e10vk
UNITED
STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal period ended
December 31, 2006
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13
OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
Commission File number
000-51734
Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P.
(Exact Name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
2911
|
|
37-1516132
|
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
|
|
(Primary Standard
Industrial
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
|
Incorporation or
Organization)
|
|
Classification Code
Number)
|
|
Identification
Number)
|
2780 Waterfront Pkwy E. Drive
Suite 200
Indianapolis, Indiana 46214
(317) 328-5660
(Address, Including Zip Code,
and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of
Registrants Principal Executive Offices)
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE
ACT:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common units representing limited
partner interests
|
|
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
|
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE
ACT:
NONE.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject
to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No
o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated
filer o Accelerated
filer o Non-accelerated
filer þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the common units held by
non-affiliates of the registrant (treating all executive
officers and directors of the registrant and holders of 10% or
more of the common units outstanding, for this purpose, as if
they may be affiliates of the registrant) was approximately
$231.8 million on June 30, 2006, based on
$31.73 per unit, the closing price of the common units as
reported on the NASDAQ Global Market on such date.
At February 9, 2007, there were 16,366,000 common units and
13,066,000 subordinated units outstanding.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
NONE.
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
FORM 10-K
2006 ANNUAL REPORT
Table of
Contents
2
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
includes certain forward-looking statements within
the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Some of the information in this annual report may contain
forward-looking statements. These statements can be identified
by the use of forward-looking terminology including
may, believe, expect,
anticipate, estimate,
continue, or other similar words. The statements
regarding (i) the Shreveport refinery expansion
projects expected completion date, the estimated cost, and
the resulting increases in production levels, (ii) expected
settlements with the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) or other environmental liabilities,
and (iii) the probability of the achievement of a certain
financial performance target related to executive compensation
programs, as well as other matters discussed in this
Form 10-K
that are not purely historical data, are forward-looking
statements. These statements discuss future expectations or
state other forward-looking information and involve
risks and uncertainties. When considering these forward-looking
statements, unitholders should keep in mind the risk factors and
other cautionary statements included in this Annual Report. The
risk factors and other factors noted throughout this
Form 10-K
could cause our actual results to differ materially from those
contained in any forward-looking statement. These factors
include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
the overall demand for specialty hydrocarbon products, fuels and
other refined products;
|
|
|
|
our ability to produce specialty products and fuels that meet
our customers unique and precise specifications;
|
|
|
|
the results of our hedging activities;
|
|
|
|
the availability of, and our ability to consummate, acquisition
or combination opportunities;
|
|
|
|
our access to capital to fund expansions or acquisitions and our
ability to obtain debt or equity financing on satisfactory terms;
|
|
|
|
successful integration and future performance of acquired assets
or businesses;
|
|
|
|
environmental liabilities or events that are not covered by an
indemnity, insurance or existing reserves;
|
|
|
|
maintenance of our credit rating and ability to receive open
credit from our suppliers;
|
|
|
|
demand for various grades of crude oil and resulting changes in
pricing conditions;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in refinery capacity;
|
|
|
|
the effects of competition;
|
|
|
|
continued creditworthiness of, and performance by,
counterparties;
|
|
|
|
the impact of crude oil price fluctuations;
|
|
|
|
the impact of current and future laws, rulings and governmental
regulations;
|
|
|
|
shortages or cost increases of power supplies, natural gas,
materials or labor;
|
|
|
|
weather interference with business operations or project
construction;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in the debt and equity markets; and
|
|
|
|
general economic, market or business conditions.
|
Other factors described herein, or factors that are unknown or
unpredictable, could also have a material adverse effect on
future results. Please read Item 1A Risk Factors
Related to Our Business and Item 7A
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk. Except as required by applicable securities laws, we
do not intend to update these forward-looking statements and
information.
References in this
Form 10-K
to Calumet Specialty Products Partners, the
Partnership, the Company, we,
our, us or like terms, when used in a
historical context prior to January 31, 2006, refer to the
assets and liabilities of Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership and its subsidiaries of which substantially all such
assets
3
and liabilities were contributed to Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. and its subsidiaries. When used in the present
tense or prospectively, those terms refer to Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. and its subsidiaries. References to
Predecessor in this
Form 10-K
refer to Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership. The
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006
for Calumet include the results of operations of the Predecessor
for the period of January 1, 2006 through January 31,
2006. References in this
Form 10-K
to our general partner refer to Calumet GP, LLC.
PART I
Items 1
and 2. Business and Properties
Overview
We are a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty
hydrocarbon products in North America. Our business is organized
into two segments: specialty products and fuel products. In our
specialty products segment, we process crude oil into a wide
variety of customized lubricating oils, solvents and waxes. Our
specialty products are sold to domestic and international
customers who purchase them primarily as raw material components
for basic industrial, consumer and automotive goods. In our fuel
products segment, we process crude oil into a variety of fuel
and fuel-related products including unleaded gasoline, diesel
and jet fuel. In connection with our production of specialty
products and fuel products, we also produce asphalt and a
limited number of other by-products. For the year ended
December 31, 2006, approximately 74.9% of our gross profit
was generated from our specialty products segment and
approximately 25.1% of our gross profit was generated from our
fuel products segment.
Our operating assets consist of our:
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton Refinery. Our Princeton refinery,
located in northwest Louisiana and acquired in 1990, produces
specialty lubricating oils, including process oils, base oils,
transformer oils and refrigeration oils that are used in a
variety of industrial and automotive applications. The Princeton
refinery has aggregate crude oil throughput capacity of
approximately 10,000 barrels per day (bpd) and had average
daily crude oil throughput of 7,574 bpd for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
Cotton Valley Refinery. Our Cotton Valley
refinery, located in northwest Louisiana and acquired in 1995,
produces specialty solvents that are used principally in the
manufacture of paints, cleaners and automotive products. The
Cotton Valley refinery has aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity of approximately 13,500 bpd and had average daily
crude oil throughput of 7,130 bpd for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
Shreveport Refinery. Our Shreveport refinery,
located in northwest Louisiana and acquired in 2001, produces
specialty lubricating oils and waxes, as well as fuel products
such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The Shreveport refinery
currently has aggregate crude oil throughput capacity of
approximately 42,000 bpd and had average daily crude oil
throughput of 36,894 bpd for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
Distribution and Logistics Assets. We own and
operate a terminal in Burnham, Illinois with a storage capacity
of approximately 150,000 barrels that facilitates the
distribution of product in the Upper Midwest and East Coast
regions of the United States and in Canada. In addition, we
lease approximately 1,200 rail cars to receive crude oil or
distribute our products throughout the United States and Canada.
We also have approximately 4.5 million barrels of aggregate
finished product storage capacity at our refineries.
|
Business
Strategies
Our management team is dedicated to increasing the amount of
cash available for distribution on each limited partner unit by
executing the following strategies:
|
|
|
|
|
Concentrate on stable cash flows. We intend to
continue to focus on businesses and assets that generate stable
cash flows. Approximately 74.9% of our gross profit for the year
ended December 31, 2006 was generated by the sale of
specialty products, a segment of our business which is
characterized by stable customer relationships due to their
requirements for highly specialized products. Historically, we
have been able to reduce our exposure to crude oil price
fluctuations in this segment through our ability to pass on
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
incremental feedstock costs to our specialty products customers
and through our crude oil hedging program. In our fuel products
business, we seek to mitigate our exposure to fuel margin
volatility by maintaining a long-term hedging program. We
believe the diversity of our products, our broad customer base
and our hedging activities contribute to the stability of our
cash flows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Develop and expand our customer
relationships. Due to the specialized nature of,
and the long lead-time associated with, the development and
production of many of our specialty products, our customers have
an incentive to continue their relationships with us. We believe
that our larger competitors do not work with customers as we do
from product design to delivery for smaller volume products like
ours. We intend to continue to assist our existing customers in
expanding their product offerings as well as marketing specialty
product formulations to new customers. By striving to maintain
our long-term relationships with our existing customers and to
add new customers, we seek to limit our dependence on a small
number of customers.
|
|
|
|
Enhance profitability of our existing
assets. We will continue to evaluate
opportunities to improve our existing asset base to increase our
throughput, profitability and cash flows. Following each of our
asset acquisitions, we have undertaken projects designed to
increase the profitability of our acquired assets. We intend to
further increase the profitability of our existing asset base
through various measures which include changing the product mix
of our processing units, debottlenecking and expanding units as
necessary to increase throughput, restarting idle assets and
reducing costs by improving operations. For example, in late
2004 at the Shreveport refinery we recommissioned certain of its
previously idled fuels production units, refurbished existing
fuels production units, converted existing units to improve
gasoline blending profitability and expanded capacity from
approximately 42,000 bpd to increase lubricating oil and fuels
production. Also, in December 2006 we commenced construction of
an expansion project at our Shreveport refinery, scheduled for
completion in the third quarter of 2007, to increase its
aggregate crude oil throughput capacity to approximately
57,000 bpd. For additional discussion of this project,
please read Item 7 Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Capital Expenditures.
|
|
|
|
Pursue strategic and complementary
acquisitions. Since 1990, our management team has
demonstrated the ability to identify opportunities to acquire
refineries whose operations we can enhance and whose
profitability we can improve. In the future, we intend to
continue to make strategic acquisitions of refineries that offer
the opportunity for operational efficiencies and the potential
for increased utilization and expansion. In addition, we may
pursue selected acquisitions in new geographic or product areas
to the extent we perceive similar opportunities.
|
Competitive
Strengths
We believe that we are well positioned to execute our business
strategies successfully based on the following competitive
strengths:
|
|
|
|
|
We offer our customers a diverse range of specialty
products. We offer a wide range of over 250
specialty products. We believe that our ability to provide our
customers with a more diverse selection of products than our
competitors generally gives us an advantage in competing for new
business. We believe that we are the only specialty products
manufacturer that produces all four of naphthenic lubricating
oils, paraffinic lubricating oils, waxes and solvents. A
contributing factor to our ability to produce numerous specialty
products is our ability to ship products between our refineries
for product upgrading in order to meet customer specifications.
|
|
|
|
We have strong relationships with a broad customer
base. We have long-term relationships with many
of our customers, and we believe that we will continue to
benefit from these relationships. Our customer base includes
over 800 companies and we are continually seeking new
customers. From 1996 to December 31, 2006, we added an
average of approximately 65 new specialty products customers per
year, and for the year ended December 31, 2006 we added
approximately 90 new specialty products customers. No single
customer accounts for more that 10% of our specialty sales.
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
Our refineries have advanced technology. Our
refineries are equipped with advanced, flexible technology that
allows us to produce high-grade specialty products and to
produce gasoline and diesel products that comply with new fuel
regulations. Our current gasoline production satisfies the 2006
low sulfur gasoline standard set by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and our Shreveport and Cotton Valley refineries,
as currently configured, have the processing capability to
satisfy the 2006 ultra low sulfur diesel standard. Also, unlike
larger refineries, which lack some of the equipment necessary to
achieve the narrow distillation ranges associated with the
production of specialty products, our operations are capable of
producing a wide range of products tailored to our
customers needs. We have also upgraded the operations of
many of our assets through our investment in advanced,
computerized refinery process controls.
|
|
|
|
We have an experienced management team. Our
management has a proven track record of enhancing value through
the acquisition, exploitation and integration of refining assets
and the development and marketing of specialty products. Our
senior management team, the majority of whom have been working
together since 1990, has an average of over 20 years of
industry experience. Our teams extensive experience and
contacts within the refining industry provide a strong
foundation and focus for managing and enhancing our operations,
for accessing strategic acquisition opportunities and for
constructing and enhancing the profitability of new assets.
|
Our
Operating Assets
General
We own and operate refining assets in northwest Louisiana, which
consist of: the Princeton refinery, the Cotton Valley refinery
and the Shreveport refinery. We also own and operate a terminal
in Burnham, Illinois.
The following table sets forth information about our combined
refinery operations. Refinery production volume differs from
sales volume due to changes in inventory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Total sales volume (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
|
|
46,953
|
|
|
|
24,658
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(2)
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
26,205
|
|
Refinery production (bpd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
11,436
|
|
|
|
11,556
|
|
|
|
9,437
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
|
|
4,422
|
|
|
|
4,973
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
|
|
1,020
|
|
|
|
1,010
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,596
|
|
|
|
6,313
|
|
|
|
5,992
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
2,038
|
|
|
|
2,354
|
|
|
|
3,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
26,588
|
|
|
|
25,665
|
|
|
|
25,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
9,430
|
|
|
|
8,278
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
6,823
|
|
|
|
8,891
|
|
|
|
583
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
6,911
|
|
|
|
5,080
|
|
|
|
342
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
461
|
|
|
|
417
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
22,666
|
|
|
|
954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(3)
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
48,331
|
|
|
|
26,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
refineries and sales of inventories. |
6
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Total feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil
and other feedstocks processed at our refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other feedstocks at our refineries. The difference
between total refinery production and total feedstock runs
is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstock and production of end products and volume loss. |
Set forth below is information regarding sales contributed by
our principal products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Sales of specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
|
$
|
394.4
|
|
|
$
|
251.9
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
|
|
114.7
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
39.5
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
72.7
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
913.1
|
|
|
$
|
703.3
|
|
|
$
|
530.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
336.7
|
|
|
$
|
223.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
585.8
|
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
$
|
539.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton
Refinery
The Princeton refinery, located on a
208-acre
site in Princeton, Louisiana, has aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity of 10,000 bpd and is currently processing
naphthenic crude oil into lubricating oils, high sulfur diesel
and asphalt. The high sulfur diesel may be blended to produce
certain lubricating oils or transported to the Shreveport
refinery for further processing into ultra low sulfur diesel.
The asphalt may be processed or blended for coating and roofing
applications at the Princeton refinery or transported to the
Shreveport refinery for processing into bright stock.
