis, based on the percentage of total working time that such shared personnel are engaged in performing services for the Partnership; (iii) a prorated share of certain administrative costs, including office costs, services by outside vendors, other sales, general and administrative costs and depreciation and amortization; and (iv) various other administrative costs in accordance with the terms of the agreement, including travel, insurance, legal and audit services, government and public relations and bank charges. We must pay CVR Energy within 15 days for invoices it submits under the agreement.
We and our general partner are not required to pay any compensation, salaries, bonuses or benefits to any of CVR Energy's employees who provide services to us or our general partner on a full-time or part-time basis; CVR Energy will continue to pay their compensation. However, personnel performing the actual day-to-day business and operations at the nitrogen fertilizer plant level will be employed directly by us and our subsidiaries, and we will bear all personnel costs for these employees. The services agreement was recently amended such that we will now pay our allocated portion of performance units and incentive units issued by CVR Energy in December 2013 to those personnel providing services to the Partnership via the services agreement.
Either CVR Energy or our general partner may temporarily or permanently exclude any particular service from the scope of the agreement upon 180 days' notice. CVR Energy also has the right to delegate the performance of some or all of the services to be provided pursuant to the agreement to one of its affiliates or any other person or entity, though such delegation does not relieve CVR Energy from its obligations under the agreement. Either CVR Energy or our general partner may terminate the agreement upon at least 180 days' notice, but not more than one year's notice. Furthermore, our general partner may terminate the agreement immediately if CVR Energy becomes bankrupt, or dissolves and commences liquidation or winding-up.
In order to facilitate the carrying out of services under the agreement, we, on the one hand, and CVR Energy and its affiliates, on the other, have granted one another certain royalty-free, non-exclusive and non-transferable rights to use one another's intellectual property under certain circumstances.
The agreement also contains an indemnity provision whereby we, our general partner, and CRNF, as indemnifying parties, agree to indemnify CVR Energy and its affiliates (other than the indemnifying parties themselves) against losses and liabilities incurred in connection with the performance of services under the agreement or any breach of the agreement, unless such losses or liabilities arise from a breach of the agreement by CVR Energy or other misconduct on its part, as provided in the agreement. The agreement also contains a provision stating that CVR Energy is an independent contractor under the agreement and nothing in the agreement may be construed to impose an implied or express fiduciary duty owed by CVR Energy, on the one hand, to the recipients of services under the agreement, on the other hand. The agreement prohibits recovery of lost profits or revenue, or special, incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages from CVR Energy or certain affiliates.
Net amounts incurred under the services agreement for the years ended December 31,
2014
,
2013
and
2012
, were approximately
$14.6 million
,
$14.4 million
and
$10.1 million
, respectively.
GP Services Agreement
The Partnership is party to a GP Services Agreement dated November 29, 2011 and subsequently amended between the Partnership, CVR GP, LLC and CVR Energy. This agreement allows CVR Energy to engage CVR GP, LLC, in its capacity as the Partnership's general partner, to provide CVR Energy with (i) business development and related services and (ii) advice or recommendations for such other projects as may be agreed between the Partnership's general partner and CVR Energy from time to time. As payment for certain specific services provided under the agreement, CVR Energy must pay a prorated share of costs incurred by the Partnership or its general partner in connection with the employment of the certain employees who provide CVR Energy services on a part-time basis, as determined by the Partnership's general partner on a commercially reasonable basis based on the percentage of total working time that such shared personnel are engaged in performing services for CVR Energy. CVR Energy is not required to directly pay any compensation, salaries, bonuses or benefits to any of the Partnership's or general partner's employees who provide other services to CVR Energy on a full-time or part-time basis, thus the Partnership will continue to pay their compensation.
Either CVR Energy or the Partnership's general partner may temporarily or permanently exclude any particular service from the scope of the agreement upon 180 days' notice. The Partnership's general partner also has the right to delegate the performance of some or all of the services to be provided pursuant to the agreement to one of its affiliates or any other person or entity, though such delegation does not relieve the Partnership's general partner from its obligations under the agreement. Either CVR Energy or the Partnership's general partner may terminate the agreement upon at least 180 days' notice, but not
140
more than one year's notice. Furthermore, CVR Energy may terminate the agreement immediately if the Partnership, or its general partner, become bankrupt, or dissolve and commence liquidation or winding-up.
Trademark License Agreement
We are party to a Trademark License Agreement with CVR Energy pursuant to which CVR Energy has granted us a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Coffeyville Resources word mark and the CVR Partners and Coffeyville Resources logos in connection with our business. We agreed to use the marks only in the form and manner and with appropriate legends as prescribed from time to time by CVR Energy, and CVR Energy agreed that the nature and quality of the business that uses the marks will conform to standards currently applied by CVR Partners. Either party can terminate the license with 60 days' prior notice.
Registration Rights Agreement
In connection with our Initial Public Offering, we entered into an amended and restated registration rights agreement with Coffeyville Resources in April 2011, pursuant to which we may be required to register the sale of the common units Coffeyville Resources holds. Under the amended and restated registration rights agreement, Coffeyville Resources has the right to request that we register the sale of common units held by it on its behalf on six occasions, including requiring us to make available shelf registration statements permitting sales of common units into the market from time to time over an extended period. In addition, Coffeyville Resources and its permitted transferees have the ability to exercise certain piggyback registration rights with respect to their securities if we elect to register any of our equity interests. The registration rights agreement also includes provisions dealing with holdback agreements, indemnification and contribution, and allocation of expenses. All of our common units held by Coffeyville Resources and any permitted transferee will be entitled to these registration rights, except that the demand registration rights may only be transferred in whole and not in part.
On August 29, 2012, the Partnership's registration statement on Form S-3 was declared effective by the SEC, enabling Coffeyville Resources to offer and sell from time to time, in one or more public offerings or direct placements, up to 50,920,000 common units.
Agreements with IEP
Railcar Lease Agreement
From March 2009 through June 2013, the Partnership leased
199
railcars from American Railcar Leasing, LLC ("ARL"), a company controlled by Mr. Carl C. Icahn, CVR Energy's majority stockholder. On June 13, 2013, the Partnership purchased the railcars from ARL for approximately $5.0 million. This rent expense is included in cost of product sold in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. For the years ended December 31,
2013
and
2012
, rent expense of
$0.4 million
and
$1.1 million
, respectively, was recorded related to this agreement.
Railcar Purchases and Maintenance
In 2014, the Partnership purchased
fifty
new UAN railcars from American Railcar Industries, Inc. ("ARI") for approximately
$6.7 million
and
twelve
used UAN railcars from ARL for approximately
$1.1 million
. Both ARI and ARL are controlled by Mr. Carl C. Icahn, CVR Energy's majority shareholder. Also, ARI performed railcar maintenance for the Partnership and the expenses associated with this maintenance were approximately
$50,000
for the year ended
December 31, 2014
.
Insight Portfolio Group
Insight Portfolio Group LLC ("Insight Portfolio Group") is an entity formed by Mr. Icahn in order to maximize the potential buying power of a group of entities with which Mr. Icahn has a relationship in negotiating with a wide range of suppliers of goods, services and tangible and intangible property at negotiated rates. In January 2013, CVR Energy acquired a minority equity interest in Insight Portfolio Group. The Partnership participates in Insight Portfolio Group’s buying group through its relationship with CVR Energy. The Partnership may purchase a variety of goods and services as members of the buying group at prices and on terms that management believes would be more favorable than those which would be achieved on a stand-alone basis. Transactions with Insight Portfolio Group for each of the reporting periods were nominal.