7
The Princeton refinery currently consists of seven major
processing units, approximately 650,000 barrels of storage
capacity in 200 storage tanks and related loading and unloading
facilities and utilities. Since our acquisition of the Princeton
refinery in 1990, we have debottlenecked the crude unit to
increase production capacity to 10,000 bpd, increased the
hydrotreaters capacity to 7,000 bpd and upgraded the
refinerys fractionation unit, which has enabled us to
produce higher value specialty products. In addition, in 2004,
we modified the crude and vacuum unit to improve fractionation
and extend its useful life. The following table sets forth
historical information about production at our Princeton
refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity (bpd)
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
7,574
|
|
|
|
8,067
|
|
|
|
8,062
|
|
Refinery production (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
5,085
|
|
|
|
5,463
|
|
|
|
5,390
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
1,072
|
|
|
|
1,163
|
|
|
|
1,475
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
1,386
|
|
|
|
1,356
|
|
|
|
1,363
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(1)
|
|
|
7,543
|
|
|
|
7,982
|
|
|
|
8,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products yielded from processing crude oil and other
feedstocks. The difference between total refinery production and
total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag
between the input of feedstock and production of end products
and volume loss.
|
The Princeton refinery has a hydrotreater and significant
fractionation capability enabling the refining of high quality
naphthenic lubricating oils at numerous distillation ranges. The
Princeton refinerys processing capabilities consist of
atmospheric and vacuum distillation, hydrotreating, asphalt
oxidation processing and clay/acid treating facilities. In
addition, we have the necessary tankage and technology to
process our asphalt into higher value applications like coatings
and road paving applications.
The Princeton refinery receives crude oil via tank truck,
railcar and pipeline. Its crude oil feedstock primarily
originates from Texas and north Louisiana and is purchased from
various marketers and gatherers. The Princeton refinery ships
its finished products throughout the country by both truck and
rail car service.
Cotton
Valley Refinery
The Cotton Valley refinery, located on a
77-acre site
in Cotton Valley, Louisiana, has aggregate crude oil throughput
capacity of 13,500 bpd and is currently processing crude
oil into solvents, low sulfur diesel, fuel feedstocks and
residual fuel oil. The residual fuel oil is an important
feedstock for specialty refined products at the Shreveport
refinery. The Cotton Valley refinery produces the most complete,
single-facility line of paraffinic solvents in the United States.
8
The Cotton Valley refinery currently consists of three major
processing units that include a crude unit, a hydrotreater and a
fractionation train, approximately 625,000 barrels of
storage capacity in 74 storage tanks and related loading and
unloading facilities and utilities. The Cotton Valley refinery
also has a utility fractionator for batch processing of narrow
distillation range specialty solvents. Since its acquisition in
1995, we have expanded the refinerys capabilities by
installing a hydrotreater that removes aromatics, increased the
crude unit processing capability to 13,500 bpd and
reconfigured the refinerys fractionation train to improve
product quality, enhance flexibility and lower utility costs.
The following table sets forth historical information about
production at our Cotton Valley refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity (bpd)
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(1)(2)
|
|
|
7,130
|
|
|
|
7,145
|
|
|
|
9,093
|
|
Refinery production (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
|
|
4,422
|
|
|
|
4,973
|
|
Asphalt and by-products
|
|
|
1,393
|
|
|
|
1,473
|
|
|
|
2,330
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
966
|
|
|
|
1,191
|
|
|
|
1,790
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(2)
|
|
|
7,720
|
|
|
|
7,086
|
|
|
|
9,093
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total feedstock runs do not include certain interplant solvent
feedstocks supplied by our Shreveport refinery. |
|
(2) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products yielded from processing crude oil and other
feedstocks. The difference between total refinery production and
total feedstock runs is primarily a result of the time lag
between the input of feedstock and production of end products
and volume loss. |
The Cotton Valley configuration is flexible, which allows us to
respond to market changes and customer demands by modifying its
product mix. The reconfigured fractionation train also allows
the refinery to satisfy demand fluctuations efficiently without
large product inventory requirements.
The Cotton Valley refinery receives crude oil via truck and
through a pipeline system operated by a subsidiary of Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. (Plains). Cotton
Valleys feedstock is primarily low sulfur, paraffinic
crude oil originating from north Louisiana and is purchased from
various marketers and gatherers. In addition, the refinery
receives feedstock for solvent production from the Shreveport
refinery. The Cotton Valley refinery ships finished products
throughout the country by both truck and rail car service.
Shreveport
Refinery
The Shreveport refinery, located on a
240-acre
site in Shreveport, Louisiana, currently has aggregate crude oil
throughput capacity of 42,000 bpd and is currently
processing paraffinic crude oil and associated feedstocks into
fuel products, paraffinic lubricating oils, waxes, residuals,
and by-products.
9
The Shreveport refinery currently consists of 15 major
processing units, approximately 3.2 million barrels of
storage capacity in 140 storage tanks and related loading and
unloading facilities and utilities. Since its acquisition in
2001, we have expanded the refinerys capabilities by
adding additional processing and blending facilities and a
second reactor to the high pressure hydrotreater. In addition,
during the fourth quarter of 2004, we resumed production of
gasoline, diesel and other fuel products at the refinery. The
following table sets forth historical information about
production at our Shreveport refinery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Crude oil throughput capacity (bpd)
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
|
|
42,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
36,894
|
|
|
|
35,342
|
|
|
|
8,956
|
|
Refinery production (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
22,666
|
|
|
|
1,595
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
6,351
|
|
|
|
6,093
|
|
|
|
4,047
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
|
|
1,020
|
|
|
|
1,010
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
3,817
|
|
|
|
3,483
|
|
|
|
2,325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production(1)(2)
|
|
|
34,950
|
|
|
|
33,262
|
|
|
|
8,977
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other feedstocks. The difference between total
refinery production and total feedstock runs is primarily a
result of the time lag between the input of feedstock and
production of end products and volume loss. |
|
(2) |
|
Total refinery production includes certain interplant solvent
feedstocks supplied to our Cotton Valley refinery. |
We commenced construction of an expansion project in the fourth
quarter of 2006, scheduled for completion in the third quarter
of 2007, to increase our Shreveport refinerys aggregate
crude oil throughput capacity to approximately 57,000 bpd.
We received the air permit necessary to commence construction of
the project in the fourth quarter of 2006. For further
discussion of this project, please read Item 7
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and
Capital Resources Capital Expenditures.
The Shreveport refinery has a flexible operational configuration
and operating personnel that facilitate development of new
product opportunities. Product mix fluctuates from one period to
the next to capture market opportunities. The refinery has an
idle residual fluid catalytic cracking unit, alkylation unit,
vacuum tower and a number of idle towers that can be utilized
for future project needs. Certain idle towers will be utilized
as a part of the Shreveport refinery expansion project discussed
above.
The Shreveport refinery currently makes jet fuel, low sulfur
diesel and ultra low sulfur diesel and all of its gasoline
production currently meets low sulfur standards.
The Shreveport refinery receives crude oil from common carrier
pipeline systems operated by subsidiaries of Plains and Exxon
Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil), each of which are
connected to the Shreveport refinerys facilities. The
Plains pipeline system delivers local supplies of crude oil and
condensates from north Louisiana and east Texas. The ExxonMobil
pipeline system delivers domestic crude oil supplies from south
Louisiana and foreign crude oil supplies from the Louisiana
Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) or other crude oil
terminals. In addition, trucks deliver crude oil gathered from
local producers to the Shreveport refinery.
The Shreveport refinery has direct pipeline access to the TEPPCO
Products Partners pipeline (TEPPCO pipeline),
over which it can ship all grades of gasoline, jet fuel and
diesel fuel. The refinery also has direct access to the Red
River Terminal facility, which provides the refinery with barge
access, via the Red River, to major feedstock and petroleum
products logistics networks on the Mississippi River and Gulf
Coast inland waterway system. The Shreveport refinery also ships
its finished products throughout the country through both truck
and rail car service.
10
Burnham
Terminal and Other Logistics Assets
We own and operate a terminal in Burnham,
Illinois. The Burnham terminal receives specialty
products exclusively from each of our refineries and distributes
them by truck to our customers in the Upper Midwest and East
Coast regions of the United States and in Canada.
The terminal includes a tank farm with 67 tanks with aggregate
lubricating oil, solvent and specialty product storage capacity
of approximately 150,000 barrels as well as blending equipment.
The Burnham terminal is complementary to our refineries and
plays a key role in moving our products to the end-user market
by providing the following services:
|
|
|
|
|
distribution;
|
|
|
|
blending to achieve specified products; and
|
|
|
|
storage and inventory management.
|
We also lease a fleet of approximately 1,200 railcars from
various lessors. This fleet enables us to receive crude oil and
distribute various specialty products throughout the United
States and Canada to and from each of our refineries.
Crude Oil
and Feedstock Supply
We purchase crude oil from major oil companies as well as from
various gatherers and marketers in Texas and north Louisiana.
The Shreveport refinery can also receive crude oil through the
ExxonMobil pipeline system originating in St. James, Louisiana,
which provides the refinery with access to domestic crude oils
and foreign crude oils through the LOOP or other terminal
locations.
For the year ended December 31, 2006, we purchased
approximately 38.5% of our crude oil supply from a subsidiary of
Plains under a term contract that expires in February 2008,
37.7% of our crude oil supply through evergreen crude oil supply
contracts, which are typically terminable on 30 days
notice by either party, and the remaining 23.8% of our crude oil
supply on the spot market. We also purchase foreign crude oil
when its spot market price is attractive relative to the price
of crude oil from domestic sources. Due to the location of our
refineries, we believe that adequate supplies of crude oil will
continue to be available to us.
Our cost to acquire feedstocks, and the price for which we
ultimately can sell refined products, depend on a number of
factors beyond our control, including regional and global supply
of and demand for crude oil and other feedstocks and specialty
and fuel products. These in turn are dependent upon, among other
things, the availability of imports, the production levels of
domestic and foreign suppliers, U.S. relationships with
foreign governments, political affairs and the extent of
governmental regulation. We have historically been able to pass
on the costs associated with increased feedstock prices to our
specialty products customers although the increase in selling
prices for specialty products typically lags the rising cost of
crude oil. We use a hedging program to manage a portion of this
price risk. Please read Item 7A Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Commodity
Price Risk for a discussion of our crude oil hedging
program.
Markets
and Customers
We produce a full line of specialty products, including premium
lubricating oils, solvents and waxes. Our customers purchase
these products primarily as raw material components for basic
industrial, consumer and automotive goods. We also produce a
variety of fuel products.
We have an experienced marketing department with an average
industry tenure of over 15 years. Our salespeople regularly
visit customers and our sales department works closely with the
laboratories at the refineries and our technical department to
help create specialized blends that will work optimally for our
customers.
Markets
Specialty Products. The specialty products
market represents a small portion of the overall petroleum
refining industry in the United States. Of the nearly 150
refineries currently in operation in the United States, only a
11
small number of the refineries are considered specialty products
producers and only a few compete with us in terms of the number
of products produced.
Our specialty products are utilized in applications across a
broad range of industries, including in:
|
|
|
|
|
industrial goods such as metal working fluids, belts, hoses,
sealing systems, batteries, hot melt adhesives, pressure
sensitive tapes, electrical transformers and refrigeration
compressors;
|
|
|
|
consumer goods such as candles, petroleum jelly, creams, tonics,
lotions, coating on paper cups, chewing gum base, automotive
aftermarket car-care products (fuel injection cleaners, tire
shines and polishes), lamp oils, charcoal lighter fluids,
camping fuel and various aerosol products; and
|
|
|
|
automotive goods such as motor oils, greases, transmission fluid
and tires.
|
Although our refineries are located in northwest Louisiana, we
have the capability to ship our specialty products worldwide. We
ship via rail cars, trucks or barges in the United States and
Canada. For the year ended December 31, 2006, about 42.1%
of our specialty products were shipped in our fleet of
approximately 1,200 leased rail cars with the remaining 57.9% of
our specialty products shipped in trucks owned and operated by
several different third-party carriers. We have the capability
to ship large quantities via barge if necessary. For shipments
outside of North America, which accounted for less than 10% of
our consolidated sales in 2006, we can ship railcars to several
ports where the product is loaded on a ship for delivery to a
customer.
Fuel Products. We produce a variety of fuel
and fuel-related products, primarily at our Shreveport refinery.
Fuel products produced at the Shreveport refinery can be sold
locally or through the TEPPCO pipeline. Local sales are made in
the TEPPCO terminal in Bossier City, Louisiana, which is
approximately 15 miles from the Shreveport refinery, as
well as from our own refinery terminal. Any excess volumes are
sold to marketers further up the TEPPCO pipeline.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, we sold
approximately 11,000 bpd of gasoline into the Louisiana,
Texas and Arkansas markets, and we sold our excess volumes to
marketers further up the TEPPCO pipeline. Should the appropriate
market conditions arise, we have the capability to redirect and
sell additional volumes into the Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas
markets rather than transport them to the Midwest. Similar
market conditions exist for our diesel production. We also sell
the majority of our diesel fuel locally, but similar to
gasoline, we occasionally sell the excess volumes to upstream
marketers during times of high diesel production or for
competitive reasons.
Our Shreveport and Cotton Valley refineries have the capability
to make all of their low sulfur diesel into ultra low sulfur
diesel and all of the Shreveport refinerys gasoline
production meets low sulfur standards set by the EPA.
The Shreveport refinery also has the capacity to produce about
7,000 bpd of commercial jet fuel that can be marketed to
Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, Louisiana, sold as
Jet-A locally or via the TEPPCO pipeline, or transferred to the
Cotton Valley refinery to be used as a feedstock to make
solvents. Jet fuel sales volumes change as the margin between
diesel and jet fuel change. We have a sales contract with
Barksdale for approximately 4,500 bpd of jet fuel. This
contract is effective until April 2007 and is bid annually.
Additionally, we produce a number of fuel-related products
including fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) feedstock,
asphalt vacuum residual and mixed butanes.
Vacuum residuals are blended or processed further to make
specialty asphalt products. Volumes of vacuum residuals which we
cannot process are sold locally into the fuel oil market or sold
via rail car to other producers. FCC feedstock is sold to other
refiners as a feedstock for their FCC units. Butanes are
primarily available in the summer months and are primarily sold
to local marketers. If the butane is not sold, it is blended
into our gasoline production.
Customers
Specialty Products. We have a diverse customer
base for our specialty products, with approximately
800 active accounts. Most of our customers are long-term
customers who use our products in specialty applications
12
which require six months to two years to gain approval for use
in their formulations. No single customer of our specialty
products segment accounts for more that 10% of our consolidated
sales.