141
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest exist and may arise in the future as a result of the relationships between our general partner and its affiliates (including Coffeyville Resources, CVR Energy and CVR Refining), on the one hand, and us and our public unitholders, on the other hand. Conflicts may arise as a result of (1) the overlap of directors and officers between our general partner and CVR Energy and CVR Refining, which may result in conflicting obligations by these officers and directors, and (2) duties of our general partner to act for the benefit of CVR Energy and its stockholders, which may conflict with our interests and the interests of our public unitholders. The directors and officers of our general partner have fiduciary duties to manage our general partner in a manner beneficial to Coffeyville Resources, its owner, and the stockholders of CVR Energy, its indirect parent. At the same time, our general partner has a contractual duty under our partnership agreement to manage us in a manner that is in our best interests.
Whenever a conflict arises between our general partner, on the one hand, and us or any other public unitholder, on the other, our general partner will resolve that conflict. Our partnership agreement contains provisions that replace default fiduciary duties with contractual corporate governance standards as set forth therein. Our partnership agreement also restricts the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken that, without such replacement, might constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.
Our general partner will not be in breach of its obligations under our partnership agreement or its duties to us or our unitholders if the resolution of a conflict is:
|
•
|
approved by the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general partner, although our general partner is not obligated to seek such approval;
|
|
•
|
approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding common units, excluding any units owned by the general partner or any of its affiliates, although our general partner is not obligated to seek such approval;
|
|
•
|
on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties; or
|
|
•
|
fair and reasonable to us, taking into account the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions that may be particularly favorable or advantageous to us.
|
Our general partner may, but is not required to, seek the approval of such resolution from the conflicts committee of its board of directors or from the common unitholders. If our general partner does not seek approval from the conflicts committee and its board of directors determines that the resolution or course of action taken with respect to the conflict of interest satisfies either of the standards set forth in the third and fourth bullet points above, then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, the board of directors acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or the partnership, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption. Unless the resolution of a conflict is specifically provided for in our partnership agreement, our general partner or the conflicts committee may consider any factors it determines in good faith to consider when resolving a conflict. When our partnership agreement requires someone to act in good faith, it requires that person to reasonably believe that he is acting in the best interests of the partnership, unless the context otherwise requires.
Related Party Transaction Policy
The board of directors of our general partner has adopted a Related Party Transaction Policy, which is designed to monitor and ensure the proper review, approval, ratification and disclosure of related party transactions involving us. This policy applies to any transaction, arrangement or relationship (or any series of similar or related transactions, arrangements or relationships) in which we are a participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000 and in which any related party had or will have a direct or indirect material interest. At the discretion of the board, a proposed related party transaction may generally be reviewed by the board in its entirety or by a "conflicts committee" meeting the definitional requirements for such a committee under our partnership agreement. After appropriate review, the board or the conflicts committee may approve or ratify a related party transaction if such transaction is consistent with the Related Party Transaction Policy and is on terms that, taken as a whole, are no less favorable to us than could be obtained in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated third party, unless the board or the conflicts committee otherwise determines that the transaction is not in our best interests. Related party transactions involving compensation will be approved by the board in its entirety or by the compensation committee of the board in lieu of the conflicts committee.
Director Independence
The NYSE does not require a listed publicly traded partnership, such as ours, to have a majority of independent directors on the board of directors of our general partner. The board of directors of our general partner consists of seven directors, three of whom the board has affirmatively determined are independent in accordance with the rules of the New York Stock
142
Exchange. For a discussion of the independence of the board of directors of our general partner, please see Item 10.
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance — Management of CVR Partners, LP
.
Item 14.
Principal Accounting Fees and Services
Grant Thornton LLP ("Grant Thornton") has served as the Partnership's independent public registered accounting firm since August 2013. Prior to August 2013, KPMG LLP ("KPMG") served as the Partnership's independent public registered accounting firm. The Audit Committee has not selected the independent registered public accounting firm to conduct the audit of our books and records for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015
.
The charter of the audit committee of the board of directors of our general partner, which is available on our website at www.cvrpartners.com, requires the audit committee to pre-approve all audit services and non-audit services (other than de minimis non-audit services as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm. The audit committee has a pre-approval policy with respect to services that may be performed by the independent auditors. The Partnership's audit committee pre-approved all fees incurred in fiscal year
2014
.
The following table presents fees billed and expected to be billed for professional services and other services in the following categories and amounts by Grant Thornton for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2014
and
2013
:
|
|
Fiscal
|
Fiscal
|
||||
|
|
Year 2014
|
Year 2013
|
||||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|||||
|
Audit fees (1)
|
$
|
575
|
|
$
|
385
|
|
|
Audit-related fees
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
||
|
Tax fees
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
||
|
All other fees
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
||
|
Total
|
$
|
575
|
|
$
|
385
|
|
|
(1)
|
Represents the aggregate fees for professional services rendered for the audit of the Partnership's financial statements, the audit of the effectiveness of the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting, consents and consultations on financial accounting and reporting standards arising during the course of the audits and reviews. Also includes the review of the consolidated financial statements included in the Partnership's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q.
|
The following table presents fees billed for professional services and other services in the following categories and amounts by KPMG for the fiscal year December 31, 2013:
|
|
Fiscal
|
||
|
|
Year 2013
|
||
|
|
(in thousands)
|
||
|
Audit fees (1)
|
$
|
291
|
|
|
Audit-related fees
|
—
|
|
|
|
Tax fees (2)
|
48
|
|
|
|
All other fees
|
—
|
|
|
|
Total
|
$
|
339
|
|
|
(1)
|
Represents the aggregate fees for professional services rendered for the audit of the Partnership's financial statements for fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, audit of the effectiveness of the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, assistance with Securities Act filings and related matters, consents issued in connection with Securities Act filings and consultations on financial accounting and reporting standards arising during the course of the audit and reviews for fiscal year 2013. Also includes the review of the consolidated financial statements included in the Partnership's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q.
|
|
(2)
|
Tax fees consist of fees for general income tax consulting and tax compliance for fiscal year 2013.
|
143
PART IV
Item 15.
Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
(a)(1) Financial Statements
See "Index to Consolidated Financial Statements" Contained in Part II, Item 8 of this Report.
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission are not required under the related instructions or are inapplicable and therefore have been omitted.
(a)(3) Exhibits
144
|
10.6.1**
|
Supplement to Environmental Agreement, dated as of February 15, 2008, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.17.1 of the Form 10-K filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on March 28, 2008 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.6.2**
|
Second Supplement to Environmental Agreement, dated as of July 23, 2008, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 10-Q filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on August 14, 2008 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.7**
|
Amended and Restated Feedstock and Shared Services Agreement, dated as of April 13, 2011, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Form 8-K/A filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on May 23, 2011 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.7.1**
|
Amendment to Amended and Restated Feedstock and Shared Services Agreement, dated as of December 30, 2013, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7.1 of the Form 10-K filed on February 26, 2014).
|
|
|
|
|
10.8**
|
Raw Water and Facilities Sharing Agreement, dated as of October 25, 2007, by and between Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 of the Form 10-Q filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on December 6, 2007 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.9**
|
Second Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated as of May 4, 2012, among CVR Partners, LP, CVR GP, LLC and CVR Energy, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 10-Q filed on August 2, 2012).
|
|
|
|
|
10.9.1**
|
Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2014, among CVR Partners, LP, CVR GP, LLC and CVR Energy, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 10-Q filed on May 2, 2014).
|
|
|
|
|
10.10**
|
Amended and Restated Omnibus Agreement, dated as of April 13, 2011, among CVR Energy, Inc., CVR GP, LLC and CVR Partners, LP (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Form 8-K/A filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on May 23, 2011 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.11**
|
Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 13, 2011, by and between CVR Partners, LP and Coffeyville Resources, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 of the Form 8-K/A filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on May 23, 2011 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.12**
|
Amended and Restated Contribution, Conveyance and Assumption Agreement, dated as of April 7, 2011, among Coffeyville Resources, LLC, CVR GP, LLC, Coffeyville Acquisition III LLC, CVR Special GP, LLC and CVR Partners, LP (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 8-K/A filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on May 23, 2011 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.13**
|
Trademark License Agreement, dated as of April 13, 2011, by and between CVR Energy, Inc. and CVR Partners, LP (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Form 8-K/A filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on May 23, 2011 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.14**
|
GP Services Agreement, dated as of November 29, 2011, among CVR Partners, LP, CVR GP, LLC and CVR Energy, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 of the Form 10-K filed on February 24, 2012).