Fuel Products. We have a diverse customer base
for our fuel products, with 63 active accounts. We are able to
sell the majority of the fuel products we produce to the local
markets of Louisiana, east Texas and Arkansas. We also have the
option to ship our fuel products to the Midwest through the
TEPPCO pipeline, should the need arise. No single customer of
our fuel products segment account for more than 10% of our
consolidated sales.
Safety
and Maintenance
We perform preventive and normal maintenance on all of our
refining and logistics assets and make repairs and replacements
when necessary or appropriate. We also conduct routine and
required inspections of our assets as required by law or
regulation.
We are subject to the requirements of Federal Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and comparable state
occupational safety statutes. We believe that we have operated
in substantial compliance with OSHA requirements, including
general industry standards, record keeping and reporting, hazard
communication and process safety management. We have implemented
a quality system that meets the requirements of the
QS 9000/ISO-9002
Standard. The integrity of our certification is maintained
through surveillance audits by our registrar at regular
intervals designed to ensure adherence to the standards. The
nature of our business may result from time to time in
industrial accidents. It is possible that changes in safety and
health regulations or a finding of non-compliance with current
regulations could result in additional capital expenditures or
operating expenses, as well as fines and penalties.
Competition
Competition in our markets is from a combination of large,
integrated petroleum companies, independent refiners and wax
companies. Many of our competitors are substantially larger than
us and are engaged on a national or international basis in many
segments of the petroleum products business, including refining,
transportation and marketing, on scales substantially larger
than ours. These competitors may have greater flexibility in
responding to or absorbing market changes occurring in one or
more of these segments. We distinguish our competitors according
to the products that they produce. Set forth below is a
description of our competitors according to products.
Naphthenic Lubricating Oils. Our primary
competitor in producing naphthenic lubricating oils is Ergon
Refining, Inc. We also compete with Cross Oil Refining and
Marketing, Inc. and San Joaquin Refining Co., Inc.
Paraffinic Lubricating Oils. Our primary
competitors in producing paraffinic lubricating oils include
ExxonMobil, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ConocoPhillips and Sunoco
Lubricants & Special Products.
Paraffin Waxes. Our primary competitors in
producing paraffin waxes include Exxon Mobil and The
International Group Inc.
Solvents. Our competitors in producing
solvents include Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Ashland Inc. and
ConocoPhillips.
Fuel Products. Our competitors in producing
fuels products in the local markets in which we operate include
Delek Refining, Ltd. and Lion Oil Company.
Our ability to compete effectively depends on our responsiveness
to customer needs and our ability to maintain competitive prices
and product offerings. We believe that our flexibility and
customer responsiveness differentiate us from many of our larger
competitors. However, it is possible that new or existing
competitors could enter the markets in which we operate, which
could negatively affect our financial performance.
Environmental
Matters
We operate crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon refining and
terminal operations, which are subject to stringent and complex
federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the
discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise
relating to environmental protection. These laws and regulations
can impair our operations that affect
13
the environment in many ways, such as requiring the acquisition
of permits to conduct regulated activities; restricting the
manner in which the Company can release materials into the
environment; requiring remedial activities or capital
expenditures to mitigate pollution from former or current
operations; and imposing substantial liabilities on us for
pollution resulting from our operations. Certain environmental
laws impose joint and several, strict liability for costs
required to remediate and restore sites where petroleum
hydrocarbons, wastes, or other materials have been released or
disposed.
Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may
result in the triggering of administrative, civil and criminal
measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the
imposition of remedial obligations, and the issuance of
injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of our
operations. On occasion, we receive notices of violation,
enforcement and other complaints from regulatory agencies
alleging non-compliance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations. In particular, the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has proposed penalties
totaling approximately $0.2 million and supplemental
projects for the following alleged violations: (i) a May
2001 notification received by the Cotton Valley refinery from
the LDEQ regarding several alleged violations of various air
emission regulations, as identified in the course of our Leak
Detection and Repair program, and also for failure to submit
various reports related to the facilitys air emissions;
(ii) a December 2002 notification received by the Cotton
Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding alleged violations for
excess emissions, as identified in the LDEQs file review
of the Cotton Valley refinery; and (iii) a December 2004
notification received by the Cotton Valley refinery from the
LDEQ regarding alleged violations for the construction of a
multi-tower pad and associated pump pads without a permit issued
by the agency. We are currently in settlement negotiations with
the LDEQ to resolve these matters, as well as a number of
similar matters at the Princeton refinery, for which no penalty
has yet been proposed. We expect that any penalties that may be
assessed due to the alleged violations at our Princeton refinery
will be consolidated in a settlement agreement that we
anticipate executing with the LDEQ in connection with the
agencys Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery
Initiative described below in Air.
The clear trend in environmental regulation is to place more
restrictions and limitations on activities that may affect the
environment, and thus, any changes in environmental laws and
regulations that result in more stringent and costly waste
handling, storage, transport, disposal, or remediation
requirements could have a material adverse effect on our
operations and financial position. Moreover, in connection with
accidental spills or releases associated with our operations, we
cannot assure our unitholders that we will not incur substantial
costs and liabilities as a result of such spills or releases,
including those relating to claims for damage to property and
persons. In the event of future increases in costs, we may be
unable to pass on those increases to our customers. While we
believe that we are in substantial compliance with existing
environmental laws and regulations and that continued compliance
with these requirements will not have a material adverse effect
on us, there can be no assurance that our environmental
compliance expenditures will not become material in the future.
Air
Our operations are subject to the federal Clean Air Act, as
amended, and comparable state and local laws. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 require most industrial operations in the
U.S. to incur capital expenditures to meet the air emission
control standards that are developed and implemented by the EPA
and state environmental agencies. Under the Clean Air Act,
facilities that emit volatile organic compounds or nitrogen
oxides face increasingly stringent regulations, including
requirements to install various levels of control technology on
sources of pollutants. In addition, the petroleum refining
sector has come under stringent new EPA regulations, imposing
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) on
refinery equipment emitting certain listed hazardous air
pollutants. Some of our facilities have been included within the
categories of sources regulated by MACT rules. In addition, air
permits are required for our refining and terminal operations
that result in the emission of regulated air contaminants. These
permits incorporate stringent control technology requirements
and are subject to extensive review and periodic renewal. Aside
from the alleged air violations discussed above for which we are
currently discussing settlement with the LDEQ, we believe that
we are in substantial compliance with the Clean Air Act and
similar state and local laws.
The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to require modifications in
the formulation of the refined transportation fuel products we
manufacture in order to limit the emissions associated with the
fuel products final use. For
14
example, in December 1999, the EPA promulgated regulations
limiting the sulfur content allowed in gasoline. These
regulations required the phase-in of gasoline sulfur standards
beginning in 2004, with special provisions for small refiners
and for refiners serving those Western states exhibiting lesser
air quality problems. Similarly, the EPA promulgated regulations
that limit the sulfur content of highway diesel beginning in
2006 from its former level of 500 parts per million
(ppm) to 15 ppm (the ultra low sulfur
standard). The Shreveport refinery has implemented the
sulfur standard with respect to gasoline in its production and
has commenced production of diesel meeting the ultra low sulfur
standard.
We recently have entered into discussions on a voluntary basis
with the LDEQ regarding the Companys participation in that
agencys Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery
Initiative. This state initiative is patterned after the
EPAs National Petroleum Refinery Initiative,
which is a coordinated, integrated compliance and enforcement
strategy to address federal Clean Air Act compliance issues at
the nations largest petroleum refineries. We expect that
the LDEQs primary focus under the state initiative will be
on four compliance and enforcement concerns: (i) Prevention
of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review; (ii) New
Source Performance Standards for fuel gas combustion devices,
including flares, heaters and boilers; (iii) Leak Detection
and Repair requirements; and (iv) Benzene Waste Operations
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. We are
only in the beginning stages of discussion with the LDEQ and,
consequently, while no significant compliance and enforcement
expenditures have been requested as a result of the these
discussions, we anticipate that we will ultimately be required
to make emissions reductions requiring capital investments
between approximately $1.0 million and $3.0 million
over a three to five year period at our three Louisiana
refineries.
In response to recent studies suggesting that emissions of
certain gases may be contributing to warming of the Earths
atmosphere, many foreign nations have agreed to limit emissions
of these gases, generally referred to as greenhouse
gases, pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, also known as the Kyoto Protocol.
Methane, a primary component of natural gas, and carbon dioxide,
a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels, are examples of
greenhouse gases. Although the United States is not
participating in the Kyoto Protocol, the current session of
Congress is considering climate change legislation, with
multiple bills having already been introduced in the Senate that
propose to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison,
several states have already adopted legislation, regulations
and/or regulatory initiatives to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases. Also, on November 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court
heard arguments on a case appealed from the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District Columbia, Massachusetts, et al.
v. EPA, in which the appellate court held that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency had discretion under the federal
Clean Air Act to refuse to regulate carbon dioxide emissions
from mobile sources. Passage of climate change legislation by
Congress or a Supreme Court reversal of the appellate decision
could result in federal regulation of carbon dioxide emissions
and other greenhouse gases. Also, any federal or state
restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases that may be
imposed in areas of the United States in which we conduct
business could adversely affect our operations and demand for
our products.
On December 27, 2006, the LDEQ approved our application for
a modification of our air emissions permit for the Shreveport
refinery expansion. We were required to obtain approval of this
modified air emissions permit from the LDEQ prior to commencing
construction of the expansion activities. Upon receipt of the
permit approval from the LDEQ, we have commenced construction of
the Shreveport refinery expansion project. On February 22,
2007, we received notice that on February 13, 2007 an
individual filed, on behalf of the Residents for Air
Neutralization, a Petition for Review in the 19th Judicial
District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, asking
the Court to review the approval granted by the LDEQ for our
application for a modified air emissions permit. The Petition
alleges the information in the final LDEQ decision report was
inaccurate and that, based on the LDEQs decision to grant
the modified air emissions permit, the LDEQ had not reviewed the
evidence put before them properly. There is a question,
unresolved at this time, concerning whether the Petition was
timely filed. If it was timely filed, the LDEQ will have sixty
days after service of the Petition to file the record of its
proceedings with the district court. We believe that the LDEQ
will be successful in defending its approval of our application
for a modified air emissions permit. Neither we nor any of our
subsidiaries is named at this time as a party to the Petition.
For a further discussion of the expansion project, please read
Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Liquidity and Capital Resources Capital
Expenditures.
15
Hazardous
Substances and Wastes
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), also known as
the Superfund law, and comparable state laws impose
liability without regard to fault or the legality of the
original conduct, on certain classes of persons who are
considered to be responsible for the release of a hazardous
substance into the environment. Such classes of persons include
the current and past owners and operators of sites where a
hazardous substance was released, and companies that disposed or
arranged for disposal of hazardous substances at offsite
locations, such as landfills. Under CERCLA, these
responsible persons may be subject to joint and
several, strict liability for the costs of cleaning up the
hazardous substances that have been released into the
environment, for damages to natural resources, and for the costs
of certain health studies. It is not uncommon for neighboring
landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal
injury and property damage allegedly caused by the release of
hazardous substances into the environment. In the course of our
operations, we generate wastes or handle substances that may be
regulated as hazardous substances, and we could become subject
to liability under CERCLA and comparable state laws.
We also may incur liability under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and comparable state laws,
which impose requirements related to the handling, storage,
treatment, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. In the
course of our operations, we generate petroleum product wastes
and ordinary industrial wastes, such as paint wastes, waste
solvents, and waste oils, that may be regulated as hazardous
wastes. In addition, our operations also generate solid wastes,
which are regulated under RCRA and state law. We believe that we
are in substantial compliance with the existing requirements of
RCRA and similar state and local laws, and the cost involved in
complying with these requirements is not material.
We currently own or operate, and have in the past owned or
operated, properties that for many years have been used for
refining and terminal activities. These properties have in the
past been operated by third parties whose treatment and disposal
or release of petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes was not under
our control. Although we used operating and disposal practices
that were standard in the industry at the time, petroleum
hydrocarbons or wastes have been released on or under the
properties owned or operated by us. These properties and the
materials disposed or released on them may be subject to CERCLA,
RCRA and analogous state laws. Under such laws, we could be
required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes or
property contamination, or to perform remedial activities to
prevent future contamination.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of our refinery sites. The remedial projects are being
overseen by the appropriate state agencies. Based on current
investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled
or remedied without having a material adverse effect on our
financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable
and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs
will not become material.
Water
The federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended,
also known as the Clean Water Act, and analogous state laws
impose restrictions and stringent controls on the discharge of
pollutants, including oil, into federal and state waters. Such
discharges are prohibited, except in accordance with the terms
of a permit issued by the EPA or the appropriate state agencies.
Any unpermitted release of pollutants, including crude or
hydrocarbon specialty oils as well as refined products, could
result in penalties, as well as significant remedial
obligations. Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure
requirements of federal laws require appropriate containment
berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination
of navigable waters in the event of a petroleum hydrocarbon tank
spill, rupture, or leak. We believe that we are in substantial
compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
The primary federal law for oil spill liability is the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (OPA), which
addresses three principal areas of oil pollution
prevention, containment, and cleanup. OPA applies to vessels,
offshore facilities, and onshore facilities, including
refineries, terminals, and associated facilities that may affect
waters of the U.S. Under OPA, responsible parties,
including owners and operators of onshore facilities, may be
subject to oil cleanup costs and natural resource damages as
well as a variety of public and private damages from oil spills.
We believe that we are in substantial compliance with OPA and
similar state laws.
16
Health
and Safety
We are subject to various laws and regulations relating to
occupational health and safety including OSHA, and comparable
state laws. These laws and the implementing regulations strictly
govern the protection of the health and safety of employees. In
addition, OSHAs hazard communication standard requires
that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or
produced in our operations and that this information be provided
to employees, state and local government authorities and
citizens. We maintain safety, training, and maintenance programs
as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Our compliance with applicable
health and safety laws and regulations has required and
continues to require substantial expenditures. We believe that
our operations are in substantial compliance with OSHA and
similar state laws.
Other
Environmental Items
We are indemnified by Shell Oil Company, as successor to
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Atlas Processing Company, for
specified environmental liabilities arising from operations of
the Shreveport refinery prior to our acquisition of the
facility. The indemnity is unlimited in amount and duration, but
requires us to contribute up to $1.0 million of the first
$5.0 million of indemnified costs for certain of the
specified environmental liabilities.
Insurance
Our operations are subject to certain hazards of operations,
including fire, explosion and weather-related perils. We
maintain insurance policies, including business interruption
insurance for each of the refineries, with insurers in amounts
and with coverage and deductibles that we, with the advice of
our insurance advisors and brokers, believe are reasonable and
prudent. We cannot, however, ensure that this insurance will be
adequate to protect us from all material expenses related to
potential future claims for personal and property damage or that
these levels of insurance will be available in the future at
economical prices. We are not fully insured against certain
risks because such risks are not fully insurable, coverage is
unavailable, or premium costs, in our judgment, do not justify
such expenditures.
Seasonality
The operating results for the fuel products segment and the
selling prices of asphalt products we produce can be seasonal.
Asphalt demand is generally lower in the first and fourth
quarters of the year as compared to the second and third
quarters due to the seasonality of annual road construction.
Demand for gasoline is generally higher during the summer months
than during the winter months due to seasonal increases in
highway traffic. In addition, our natural gas costs can be
higher during the winter months. As a result, our operating
results for the first and fourth calendar quarters may be lower
than those for the second and third calendar quarters of each
year as a result of this seasonality.
Title to
Properties
We own the
208-acre
site of the Princeton refinery in Princeton, Louisiana, the
77-acre site
of the Cotton Valley refinery in Cotton Valley, Louisiana and
the 240-acre
site of the Shreveport refinery in Shreveport, Louisiana. In
addition, we own the
11-acre site
of the Burnham terminal in Burnham, Illinois. Our properties are
pledged as collateral under our credit facilities as discussed
in Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Debt and Credit Facilities.
Office
Facilities
In addition to our refineries and terminal discussed above, we
occupy approximately 19,000 square feet of executive office
space in Indianapolis, Indiana under a lease expiring in
September 2011. While we may require additional office space as
our business expands, we believe that our existing facilities
are adequate to meet our needs for the immediate future and that
additional facilities will be available on commercially
reasonable terms as needed.
17
Employees
As of February 9, 2007, our general partner employs
approximately 360 people who provide direct support to the
Companys operations. Of these employees, approximately 200
are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Employees at
the Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries are covered by
separate collective bargaining agreements with the International
Union of Operating Engineers, having expiration dates of
October 31, 2008 and March 31, 2007, respectively.
Employees at the Shreveport refinery are covered by a collective
bargaining agreement with the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical
and Energy Workers International Union which expires as of
April 30, 2007. None of the employees at the Burnham
terminal are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Our
general partner considers its employee relations to be good,
with no history of work stoppages.
Address,
Internet Website and Availability of Public Filings
Our principal executive offices are located at 2780 Waterfront
Pkwy E. Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46214 and
our telephone number is
(317) 328-5660.
Our website is located at http://www.calumetspecialty.com.
We make the following information available free of charge on
our website:
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Report on
Form 10-K;
|
|
|
|
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q;
|
|
|
|
Current Reports on
Form 8-K;
|
|
|
|
Amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934;
|
|
|
|
Charters for the Audit, Compensation and Conflicts
Committees; and
|
|
|
|
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.
|
Our SEC filings are available on our website as soon as
reasonably practicable after we electronically file such
material with, or furnish such material to, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). The above information is
available in print to anyone who requests it.
|
|
Item 1A.
|
Risk
Factors Related to Our Business
|
We may
not have sufficient cash from operations to enable us to pay the
minimum quarterly distribution following the establishment of
cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including
payments to our general partner.
We may not have sufficient available cash from operations each
quarter to enable us to pay the minimum quarterly distribution.
Under the terms of our partnership agreement, we must pay
expenses, including payments to our general partner, and set
aside any cash reserve amounts before making a distribution to
our unitholders. The amount of cash we can distribute on our
units principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate
from our operations, which is primarily dependent upon our
producing and selling quantities of fuel and specialty products,
or refined products, at margins that are high enough to cover
our fixed and variable expenses. Crude oil costs, fuel and
specialty products prices and, accordingly, the cash we generate
from operations, will fluctuate from quarter to quarter based
on, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
overall demand for specialty hydrocarbon products, fuel and
other refined products;
|
|
|
|
the level of foreign and domestic production of crude oil and
refined products;
|
|
|
|
our ability to produce fuel and specialty products that meet our
customers unique and precise specifications;
|
|
|
|
the marketing of alternative and competing products;
|
|
|
|
the extent of government regulation;
|
|
|
|
results of our hedging activities; and
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
overall economic and local market conditions.
|
In addition, the actual amount of cash we will have available
for distribution will depend on other factors, some of which are
beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the level of capital expenditures we make, including those for
acquisitions, if any;
|
|
|
|
our debt service requirements;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in our working capital needs;
|
|
|
|
our ability to borrow funds and access capital markets;
|
|
|
|
restrictions on distributions and on our ability to make working
capital borrowings for distributions contained in our credit
facilities; and
|
|
|
|
the amount of cash reserves established by our general partner
for the proper conduct of our business.
|
The
amount of cash we have available for distribution to unitholders
depends primarily on our cash flow and not solely on
profitability.
Unitholders should be aware that the amount of cash we have
available for distribution depends primarily upon our cash flow,
including cash flow from financial reserves and working capital
borrowings, and not solely on profitability, which will be
affected by non-cash items. As a result, we may make cash
distributions during periods when we record losses and may not
make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.
Refining
margins are volatile, and a reduction in our refining margins
will adversely affect the amount of cash we will have available
for distribution to our unitholders.
Our financial results are primarily affected by the
relationship, or margin, between our specialty products and fuel
prices and the prices for crude oil and other feedstocks. The
cost to acquire our feedstocks and the price at which we can
ultimately sell our refined products depend upon numerous
factors beyond our control. Historically, refining margins have
been volatile, and they are likely to continue to be volatile in
the future. A widely used benchmark in the fuel products
industry to measure market values and margins is the 3/2/1
crack spread, which represents the approximate gross
margin resulting from processing one barrel of crude oil,
assuming that three barrels of a benchmark crude oil are
converted, or cracked, into two barrels of gasoline and one
barrel of heating oil. The 3/2/1 crack spread, as reported by
Bloomberg L.P., averaged $3.04 per barrel between 1990 and
1999, $4.61 per barrel between 2000 and 2004,
$10.63 per barrel in 2005, $8.68 per barrel in the
first quarter of 2006, $15.75 per barrel in the second
quarter of 2006, $10.92 per barrel in the third quarter of
2006 and $7.43 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2006,
and $10.70 for the year ended December 31, 2006. Our actual
refinery margins vary from the Gulf Coast 3/2/1 crack spread due
to the actual crude oil used and products produced,
transportation costs, regional differences, and the timing of
the purchase of the feedstock and sale of the refined products,
but we use the Gulf Coast 3/2/1 crack spread as an indicator of
the volatility and general levels of refining margins. Because
refining margins are volatile, unitholders should not assume
that our current margins will be sustained. If our refining
margins fall, it will adversely affect the amount of cash we
will have available for distribution to our unitholders.
The price at which we sell specialty products, fuel and other
refined products is strongly influenced by the commodity price
of crude oil. If crude oil prices increase, our operating
margins will fall unless we are able to pass along these price
increases to our customers. Increases in selling prices
typically lag the rising cost of crude oil for specialty
products. It is possible we may not be able to pass on all or
any portion of the increased crude oil costs to our customers.
In addition, we will not be able to completely eliminate our
commodity risk through our hedging activities.
19
Because
of the volatility of crude oil and refined products prices, our
method of valuing our inventory may result in decreases in net
income.
The nature of our business requires us to maintain substantial
quantities of crude oil and refined product inventories. Because
crude oil and refined products are essentially commodities, we
have no control over the changing market value of these
inventories. Because our inventory is valued at the lower of
cost or market value, if the market value of our inventory were
to decline to an amount less than our cost, we would record a
write-down of inventory and a non-cash charge to cost of sales.
In a period of decreasing crude oil or refined product prices,
our inventory valuation methodology may result in decreases in
net income.
The
price volatility of fuel and utility services may result in
decreases in our earnings, profitability and cash
flows.
The volatility in costs of fuel, principally natural gas, and
other utility services, principally electricity, used by our
refinery and other operations affect our net income and cash
flows. Fuel and utility prices are affected by factors outside
of our control, such as supply and demand for fuel and utility
services in both local and regional markets. Natural gas prices
have historically been volatile.
For example, daily prices as reported on the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX) ranged between $4.20 and
$10.62 per million British thermal units, or MMBtu, in 2006
and between $5.79 and $15.39 per MMBtu in 2005. Typically,
electricity prices fluctuate with natural gas prices. Future
increases in fuel and utility prices may have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations. Fuel and utility costs
constituted approximately 42.3% and 45.6% of our total operating
expenses included in cost of sales for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Our
hedging activities may reduce our earnings, profitability and
cash flows.
We are exposed to fluctuations in the price of crude oil, fuel
products, natural gas and interest rates. We utilize derivative
financial instruments related to the future price of crude oil,
natural gas and fuel products with the intent of reducing
volatility in our cash flows due to fluctuations in commodity
prices. We are not able to enter into derivative financial
instruments to reduce the volatility of the prices of the
specialty hydrocarbon products we sell as there is no
established derivative market for such products.
Prior to 2006, we had not designated all of our derivative
instruments as hedges in accordance with the provisions of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities. According to SFAS 133, changes in the fair
value of derivatives which have not been designated as hedges
are to be recorded each period in earnings and reflected in
unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations. For the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, these unrealized gains
(losses) were $12.3 million, $(27.6) million, and
$(7.8) million, respectively. On April 1, 2006, we
designated certain derivative contracts that hedge the purchase
of crude oil and sale of fuel products as cash flow hedges to
the extent they qualify for hedge accounting. Subsequent to
April 1, 2006, we designated certain derivatives related to
crude oil and natural gas purchases and fuel product sales, and
interest payments as cash flow hedges at the time of their
execution. For derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, the
change in fair value of these derivatives is reflected in
accumulated other comprehensive income in the consolidated
balance sheets. A total fair value of $52.3 million of
these derivatives is reflected in accumulated other
comprehensive income on the consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2006.
The extent of our commodity price exposure is related largely to
the effectiveness and scope of our hedging activities. For
example, the derivative instruments we utilize are based on
posted market prices, which may differ significantly from the
actual crude oil prices, natural gas prices or fuel products
prices that we incur in our operations. Furthermore, we have a
policy to enter into derivative transactions related to only a
portion of the volume of our expected purchase and sales
requirements and, as a result, we will continue to have direct
commodity price exposure to the unhedged portion. Please read
Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
about Market Risk. Our actual future purchase and sales
requirements may be significantly higher or lower than we
estimate at the time we enter into derivative transactions for
such period. If the actual amount is higher than we estimate, we
will have greater commodity price exposure than we intended. If
the actual amount is lower than the
20
amount that is subject to our derivative financial instruments,
we might be forced to satisfy all or a portion of our derivative
transactions without the benefit of the cash flow from our sale
or purchase of the underlying physical commodity, resulting in a
substantial diminution of our liquidity. As a result, our
hedging activities may not be as effective as we intend in
reducing the volatility of our cash flows. In addition, our
hedging activities are subject to the risks that a counterparty
may not perform its obligation under the applicable derivative
instrument, the terms of the derivative instruments are
imperfect, and our hedging policies and procedures are not
properly followed. It is possible that the steps we take to
monitor our derivative financial instruments may not detect and
prevent violations of our risk management policies and
procedures, particularly if deception or other intentional
misconduct is involved.
Our
asset reconfiguration and enhancement initiatives, including the
current expansion project at our Shreveport refinery, may not
result in revenue or cash flow increases, may be subject to
significant cost overruns and are subject to regulatory,
environmental, political, legal and economic risks, which could
adversely affect our business, operating results, cash flows and
financial condition.
We plan to grow our business in part through the reconfiguration
and enhancement of our refinery assets. As a specific current
example, we have commenced construction of an expansion project
at our Shreveport refinery to increase throughput capacity and
crude oil processing flexibility. This construction project and
the construction of other additions or modifications to our
existing refineries involve numerous regulatory, environmental,
political, legal and economic uncertainties beyond our control,
which could cause delays in construction or require the
expenditure of significant amounts of capital, which we may
finance with additional indebtedness or by issuing additional
equity securities. As a result, these projects may not be
completed at the budgeted cost, on schedule, or at all.
We currently anticipate that our expansion project at the
Shreveport refinery will cost approximately $150.0 million.
We may suffer significant delays to the expected completion date
or significant additional cost overruns as a result of increases
in construction costs, shortages of workers or materials,
transportation constraints, adverse weather, regulatory and
permitting challenges, unforeseen difficulties or labor issues.
Thus, construction to expand our Shreveport refinery or
construction of other additions or modifications to our existing
refineries may occur over an extended period of time and we may
not receive any material increases in revenues and cash
flows until the project is completed, if at all. Until the
Shreveport expansion project is put into commercial service and
increases our cash flow from operations on a per unit basis, we
will be able to issue only 3,233,000 additional common
units without obtaining unitholder approval, thereby limiting
our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of
common units. For further discussion of the Shreveport expansion
project, please read Item 7 Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Capital Expenditures.
If our
general financial condition deteriorates, we may be limited in
our ability to issue letters of credit which may affect our
ability to enter into hedging arrangements or to purchase crude
oil.
We rely on our ability to issue letters of credit to enter into
hedging arrangements in an effort to reduce our exposure to
adverse fluctuations in the prices of crude oil, natural gas and
crack spreads. We also rely on our ability to issue letters of
credit to purchase crude oil for our refineries and enter into
cash flow hedges of crude oil and natural gas purchases and fuel
products sales. If, due to our financial condition or other
reasons, we are limited in our ability to issue letters of
credit or we are unable to issue letters of credit at all, we
may be required to post substantial amounts of cash collateral
to our hedging counterparties or crude oil suppliers in order to
continue these activities, which would adversely affect our
liquidity and our ability to distribute cash to our unitholders.