|
|
|
|
|
10.14.1**
|
Amendment to GP Services Agreement, dated as of June 27, 2014, among CVR Partners, LP, CVR GP, LLC and CVR Energy, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Form 10-Q filed on August 1, 2014).
|
|
|
|
|
10.15**
|
Lease and Operating Agreement, dated as of May 4, 2012, by and between Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC and Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Form 10-Q filed on August 2, 2012).
|
|
|
|
|
10.16**
|
Credit and Guaranty Agreement, dated as of April 13, 2011, among Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, CVR Partners, LP, the lenders party thereto and Goldman Sachs Lending Partners LLC, as administrative agent and collateral agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 of the Form 8-K/A filed by CVR Energy, Inc. on May 23, 2011 (Commission File No. 001-33492)).
|
|
|
|
|
10.17**
|
CVR Partners, LP Long-Term Incentive Plan (adopted March 16, 2011) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Form S-8 filed on April 12, 2011).
|
|
|
|
145
146
|
31.2*
|
Rule 13a-14(a) or 15(d)-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer and President.
|
|
|
|
|
31.3*
|
Rule 13a-14(a) or 15(d)-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.
|
|
|
|
|
32.1*
|
Section 1350 Certification of Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.
|
|
|
|
|
101
|
The following financial information for CVR Partners, LP's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, formatted in XBRL ("Extensible Business Reporting Language") includes: (1) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (2) Consolidated Statements of Operations, (3) Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income, (4) Consolidated Statement of Partners' Capital, (5) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and (6) the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited), tagged as blocks of text.
|
_______________________________________
|
*
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**
|
|
Previously filed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
†
|
|
Denotes management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
|
PLEASE NOTE:
Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC, we may file or incorporated by reference agreements referenced as exhibits to the reports that we file with or furnish to the SEC. The agreements are filed to provide investors with information regarding their respective terms. The agreements are not intended to provide any other factual information about the Partnership or its business or operations. In particular, the assertions embodied in any representations, warranties and covenants contained in the agreements may be subject to qualifications with respect to knowledge and materiality different from those applicable to investors and may be qualified by information in confidential disclosure schedules not included with the exhibits. These disclosure schedules may contain information that modifies, qualifies and creates exceptions to the representations, warranties and covenants set forth in the agreements. Moreover, certain representations, warranties and covenants in the agreements may have been used for the purpose of allocating risk between the parties, rather than establishing matters as facts. In addition, information concerning the subject matter of the representations, warranties and covenants may have changed after the date of the respective agreement, which subsequent information may or may not be fully reflected in the Partnership's public disclosures. Accordingly, investors should not rely on the representations, warranties and covenants in the agreements as characterizations of the actual state of facts about the Partnership or its business or operations on the date hereof.
147
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
CVR Partners, LP
|
|
|
|
By:
|
CVR GP, LLC, its general partner
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ MARK A. PYTOSH
|
|
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
Date:
February 19, 2015
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report had been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacity and on the dates indicated.
|
Signature
|
Title
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ JOHN J. LIPINSKI
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Executive Chairman (Principal Executive Officer)
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
John J. Lipinski
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ MARK A. PYTOSH
|
Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
Mark A. Pytosh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ SUSAN M. BALL
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
Susan M. Ball
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ SUNGHWAN CHO
|
Director
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
SungHwan Cho
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ DONNA R. ECTON
|
Director
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
Donna R. Ecton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ FRANK M. MULLER, JR.
|
Director
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
Frank M. Muller, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ANDREW ROBERTO
|
Director
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
Andrew Roberto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ PETER K. SHEA
|
Director
|
February 19, 2015
|
|
Peter K. Shea
|
|
|
148