We
depend on certain key crude oil gatherers for a significant
portion of our supply of crude oil, and the loss of any of these
key suppliers or a material decrease in the supply of crude oil
generally available to our refineries could materially reduce
our ability to make distributions to unitholders.
We purchase crude oil from major oil companies as well as from
various gatherers and marketers in Texas and North Louisiana.
For the year ended December 31, 2006, subsidiaries of
Plains and Koch Supply and Trading, LP supplied us with
approximately 50.6% and 23.5%, respectively, of our total crude
oil supplies. Each of our refineries
21
is dependent on one or both of these suppliers and the loss of
these suppliers would adversely affect our financial results to
the extent we were unable to find another supplier of this
substantial amount of crude oil. We do not maintain long-term
contracts with most of our suppliers. Please read Items 1
and 2 Business and Properties Crude Oil and
Feedstock Supply.
To the extent that our suppliers reduce the volumes of crude oil
that they supply us as a result of declining production or
competition or otherwise, our revenues, net income and cash
available for distribution would decline unless we were able to
acquire comparable supplies of crude oil on comparable terms
from other suppliers, which may not be possible in areas where
the supplier that reduces its volumes is the primary supplier in
the area. A material decrease in crude oil production from the
fields that supply our refineries, as a result of depressed
commodity prices, lack of drilling activity, natural production
declines or otherwise, could result in a decline in the volume
of crude oil we refine. Fluctuations in crude oil prices can
greatly affect production rates and investments by third parties
in the development of new oil reserves. Drilling activity
generally decreases as crude oil prices decrease. We have no
control over the level of drilling activity in the fields that
supply our refineries, the amount of reserves underlying the
wells in these fields, the rate at which production from a well
will decline or the production decisions of producers, which are
affected by, among other things, prevailing and projected energy
prices, demand for hydrocarbons, geological considerations,
governmental regulation and the availability and cost of capital.
We are
dependent on certain third-party pipelines for transportation of
crude oil and refined products, and if these pipelines become
unavailable to us, our revenues and cash available for
distribution could decline.
Our Shreveport refinery is interconnected to pipelines that
supply most of its crude oil and ship most of its refined fuel
products to customers, such as pipelines operated by
subsidiaries of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and Exxon Mobil.
Since we do not own or operate any of these pipelines, their
continuing operation is not within our control. If any of these
third-party pipelines become unavailable to transport crude oil
feedstock or our refined fuel products because of accidents,
government regulation, terrorism or other events, our revenues,
net income and cash available for distribution could decline.
Distributions
to unitholders could be adversely affected by a decrease in the
demand for our specialty products.
Changes in our customers products or processes may enable
our customers to reduce consumption of the specialty products
that we produce or make our specialty products unnecessary.
Should a customer decide to use a different product due to
price, performance or other considerations, we may not be able
to supply a product that meets the customers new
requirements. In addition, the demand for our customers
end products could decrease, which would reduce their demand for
our specialty products. Our specialty products customers are
primarily in the industrial goods, consumer goods and automotive
goods industries and we are therefore susceptible to changing
demand patterns and products in those industries. Consequently,
it is important that we develop and manufacture new products to
replace the sales of products that mature and decline in use. If
we are unable to manage successfully the maturation of our
existing specialty products and the introduction of new
specialty products our revenues, net income and cash available
for distribution to unitholders could be reduced.
Distributions
to unitholders could be adversely affected by a decrease in
demand for fuel products in the markets we serve.
Any sustained decrease in demand for fuel products in the
markets we serve could result in a significant reduction in our
cash flows, reducing our ability to make distributions to
unitholders. Factors that could lead to a decrease in market
demand include:
|
|
|
|
|
a recession or other adverse economic condition that results in
lower spending by consumers on gasoline, diesel, and travel;
|
|
|
|
higher fuel taxes or other governmental or regulatory actions
that increase, directly or indirectly, the cost of fuel products;
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
an increase in fuel economy or the increased use of alternative
fuel sources;
|
|
|
|
an increase in the market price of crude oil that lead to higher
refined product prices, which may reduce demand for fuel
products;
|
|
|
|
competitor actions; and
|
|
|
|
availability of raw materials.
|
We
could be subject to damages based on claims brought against us
by our customers or lose customers as a result of the failure of
our products to meet certain quality
specifications.
Our specialty products provide precise performance attributes
for our customers products. If a product fails to perform
in a manner consistent with the detailed quality specifications
required by the customer, the customer could seek replacement of
the product or damages for costs incurred as a result of the
product failing to perform as guaranteed. A successful claim or
series of claims against us could result in a loss of one or
more customers and reduce our ability to make distributions to
unitholders.
We are
subject to compliance with stringent environmental laws and
regulations that may expose us to substantial costs and
liabilities.
Our crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon refining and terminal
operations are subject to stringent and complex federal, state
and local environmental laws and regulations governing the
discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise
relating to environmental protection. These laws and regulations
impose numerous obligations that are applicable to our
operations, including the acquisition of permits to conduct
regulated activities, the incurrence of significant capital
expenditures to limit or prevent releases of materials from our
refineries, terminal, and related facilities, and the incurrence
of substantial costs and liabilities for pollution resulting
both from our operations and from those of prior owners.
Numerous governmental authorities, such as the EPA and state
agencies, such as the LDEQ, have the power to enforce compliance
with these laws and regulations and the permits issued under
them, often requiring difficult and costly actions. Failure to
comply with environmental laws, regulations, permits and orders
may result in the assessment of administrative, civil, and
criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations, and
the issuance of injunctions limiting or preventing some or all
of our operations.
We recently have entered into discussions on a voluntary basis
with the LDEQ regarding our participation in that agencys
Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery Initiative.
We are only in the beginning stages of discussion with the LDEQ
and, consequently, while no specific compliance and enforcement
expenditures have been requested as a result of our discussions,
we anticipate that we will ultimately be required to make
emissions reductions or other efforts requiring capital
investments and increased operating expenditures that may be
material.
Our
business subjects us to the inherent risk of incurring
significant environmental liabilities in the operation of our
refineries and related facilities.
There is inherent risk of incurring significant environmental
costs and liabilities in the operation of our refineries,
terminal, and related facilities due to our handling of
petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes, air emissions and water
discharges related to our operations, and historical operations
and waste disposal practices by prior owners. We currently own
or operate properties that for many years have been used for
industrial activities, including refining or terminal storage
operations. Petroleum hydrocarbons or wastes have been released
on or under the properties owned or operated by us. Joint and
several strict liability may be incurred in connection with such
releases of petroleum hydrocarbons and wastes on, under or from
our properties and facilities. Private parties, including the
owners of properties adjacent to our operations and facilities
where our petroleum hydrocarbons or wastes are taken for
reclamation or disposal, may also have the right to pursue legal
actions to enforce compliance as well as to seek damages for
non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations or for
personal injury or property damage. We may not be able to
recover some or any of these costs from insurance or other
sources of indemnity.
Increasingly stringent environmental laws and regulations,
unanticipated remediation obligations or emissions control
expenditures and claims for penalties or damages could result in
substantial costs and liabilities, and our
23
ability to make distributions to our unitholders could suffer as
a result. Neither the owners of our general partner nor their
affiliates have indemnified us for any environmental
liabilities, including those arising from non-compliance or
pollution, that may be discovered at, or arise from operations
on, the assets they contributed to us in connection with the
closing of our initial public offering. As such, we can expect
no economic assistance from any of them in the event that we are
required to make expenditures to investigate or remediate any
petroleum hydrocarbons, wastes or other materials.
We are
exposed to trade credit risk in the ordinary course of our
business activities.
We are exposed to risks of loss in the event of nonperformance
by our customers and by counterparties of our forward contracts,
options and swap agreements. Some of our customers and
counterparties may be highly leveraged and subject to their own
operating and regulatory risks. Even if our credit review and
analysis mechanisms work properly, we may experience financial
losses in our dealings with other parties. Any increase in the
nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers
and/or
counterparties could reduce our ability to make distributions to
our unitholders.
If we
do not make acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, our
future growth will be limited.
Our ability to grow depends on our ability to make acquisitions
that result in an increase in the cash generated from operations
per unit. If we are unable to make these accretive acquisitions
either because we are: (1) unable to identify attractive
acquisition candidates or negotiate acceptable purchase
contracts with them, (2) unable to obtain financing for
these acquisitions on economically acceptable terms, or
(3) outbid by competitors, then our future growth and
ability to increase distributions will be limited. Furthermore,
any acquisition involves potential risks, including, among other
things:
|
|
|
|
|
performance from the acquired assets and businesses that is
below the forecasts we used in evaluating the acquisition;
|
|
|
|
a significant increase in our indebtedness and working capital
requirements;
|
|
|
|
an inability to timely and effectively integrate the operations
of recently acquired businesses or assets, particularly those in
new geographic areas or in new lines of business;
|
|
|
|
the incurrence of substantial unforeseen environmental and other
liabilities arising out of the acquired businesses or assets;
|
|
|
|
the diversion of managements attention from other business
concerns; and
|
|
|
|
customer or key employee losses at the acquired businesses.
|
If we consummate any future acquisitions, our capitalization and
results of operations may change significantly, and our
unitholders will not have the opportunity to evaluate the
economic, financial and other relevant information that we will
consider in determining the application of our funds and other
resources.
Our
refineries and terminal operations face operating hazards, and
the potential limits on insurance coverage could expose us to
potentially significant liability costs.
Our activities are conducted at three refineries in northwest
Louisiana and a terminal in Illinois. These facilities are our
principal operating assets. Our operations are subject to
significant interruption, and our cash from operations could
decline if any of our facilities experiences a major accident or
fire, is damaged by severe weather or other natural disaster, or
otherwise is forced to curtail its operations or shut down.
These hazards could result in substantial losses due to personal
injury
and/or loss
of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and
equipment and pollution or other environmental damage and may
result in curtailment or suspension of our related operations.
We are not fully insured against all risks incident to our
business. Furthermore, we may be unable to maintain or obtain
insurance of the type and amount we desire at reasonable rates.
As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for
certain of our insurance policies have increased and could
escalate further. In some instances,
24
certain insurance could become unavailable or available only for
reduced amounts of coverage. Our business interruption insurance
will not apply unless a business interruption exceeds
90 days. We are not insured for environmental accidents. If
we were to incur a significant liability for which we were not
fully insured, it could diminish our ability to make
distributions to unitholders.
Downtime
for maintenance at our refineries will reduce our revenues and
cash available for distribution.
Our refineries consist of many processing units, a number of
which have been in operation for a long time. One or more of the
units may require additional unscheduled downtime for
unanticipated maintenance or repairs that are more frequent than
our scheduled turnaround for each unit every one to five years.
Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance reduce our revenues during
the period of time that our units are not operating and could
reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
We are
subject to strict regulations at many of our facilities
regarding employee safety, and failure to comply with these
regulations could reduce our ability to make distributions to
our unitholders.
The workplaces associated with the refineries we operate are
subject to the requirements of the federal OSHA and comparable
state statutes that regulate the protection of the health and
safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication
standard requires that we maintain information about hazardous
materials used or produced in our operations and that we provide
this information to employees, state and local government
authorities, and local residents. Failure to comply with OSHA
requirements, including general industry standards, record
keeping requirements and monitoring of occupational exposure to
regulated substances could reduce our ability to make
distributions to our unitholders if we are subjected to fines or
significant compliance costs.
We
face substantial competition from other refining
companies.
The refining industry is highly competitive. Our competitors
include large, integrated, major or independent oil companies
that, because of their more diverse operations, larger
refineries and stronger capitalization, may be better positioned
than we are to withstand volatile industry conditions, including
shortages or excesses of crude oil or refined products or
intense price competition at the wholesale level. If we are
unable to compete effectively, we may lose existing customers or
fail to acquire new customers. For example, if a competitor
attempts to increase market share by reducing prices, our
operating results and cash available for distribution to our
unitholders could be reduced.
Our
debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional
financing and in pursuing other business
opportunities.
We had total outstanding debt of $49.5 million as of
December 31, 2006. We continue to have the ability to incur
additional debt, including the ability to borrow up to
$225.0 million under our senior secured revolving credit
facility, subject to borrowing base limitations in the credit
agreement. Our level of indebtedness could have important
consequences to us, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
our ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for
working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other
purposes may be impaired or such financing may not be available
on favorable terms;
|
|
|
|
covenants contained in our existing and future credit and debt
arrangements will require us to meet financial tests that may
affect our flexibility in planning for and reacting to changes
in our business, including possible acquisition opportunities;
|
|
|
|
we will need a substantial portion of our cash flow to make
principal and interest payments on our indebtedness, reducing
the funds that would otherwise be available for operations,
future business opportunities and distributions to unitholders;
and
|
|
|
|
our debt level will make us more vulnerable than our competitors
with less debt to competitive pressures or a downturn in our
business or the economy generally.
|
25
Our ability to service our indebtedness will depend upon, among
other things, our future financial and operating performance,
which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and
financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which
are beyond our control. If our operating results are not
sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we
will be forced to take actions such as reducing distributions,
reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions,
investments
and/or
capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or
refinancing our indebtedness, or seeking additional equity
capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to effect
any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.
Our
credit agreements contain operating and financial restrictions
that may restrict our business and financing
activities.
The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our
credit agreements and any future financing agreements could
restrict our ability to finance future operations or capital
needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business activities.
For example, our credit agreements restrict our ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
incur indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
grant liens;
|
|
|
|
make certain acquisitions and investments;
|
|
|
|
make capital expenditures above specified amounts;
|
|
|
|
redeem or prepay other debt or make other restricted payments;
|
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates;
|
|
|
|
enter into a merger, consolidation or sale of assets; and
|
|
|
|
cease our crack spread hedging program.
|
Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions
contained in our credit agreements may be affected by events
beyond our control. If market or other economic conditions
deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants may be
impaired. If we violate any of the restrictions, covenants,
ratios or tests in our credit agreements, a significant portion
of our indebtedness may become immediately due and payable, our
ability to make distributions may be inhibited and our
lenders commitment to make further loans to us may
terminate. We might not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient
funds to make these accelerated payments. In addition, our
obligations under our credit agreements are secured by
substantially all of our assets, and if we are unable to repay
our indebtedness under our credit agreements, the lenders could
seek to foreclose on our assets.
An
increase in interest rates will cause our debt service
obligations to increase.
Borrowings under our revolving credit facility bear interest at
a floating rate (8.25% as of December 31, 2006). Borrowings
under our term loan facility bear interest at a floating rate
(8.85% as of December 31, 2006). The rates are subject to
adjustment based on fluctuations in the London Interbank Offered
Rate (LIBOR) or prime rate. An increase in the
interest rates associated with our floating-rate debt would
increase our debt service costs and affect our results of
operations and cash flow available for distribution to our
unitholders. In addition, an increase in our interest rates
could adversely affect our future ability to obtain financing or
materially increase the cost of any additional financing.
Our
business and operations could be adversely affected by terrorist
attacks.
Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, the
U.S. government has issued public warnings that indicate
that energy assets might be specific targets of terrorist
organizations. The continued threat of terrorism and the impact
of military and other actions will likely lead to increased
volatility in prices for natural gas and oil and could affect
the markets for our products. These developments have subjected
our operations to increased risk and, depending on their
ultimate magnitude, could have a material adverse affect on our
business. We do not carry any terrorism risk insurance.
26
Due to
our lack of asset and geographic diversification, adverse
developments in our operating areas would reduce our ability to
make distributions to our unitholders.
We rely exclusively on sales generated from products processed
from the refineries we own. Furthermore, almost all of our
assets and operations are located in northwest Louisiana. Due to
our lack of diversification in asset type and location, an
adverse development in these businesses or areas, including
adverse developments due to catastrophic events or weather,
decreased supply of crude oil feedstocks
and/or
decreased demand for refined petroleum products, would have a
significantly greater impact on our financial condition and
results of operations than if we maintained more diverse assets
and in diverse locations.
We
depend on key personnel for the success of our business and the
loss of those persons could adversely affect our business and
our ability to make distributions to our
unitholders.
The loss of the services of any member of senior management or
key employee could have an adverse effect on our business and
reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders. We
may not be able to locate or employ on acceptable terms
qualified replacements for senior management or other key
employees if their services were no longer available. Except
with respect to Mr. Grube, neither we, our general partner
nor any affiliate thereof has entered into an employment
agreement with any member of our senior management team or other
key personnel. Furthermore, we do not maintain any key-man life
insurance.
We
depend on unionized labor for the operation of our refineries.
Any work stoppages or labor disturbances at these facilities
could disrupt our business.
Substantially all of our operating personnel at our Princeton,
Cotton Valley and Shreveport refineries are employed under
collective bargaining agreements that expire in October 2008,
March 2007 and April 2007, respectively. Our inability to
renegotiate these agreements as they expire, any work stoppages
or other labor disturbances at these facilities could have an
adverse effect on our business and reduce our ability to make
distributions to our unitholders. In addition, employees who are
not currently represented by labor unions may seek union
representation in the future, and any renegotiation of current
collective bargaining agreements may result in terms that are
less favorable to us.
The
operating results for our fuels segment and the asphalt we
produce and sell are seasonal and generally lower in the first
and fourth quarters of the year.
The operating results for the fuel products segment and the
selling prices of asphalt products we produce can be seasonal.
Asphalt demand is generally lower in the first and fourth
quarters of the year as compared to the second and third
quarters due to the seasonality of road construction. Demand for
gasoline is generally higher during the summer months than
during the winter months due to seasonal increases in highway
traffic. In addition, our natural gas costs can be higher during
the winter months. Our operating results for the first and
fourth calendar quarters may be lower than those for the second
and third calendar quarters of each year as a result of this
seasonality.
Risks
Inherent in an Investment in Us
The
families of our chairman and chief executive officer and
president, The Heritage Group and certain of their affiliates
own a 62.7% limited partner interest in us and own and control
our general partner, which has sole responsibility for
conducting our business and managing our operations. Our general
partner and its affiliates have conflicts of interest and
limited fiduciary duties, which may permit them to favor their
own interests to other unitholders
detriment.
The families of our chairman and chief executive officer and
president, the Heritage Group, and certain of their affiliates
own a 62.7% limited partner interest in us. In addition, The
Heritage Group and the families of our chairman and chief
executive officer and president own our general partner.
Conflicts of interest may arise between our general partner and
its affiliates, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on
the other hand. As a result of
27
these conflicts, the general partner may favor its own interests
and the interests of its affiliates over the interests of our
unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the
following situations:
|
|
|
|
|
our general partner is allowed to take into account the
interests of parties other than us, such as its affiliates, in
resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of
limiting its fiduciary duty to our unitholders;
|
|
|
|
our general partner has limited its liability and reduced its
fiduciary duties under our partnership agreement and has also
restricted the remedies available to our unitholders for actions
that, without the limitations, might constitute breaches of
fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing common units,
unitholders consent to some actions and conflicts of interest
that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other
duties under applicable state law;
|
|
|
|
our general partner determines the amount and timing of asset
purchases and sales, borrowings, issuance of additional
partnership securities, and reserves, each of which can affect
the amount of cash that is distributed to unitholders;
|
|
|
|
our general partner determines which costs incurred by it and
its affiliates are reimbursable by us;
|
|
|
|
our general partner determines the amount and timing of any
capital expenditures and whether a capital expenditure is a
maintenance capital expenditure, which reduces operating
surplus, or a capital expenditure for acquisitions or capital
improvements, which does not. This determination can affect the
amount of cash that is distributed to our unitholders and the
ability of the subordinated units to convert to common units;
|
|
|
|
our general partner has the flexibility to cause us to enter
into a broad variety of derivative transactions covering
different time periods, the net cash receipts from which will
increase operating surplus and adjusted operating surplus, with
the result that our general partner may be able to shift the
recognition of operating surplus and adjusted operating surplus
between periods to increase the distributions it and its
affiliates receive on their subordinated units and incentive
distribution rights or to accelerate the expiration of the
subordination period; and
|
|
|
|
in some instances, our general partner may cause us to borrow
funds in order to permit the payment of cash distributions, even
if the purpose or effect of the borrowing is to make a
distribution on the subordinated units, to make incentive
distributions or to accelerate the expiration of the
subordination period.
|
The
Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates may engage in
limited competition with us.
Pursuant to the omnibus agreement, The Heritage Group and its
controlled affiliates have agreed not to engage in, whether by
acquisition or otherwise, the business of refining or marketing
specialty lubricating oils, solvents and wax products as well as
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel products in the continental United
States (restricted business) for so long as it
controls us. This restriction does not apply to certain assets
and businesses which are more fully described under Item 13
Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions Omnibus Agreement.
Although Mr. Grube is prohibited from competing with us
pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, the owners of
our general partner, other than The Heritage Group, are not
prohibited from competing with us.
Our
partnership agreement limits our general partners
fiduciary duties to our unitholders and restricts the remedies
available to unitholders for actions taken by our general
partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary
duty.
Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the
standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held
by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership
agreement:
|
|
|
|
|
Permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its
individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our
general partner. This entitles our general partner to consider
only the interests and factors that it desires, and it has no
duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of,
or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or any limited partner.
Examples include the exercise of its limited call right, its
voting rights with respect to the units it owns, its
registration rights and its determination whether or not to
consent to any merger or consolidation of our partnership or
amendment to our partnership agreement;
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
Provides that our general partner will not have any liability to
us or our unitholders for decisions made in its capacity as a
general partner so long as it acted in good faith, meaning it
believed the decision was in the best interests of our
partnership;
|
|
|
|
Generally provides that affiliated transactions and resolutions
of conflicts of interest not approved by the conflicts committee
of the board of directors of our general partner and not
involving a vote of unitholders must be on terms no less
favorable to us than those generally being provided to or
available from unrelated third parties or be fair and
reasonable to us. In determining whether a transaction or
resolution is fair and reasonable, our general
partner may consider the totality of the relationships between
the parties involved, including other transactions that may be
particularly advantageous or beneficial to us; and
|
|
|
|
Provides that our general partner and its officers and directors
will not be liable for monetary damages to us or our limited
partners for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final
and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent
jurisdiction determining that the general partner or those other
persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful
misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, acted with
knowledge that such persons conduct was criminal.
|
In order to become a limited partner of our partnership, a
common unitholder is required to agree to be bound by the
provisions in the partnership agreement, including the
provisions discussed above.
Unitholders
have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our
general partner or its directors.
Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders
have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our
business and, therefore, limited ability to influence
managements decisions regarding our business. Unitholders
did not elect our general partner or its board of directors, and
will have no right to elect our general partner or its board of
directors on an annual or other continuing basis. The board of
directors of our general partner is chosen by the members of our
general partner. Furthermore, if the unitholders were
dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they
will have little ability to remove our general partner. As a
result of these limitations, the price at which the common units
trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of
a takeover premium in the trading price.
Even
if unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot remove our general
partner without its consent.
The unitholders are unable initially to remove the general
partner without its consent because the general partner and its
affiliates will own sufficient units upon completion of the
offering to be able to prevent its removal. The vote of the
holders of at least
662/3%
of all outstanding units voting together as a single class is
required to remove the general partner. The owners of our
general partner and certain of their affiliates own 64.0% of our
common and subordinated units. Also, if our general partner is
removed without cause during the subordination period and units
held by our general partner and its affiliates are not voted in
favor of that removal, all remaining subordinated units will
automatically convert into common units and any existing
arrearages on the common units will be extinguished. A removal
of the general partner under these circumstances would adversely
affect the common units by prematurely eliminating their
distribution and liquidation preference over the subordinated
units, which would otherwise have continued until we had met
certain distribution and performance tests.
Cause is narrowly defined in our partnership agreement to mean
that a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final,
non-appealable judgment finding our general partner liable for
actual fraud or willful misconduct in its capacity as our
general partner. Cause does not include most cases of charges of
poor management of the business, so the removal of our general
partner during the subordination period because of the
unitholders dissatisfaction with our general
partners performance in managing our partnership will most
likely result in the termination of the subordination period.
Our
partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of those
unitholders owning 20% or more of our common
units.
Unitholders voting rights are further restricted by the
partnership agreement provision providing that any units held by
a person that owns 20% or more of any class of units then
outstanding, other than our general partner, its
29
affiliates, their transferees, and persons who acquired such
units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our
general partner, cannot vote on any matter. Our partnership
agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of
unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our
operations, as well as other provisions limiting the
unitholders ability to influence the manner or direction
of management.
Control
of our general partner may be transferred to a third party
without unitholder consent.
Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to
a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially
all of its assets without the consent of the unitholders.
Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not restrict the
ability of the members of our general partner from transferring
their respective membership interests in our general partner to
a third party. The new members of our general partner would then
be in a position to replace the board of directors and officers
of our general partner with their own choices and thereby
control the decisions taken by the board of directors.
We do
not have our own officers and employees and rely solely on the
officers and employees of our general partner and its affiliates
to manage our business and affairs.
We do not have our own officers and employees and rely solely on
the officers and employees of our general partner and its
affiliates to manage our business and affairs. We can provide no
assurance that our general partner will continue to provide us
the officers and employees that are necessary for the conduct of
our business nor that such provision will be on terms that are
acceptable to us. If our general partner fails to provide us
with adequate personnel, our operations could be adversely
impacted and our cash available for distribution to unitholders
could be reduced.
We may
issue additional common units without unitholder approval, which
would dilute our current unitholders existing ownership
interests.
During the subordination period, our general partner, without
the approval of our unitholders, may cause us to issue up to
3,233,000 additional common units until the completion of the
Shreveport refinery expansion project. If, upon completion, this
project increases cash flow from operations per unit, our
general partner may cause us to issue up to 6,533,000 of
additional common units. Our general partner may also cause us
to issue an unlimited number of additional common units or other
equity securities of equal rank with the common units, without
unitholder approval, in a number of circumstances described in
our partnership agreement.
The issuance of additional common units or other equity
securities of equal or senior rank to the common units will have
the following effects:
|
|
|
|
|
our unitholders proportionate ownership interest in us may
decrease;
|
|
|
|
the amount of cash available for distribution on each unit may
decrease;
|
|
|
|
because a lower percentage of total outstanding units will be
subordinated units, the risk that a shortfall in the payment of
the minimum quarterly distribution will be borne by our common
unitholders will increase;
|
|
|
|
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding unit
may be diminished;
|
|
|
|
the market price of the common units may decline; and
|
|
|
|
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase.
|
After the end of the subordination period, we may issue an
unlimited number of limited partner interests of any type
without the approval of our unitholders. Our partnership
agreement does not give our unitholders the right to approve our
issuance of equity securities ranking junior to the common units
at any time. In addition, our partnership agreement does not
prohibit the issuance by our subsidiaries of equity securities,
which may effectively rank senior to the common units.
30
Our
general partners determination of the level of cash
reserves may reduce the amount of available cash for
distribution to unitholders.
Our partnership agreement requires our general partner to deduct
from operating surplus cash reserves that it establishes are
necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. In
addition, our partnership agreement also permits our general
partner to reduce available cash by establishing cash reserves
for the proper conduct of our business, to comply with
applicable law or agreements to which we are a party, or to
provide funds for future distributions to partners. These
reserves will affect the amount of cash available for
distribution to unitholders.
Cost
reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates
will reduce cash available for distribution to
unitholders.
Prior to making any distribution on the common units, we will
reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all
expenses they incur on our behalf. Any such reimbursement will
be determined by our general partner and will reduce the cash
available for distribution to unitholders. These expenses will
include all costs incurred by our general partner and its
affiliates in managing and operating us. Please read
Item 13 Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions.
Our
general partner has a limited call right that may require
unitholders to sell their units at an undesirable time or
price.
If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more
than 80% of the issued and outstanding common units, our general
partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which right
it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all,
but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated
persons at a price not less than their then-current market
price. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their
common units to our general partner, its affiliates or us at an
undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on
their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability
upon a sale of their common units. Our general partner and its
affiliates own approximately 35.2% of the common units. At the
end of the subordination period, assuming no additional
issuances of common units, our general partner and its
affiliates will own approximately 64.0% of the common units.
Unitholder
liability may not be limited if a court finds that unitholder
action constitutes control of our business.
A general partner of a partnership generally has unlimited
liability for the obligations of the partnership, except for
those contractual obligations of the partnership that are
expressly made without recourse to the general partner. Our
partnership is organized under Delaware law and we conduct
business in a number of other states. The limitations on the
liability of holders of limited partner interests for the
obligations of a limited partnership have not been clearly
established in some of the other states in which we do business.
Unitholders could be liable for any and all of our obligations
as if they were a general partner if:
|
|
|
|
|
a court or government agency determined that we were conducting
business in a state but had not complied with that particular
states partnership statute; or
|
|
|
|
unitholders right to act with other unitholders to remove
or replace the general partner, to approve some amendments to
our partnership agreement or to take other actions under our
partnership agreement constitute control of our
business.
|
Unitholders
may have liability to repay distributions that were wrongfully
distributed to them.
Under certain circumstances, unitholders may have to repay
amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under
Section 17-607
of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, which
we call the Delaware Act, we may not make a distribution to our
unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to
exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that
for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible
distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and
who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated
Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the
distribution amount.
31
Purchasers of units who become limited partners are liable for
the obligations of the transferring limited partner to make
contributions to the partnership that are known to the purchaser
of the units at the time it became a limited partner and for
unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from
the partnership agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of
their partnership interest and liabilities that are non-recourse
to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining
whether a distribution is permitted.
Our
common units have a limited trading history compared to other
units representing limited partner interests.
Our common units are traded publicly on the NASDAQ Global Market
under the symbol CLMT. However, our common units
have a limited trading history compared to many other units
representing limited partner interests quoted on the NASDAQ. The
price of our common units may continue to be volatile.
The market price of our common units may also be influenced by
many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our quarterly distributions;
|
|
|
|
our quarterly or annual earnings or those of other companies in
our industry;
|
|
|
|
changes in commodity prices or refining margins;
|
|
|
|
loss of a large customer;
|
|
|
|
announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts
or acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance,
interpretations or principles;
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
the failure of securities analysts to cover our common units
after this offering or changes in financial estimates by
analysts;
|
|
|
|
future sales of our common units; and
|
|
|
|
the other factors described in Item 1A Risk
Factors of our Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
|
Tax Risks
to Common Unitholders
Our
tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal
income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to
entity-level taxation by individual states. If the Internal
Revenue Service, or IRS, treats us as a corporation or we become
subject to entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, it
would substantially reduce the amount of cash available for
distribution to common unitholders.
The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in
the common units depends largely on our being treated as a
partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not
requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on
this or any other tax matter affecting us.
If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax
purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our income at the
corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35% and
would likely pay state income tax at varying rates.
Distributions to common unitholders would generally be taxed
again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses
or deductions would flow through to the common unitholders.
Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our
cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be
substantially reduced. Therefore, our treatment as a corporation
would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash
flow and after-tax return to the unitholders, likely causing a
substantial reduction in the value of our common units.
Current law may change so as to cause us to be treated as a
corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject
us to entity-level taxation. In addition, because of widespread
state budget deficits, several states are evaluating ways to
subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the
imposition of state income, franchise and other forms of
taxation. If any of these states were to impose a tax on us, the
cash available for distribution to common unitholders would be
reduced. The partnership agreement provides that if a law is
enacted or existing law
32
is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to
taxation as a corporation or otherwise subjects us to
entity-level taxation for federal, state or local income tax
purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the
target distribution levels will be adjusted to reflect the
impact of that law on us.
A
successful IRS contest of the federal income tax positions we
take may adversely affect the market for our common units, and
the cost of any IRS contest will reduce our cash available for
distribution to our unitholders.
The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we
take. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court
proceedings to sustain some or all of our counsels
conclusions or the positions we take. A court may not agree with
some or all of the positions we take. Any contest with the IRS
may materially and adversely impact the market for our common
units and the price at which they trade. In addition, our costs
of any contest with the IRS will be borne indirectly by our
unitholders and our general partner because the costs will
reduce our cash available for distribution.
Unitholders
may be required to pay taxes on income from us even if they do
not receive any cash distributions from us.
Because our unitholders will be treated as partners to whom we
will allocate taxable income which could be different in amount
than the cash we distribute, unitholders will be required to pay
any federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local
income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they
receive no cash distributions from us. Unitholders may not
receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our
taxable income or even equal to the tax liability that results
from that income.
Tax
gain or loss on disposition of common units could be more or
less than expected.
If a common unitholder sells his or her common units, he or she
will recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between
the amount realized and their tax basis in those common units.
Prior distributions to a common unitholder in excess of the
total net taxable income they were allocated for a common unit,
which decreased their tax basis in that common unit, will, in
effect, become taxable income to them if the common unit is sold
at a price greater than their tax basis in that common unit,
even if the price is less than their original cost. A
substantial portion of the amount realized, whether or not
representing gain, may be ordinary income. In addition, if a
common unitholder sells their units, they may incur a tax
liability in excess of the amount of cash they receive from the
sale.
Tax-exempt
entities and foreign persons face unique tax issues from owning
our common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to
them.
Investment in our common units by tax-exempt entities, such as
individual retirement accounts (IRAs), other
retirement plans, and
non-U.S. persons
raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our
income allocated to organizations that are exempt from federal
income tax, including individual retirement accounts and other
retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and
will be taxable to them. Distributions to
non-U.S. persons
will be reduced by withholding taxes at the highest applicable
effective tax rate, and
non-U.S. persons
will be required to file United States federal tax returns and
pay tax on their share of our taxable income.
We
treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax
benefits without regard to the actual common units purchased.
The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely
affect the value of the common units.
Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common
units and because of other reasons, we take depreciation and
amortization positions that may not conform to all aspects of
existing Treasury regulations. A successful IRS challenge to
those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax
benefits available to our unitholders. It also could affect the
timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from the sale
of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of
our common units or result in audit adjustments to our
unitholders tax returns.
33
Unitholders
may be subject to state and local taxes and return filing
requirements.
In addition to federal income taxes, our common unitholders will
likely be subject to other taxes, including foreign, state and
local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate,
inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various
jurisdictions in which we do business or own property, even if
unitholders do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our
common unitholders will likely be required to file foreign,
state and local income tax returns and pay state and local
income taxes in some or all of these jurisdictions. Further,
unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply
with those requirements. We own assets
and/or do
business in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Each of these
states, other than Texas and Florida, currently imposes a
personal income tax as well as an income tax on corporations and
other entities. As we make acquisitions or expand our business,
we may own assets or do business in additional states that
impose a personal income tax. It is the responsibility of our
common unitholders to file all United States federal, foreign,
state and local tax returns.
We
have a subsidiary that is treated as a corporation for federal
income tax purposes and subject to corporate-level income
taxes.
We conduct all or a portion of our operations in which we market
finished petroleum products to certain end-users through a
subsidiary that is organized as a corporation. We may elect to
conduct additional operations through this corporate subsidiary
in the future. This corporate subsidiary is subject to
corporate-level tax, which will reduce the cash available for
distribution to us and, in turn, to our unitholders. If the IRS
were to successfully assert that this corporation has more tax
liability than we anticipate or legislation was enacted that
increased the corporate tax rate, our cash available for
distribution to our unitholders would be further reduced.
The
sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits
interests during any twelve-month period will result in the
termination of our partnership for federal income tax
purposes.
We will be considered to have terminated for federal income tax
purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the
total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve-month
period. Our termination would, among other things, result in the
closing of our taxable year for all unitholders and could result
in a deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing
our taxable income. If this occurs, our unitholders will be
allocated an increased amount of federal taxable income for the
year in which we are considered to be terminated as a percentage
of the cash distributed to our unitholders with respect to that
period.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
We are not a party to any material litigation. Our operations
are subject to a variety of risks and disputes normally incident
to our business. As a result, we may, at any given time, be a
defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation arising in
the ordinary course of business. Please see Items 1 and 2
Business and Properties Environmental
Matters for a description of our current regulatory
matters related to the environment.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
34
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Market
Information
Our common units are quoted and traded on the NASDAQ Global
Market under the symbol CLMT. Our common units began
trading on January 26, 2006 at an initial public offering
price of $21.50. Prior to that date, there was no public market
for our common units. The following table shows the low and high
sales prices per common unit, as reported by NASDAQ, for the
periods indicated. During each quarter in the year ended
December 31, 2006, identical cash distributions per unit
were paid among all outstanding common and subordinated units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Distribution
|
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
per Unit
|
|
|
Year ended December 31,
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter(1)
|
|
$
|
21.70
|
|
|
$
|
27.95
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
(2)
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
27.11
|
|
|
$
|
36.94
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
28.79
|
|
|
$
|
32.58
|
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
29.80
|
|
|
$
|
44.21
|
|
|
$
|
0.60
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the period from January 26, 2006, the day our
common units began trading on the NASDAQ, through
March 31, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects the pro rata portion of the $0.45 quarterly
distribution per unit paid, representing the period from the
January 31, 2006 closing of our initial public offering
through March 31, 2006. |
As of February 9, 2007, there were approximately
14 unitholders of record of our common units. This number
does not include unitholders whose units are held in trust by
other entities. The actual number of unitholders is greater than
the number of holders of record. As of February 9, 2007,
there were 29,432,000 units outstanding. The number of
units outstanding on this date includes the 13,066,000
subordinated units for which there is no established trading
market. The last reported sale price of our common units by
NASDAQ on February 9, 2007 was $44.89.
Cash
Distribution Policy
General. Within 45 days after the end of
each quarter, we distribute our available cash (as defined in
the partnership agreement) to unitholders of record on the
applicable record date.
Available Cash. Available cash generally
means, for any quarter, all cash on hand at the end of the
quarter:
|
|
|
|
|
less the amount of cash reserves established by our general
partner to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
provide for the proper conduct of our business;
|
|
|
|
comply with applicable law, any of our debt instruments or other
agreements; or
|
|
|
|
provide funds for distributions to our unitholders and to our
general partner for any one or more of the next four quarters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
plus all cash on hand on the date of determination of available
cash for the quarter resulting from working capital borrowings
made after the end of the quarter for which the determination is
being made. Working capital borrowings are generally borrowings
that will be made under our revolving credit facility and in all
cases are used solely for working capital purposes or to pay
distributions to partners.
|
Intent to Distribute the Minimum Quarterly
Distribution. We distribute to the holders of
common units and subordinated units on a quarterly basis at
least the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.45 per unit,
or $1.80 per year, to the extent we have sufficient cash
from our operations after establishment of cash reserves and
payment of fees and expenses, including payments to our general
partner. However, there is no guarantee that we will pay the
35
minimum quarterly distribution on the units in any quarter. Even
if our cash distribution policy is not modified or revoked, the
amount of distributions paid under our policy and the decision
to make any distribution is determined by our general partner,
taking into consideration the terms of our partnership
agreement. We will be prohibited from making any distributions
to unitholders if it would cause an event of default, or an
event of default is existing, under our credit agreements.
Please read Item 7 Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources Debt and Credit Facilities for a
discussion of the restrictions in our credit agreements that
restrict our ability to make distributions. On February 14,
2007, we paid a quarterly cash distribution of $0.60 per
unit on all outstanding units totaling $18.7 million for
the quarter ended December 31, 2006 to all unitholders of
record as of the close of business on February 4, 2007.
General Partner Interest and Incentive Distribution
Rights. Our general partner is entitled to 2% of
all quarterly distributions since inception that we make prior
to our liquidation. This general partner interest is represented
by 600,653 general partner units. Our general partner has the
right, but not the obligation, to contribute a proportionate
amount of capital to us to maintain its current general partner
interest. The general partners 2% interest in these
distributions may be reduced if we issue additional units in the
future and our general partner does not contribute a
proportionate amount of capital to us to maintain its 2% general
partner interest. Our general partner also currently holds
incentive distribution rights that entitle it to receive
increasing percentages, up to a maximum of 50%, of the cash we
distribute from operating surplus (as defined below) in excess
of $0.45 per unit. The maximum distribution of 50% includes
distributions paid to our general partner on its 2% general
partner interest, and assumes that our general partner maintains
its general partner interest at 2%. The maximum distribution of
50% does not include any distributions that our general partner
may receive on units that it owns. We paid $0.3 million to
our general partner in incentive distributions pursuant to its
incentive distribution rights during the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Operating
Surplus and Capital Surplus
General. All cash distributed to unitholders
will be characterized as either operating surplus or
capital surplus. Our partnership agreement requires
that we distribute available cash from operating surplus
differently than available cash from capital surplus.
Operating Surplus. Operating surplus generally
consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
our cash balance on the closing date of the initial public
offering; plus
|
|
|
|
$10.0 million (as described below); plus
|
|
|
|
all of our cash receipts after the closing of the initial public
offering, excluding cash from (1) borrowings that are not
working capital borrowings, (2) sales of equity and debt
securities and (3) sales or other dispositions of assets
outside the ordinary course of business; plus
|
|
|
|
working capital borrowings made after the end of a quarter but
before the date of determination of operating surplus for the
quarter; less
|
|
|
|
all of our operating expenditures after the closing of the
initial public offering (including the repayment of working
capital borrowings, but not the repayment of other borrowings)
and maintenance capital expenditures; less
|
|
|
|
the amount of cash reserves established by our general partner
for future operating expenditures.
|
Maintenance capital expenditures represent capital expenditures
made to replace partially or fully depreciated assets, to
maintain the existing operating capacity of our assets and to
extend their useful lives, or other capital expenditures that
are incurred in maintaining existing system volumes and related
cash flows. Expansion capital expenditures represent capital
expenditures made to expand the existing operating capacity of
our assets or to expand the operating capacity or revenues of
existing or new assets, whether through construction or
acquisition. Costs for repairs and minor renewals to maintain
facilities in operating condition and that do not extend the
useful life of existing assets will be treated as operations and
maintenance expenses as we incur them. Our partnership agreement
provides that our general partner determines how to allocate a
capital expenditure for the acquisition or expansion of our
assets between maintenance capital expenditures and expansion
capital expenditures.
36
Capital Surplus. Capital surplus consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
borrowings other than working capital borrowings;
|
|
|
|
sales of our equity and debt securities; and
|
|
|
|
sales or other dispositions of assets for cash, other than
inventory, accounts receivable and other current assets sold in
the ordinary course of business or as part of normal retirement
or replacement of assets.
|
Characterization of Cash Distributions. We
will treat all available cash distributed as coming from
operating surplus until the sum of all available cash
distributed since we began operations equals the operating
surplus as of the most recent date of determination of available
cash. We will treat any amount distributed in excess of
operating surplus, regardless of its source, as capital surplus.
As reflected above, operating surplus includes
$10.0 million. This amount does not reflect actual cash on
hand that is available for distribution to our unitholders.
Rather, it is a provision that will enable us, if we choose, to
distribute as operating surplus up to this amount of cash we
receive in the future from non-operating sources, such as asset
sales, issuances of securities and borrowings, that would
otherwise be distributed as capital surplus. We do not
anticipate that we will make any distributions from capital
surplus.
Subordination
Period
General. Our partnership agreement provides
that, during the subordination period (which we define below),
the common units will have the right to receive distributions of
available cash from operating surplus in an amount equal to the
minimum quarterly distribution of $0.45 per quarter, plus
any arrearages in the payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution on the common units from prior quarters, before any
distributions of available cash from operating surplus may be
made on the subordinated units. These units are deemed
subordinated because for a period of time, referred
to as the subordination period, the subordinated units will not
be entitled to receive any distributions until the common units
have received the minimum quarterly distribution plus any
arrearages from prior quarters. Furthermore, no arrearages will
be paid on the subordinated units. The practical effect of the
existence of the subordinated units is to increase the
likelihood that during the subordination period there will be
available cash to be distributed on the common units. As of the
closing of our initial public offering, all of the outstanding
subordinated units are owned by affiliates of our general
partner.
Subordination Period. The subordination period
will extend until the first day of any quarter beginning after
December 31, 2010 that each of the following tests are met:
|
|
|
|
|
distributions of available cash from operating surplus on each
of the outstanding common units, subordinated units and general
partner units equaled or exceeded the minimum quarterly
distributions on such common units, subordinated units and
general partner units for each of the three consecutive,
non-overlapping four-quarter periods immediately preceding that
date;
|
|
|
|
the adjusted operating surplus (as defined below)
generated during each of the three consecutive, non-overlapping
four-quarter periods immediately preceding that date equaled or
exceeded the sum of the minimum quarterly distributions on all
of the outstanding common units, subordinated units and general
partner units during those periods on a fully diluted basis; and
|
|
|
|
there are no arrearages in payment of minimum quarterly
distributions on the common units.
|
Expiration of the Subordination Period. When
the subordination period expires, each outstanding subordinated
unit will convert into one common unit and will then participate
pro rata with the other common units in distributions of
available cash. In addition, if the unitholders remove our
general partner other than for cause and units held by the
general partner and its affiliates are not voted in favor of
such removal:
|
|
|
|
|
the subordination period will end and each subordinated unit
will immediately convert into one common unit;
|
|
|
|
any existing arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution on the common units will be extinguished; and
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
the general partner will have the right to convert its general
partner interest and its incentive distribution rights into
common units or to receive cash in exchange for those interests.
|
Adjusted Operating Surplus. Adjusted operating
surplus is intended to reflect the cash generated from
operations during a particular period and therefore excludes net
increases in working capital borrowings and net drawdowns of
reserves of cash generated in prior periods. Adjusted operating
surplus consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
operating surplus generated with respect to that period; less
|
|
|
|
any net increase in working capital borrowings with respect to
that period; less
|
|
|
|
any net decrease in cash reserves for operating expenditures
with respect to that period not relating to an operating
expenditure made with respect to that period; plus
|
|
|
|
any net decrease in working capital borrowings with respect to
that period; plus
|
|
|
|
any net increase in cash reserves for operating expenditures
with respect to that period required by any debt instrument for
the repayment of principal, interest or premium.
|
Distributions
of Available Cash from Operating Surplus During the
Subordination Period
We will make distributions of available cash from operating
surplus for any quarter during the subordination period in the
following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to
the general partner, until we distribute for each outstanding
common unit an amount equal to the minimum quarterly
distribution for that quarter;
|
|
|
|
second, 98% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 2%
to the general partner, until we distribute for each outstanding
common unit an amount equal to any arrearages in payment of the
minimum quarterly distribution on the common units for any prior
quarters during the subordination period;
|
|
|
|
third, 98% to the subordinated unitholders, pro rata, and
2% to the general partner, until we distribute for each
subordinated unit an amount equal to the minimum quarterly
distribution for that quarter; and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, in the manner described in
Incentive Distribution Rights below.
|
The preceding discussion is based on the assumptions that our
general partner maintains its 2% general partner interest and
that we do not issue additional classes of equity securities.
Distributions
of Available Cash from Operating Surplus After the Subordination
Period
We will make distributions of available cash from operating
surplus for any quarter after the subordination period in the
following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to the
general partner, until we distribute for each outstanding unit
an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution for that
quarter; and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, in the manner described in
Incentive Distribution Rights below.
|
The preceding discussion is based on the assumptions that our
general partner maintains its 2% general partner interest and
that we do not issue additional classes of equity securities.
Incentive
Distribution Rights
Incentive distribution rights represent the right to receive an
increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of available
cash from operating surplus after the minimum quarterly
distribution and the target distribution levels have been
achieved. Our general partner currently holds the incentive
distribution rights, but may transfer these rights separately
from its general partner interest, subject to restrictions in
the partnership agreement.
38
If for any quarter:
|
|
|
|
|
we have distributed available cash from operating surplus to the
common and subordinated unitholders in an amount equal to the
minimum quarterly distribution; and
|
|
|
|
we have distributed available cash from operating surplus on
outstanding common units in an amount necessary to eliminate any
cumulative arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution;
|
then, we will distribute any additional available cash from
operating surplus for that quarter among the unitholders and the
general partner in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to the
general partner, until each unitholder receives a total of
$0.495 per unit for that quarter (the first target
distribution);
|
|
|
|
second, 85% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 15% to the
general partner, until each unitholder receives a total of
$0.563 per unit for that quarter (the second target
distribution);
|
|
|
|
third, 75% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 25% to the
general partner, until each unitholder receives a total of
$0.675 per unit for that quarter (the third target
distribution); and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, 50% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 50% to
the general partner.
|
In each case, the amount of the target distribution set forth
above is exclusive of any distributions to common unitholders to
eliminate any cumulative arrearages in payment of the minimum
quarterly distribution. The preceding discussion is based on the
assumptions that our general partner maintains its 2% general
partner interest and that we do not issue additional classes of
equity securities.
Percentage
Allocations of Available Cash from Operating Surplus
The following table illustrates the percentage allocations of
the additional available cash from operating surplus between the
unitholders and our general partner up to the various target
distribution levels. The amounts set forth under Marginal
Percentage Interest in Distributions are the percentage
interests of our general partner and the unitholders in any
available cash from operating surplus we distribute up to and
including the corresponding amount in the column Total
Quarterly Distribution, until available cash from
operating surplus we distribute reaches the next target
distribution level, if any. The percentage interests shown for
the unitholders and the general partner for the minimum
quarterly distribution are also applicable to quarterly
distribution amounts that are less than the minimum quarterly
distribution. The percentage interests set forth below for our
general partner include its 2% general partner interest and
assume our general partner has contributed any additional
capital to maintain its 2% general partner interest and has not
transferred its incentive distribution rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage
|
|
|
|
Total Quarterly
|
|
Interest in
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
Distributions
|
|
|
|
Target Amount
|
|
Unitholders
|
|
|
General Partner
|
|
|
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
|
|
$0.45
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
First Target Distribution
|
|
up to $0.495
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Second Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.495 up to $0.563
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Third Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.563 up to $0.675
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Thereafter
|
|
above $0.675
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Distributions
from Capital Surplus
How Distributions from Capital Surplus Will Be
Made. Our partnership agreement requires that we
make distributions of available cash from capital surplus, if
any, in the following manner:
|
|
|
|
|
first, 98% to all unitholders, pro rata, and 2% to the
general partner, until we distribute for each common unit that
was issued in this offering, an amount of available cash from
capital surplus equal to the initial public offering price;
|
39
|
|
|
|
|
second, 98% to the common unitholders, pro rata, and 2%
to the general partner, until we distribute for each common
unit, an amount of available cash from capital surplus equal to
any unpaid arrearages in payment of the minimum quarterly
distribution on the common units; and
|
|
|
|
thereafter, we will make all distributions of available
cash from capital surplus as if they were from operating surplus.
|
Effect of a Distribution from Capital
Surplus. Our partnership agreement treats a
distribution of capital surplus as the repayment of the initial
unit price from this initial public offering, which is a return
of capital. The initial public offering price less any
distributions of capital surplus per unit is referred to as the
unrecovered initial unit price. Each time a
distribution of capital surplus is made, the minimum quarterly
distribution and the target distribution levels will be reduced
in the same proportion as the corresponding reduction in the
unrecovered initial unit price. Because distributions of capital
surplus will reduce the minimum quarterly distribution, after
any of these distributions are made, it may be easier for the
general partner to receive incentive distributions and for the
subordinated units to convert into common units. However, any
distribution of capital surplus before the unrecovered initial
unit price is reduced to zero cannot be applied to the payment
of the minimum quarterly distribution or any arrearages.
Once we distribute capital surplus on a unit issued in our
initial public offering in an amount equal to the initial unit
price, our partnership agreement specifies that the minimum
quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels will
be reduced to zero. Our partnership agreement specifies that we
then make all future distributions from operating surplus, with
50% being paid to the holders of units and 50% to the general
partner. The percentage interests shown for our general partner
include its 2% general partner interest and assume the general
partner has not transferred the incentive distribution rights.
Equity
Compensation Plans
The equity compensation plan information required by
Item 201(d) of
Regulation S-K
in response to this item is incorporated by reference into
Item 12 Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial
Owners and Management and Related Unitholder Matters, of
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Sales of
Unregistered Securities
None.
Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities
The following table summarizes the purchases of equity
securities by Calumet GP, LLC, the general partner of Calumet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Units
|
|
|
Maximum Number of
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased as a
|
|
|
Common Units that
|
|
|
|
Common Units
|
|
|
Average Price Paid
|
|
|
Part of Publicly
|
|
|
May Yet be
|
|
|
|
Purchased(1)
|
|
|
per Common Unit
|
|
|
Announced Plans
|
|
|
Purchased Under Plans
|
|
|
On December 4, 2006
|
|
|
1,824
|
|
|
$
|
38.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,824
|
|
|
$
|
38.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
None of the common units were purchased pursuant to publicly
announced plans or programs. The common units were purchased
through a single broker in open market transactions. A total of
1,824 common units were purchased by Calumet GP, LLC, our
general partner, related to the Calumet GP, LLC Long-Term
Incentive Plan (the Plan). The Plan provides for the
delivery of up to 783,960 common units to satisfy awards of
phantom units, restricted units or unit options to the
employees, consultants or directors of Calumet. Such units may
be newly issued by Calumet or purchased in the open market. For
more information on the Plan, which did not require approval by
our limited partners, refer to Item 11 Executive and
Director Compensation Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Long-Term, Unit-Based Awards. |
40
Item 6. Selected
Financial and Operating Data
The following table shows selected historical financial and
operating data of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and
its consolidated subsidiaries (Calumet) and Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership (Predecessor).
The selected historical financial data as of December 31,
2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and for the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002, are derived from
the consolidated financial statements of the Predecessor. The
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2006
for Calumet include the results of operations of the Predecessor
for the period of January 1, 2006 through January 31,
2006.
None of the assets or liabilities of the Predecessors
Rouseville wax processing facility, Reno wax packaging facility
and Bareco wax marketing joint venture, which are included in
the historical financial statements, were contributed to us at
the closing of the initial public offering on January 31,
2006.
The following table includes the non-GAAP financial measures
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA. For a reconciliation of EBITDA and
Adjusted EBITDA to net income and net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities, our most directly comparable financial
performance and liquidity measures calculated in accordance with
GAAP, please read Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
We derived the information in the following table from, and that
information should be read together with and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to, the historical consolidated financial
statements and the accompanying notes included in Item 8
Financial Statements of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
except for operating data such as sales volume, feedstock runs
and refinery production. The table also should be read together
with Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Summary of Operations
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
|
$
|
430,381
|
|
|
$
|
316,350
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,437,804
|
|
|
|
1,148,715
|
|
|
|
501,284
|
|
|
|
385,890
|
|
|
|
268,911
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
203,244
|
|
|
|
140,357
|
|
|
|
38,332
|
|
|
|
44,491
|
|
|
|
47,439
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
20,430
|
|
|
|
22,126
|
|
|
|
13,133
|
|
|
|
9,432
|
|
|
|
9,066
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
|
|
46,849
|
|
|
|
33,923
|
|
|
|
28,139
|
|
|
|
25,449
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
3,592
|
|
|
|
2,493
|
|
|
|
2,309
|
|
|
|
2,419
|
|
|
|
2,404
|
|
Other
|
|
|
863
|
|
|
|
871
|
|
|
|
839
|
|
|
|
905
|
|
|
|
1,392
|
|
Restructuring, decommissioning and
asset impairments(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
6,694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income (loss)
|
|
|
121,437
|
|
|
|
65,685
|
|
|
|
(12,189
|
)
|
|
|
(3,098
|
)
|
|
|
9,128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in income (loss) of
unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(427
|
)
|
|
|
867
|
|
|
|
2,442
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
|
|
(22,961
|
)
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
|
|
(9,493
|
)
|
|
|
(7,435
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
(6,882
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments
|
|
|
(30,309
|
)
|
|
|
2,830
|
|
|
|
39,160
|
|
|
|
(961
|
)
|
|
|
1,058
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments
|
|
|
12,264
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(7,788
|
)
|
|
|
7,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
|
(27,365
|
)
|
|
|
(54,357
|
)
|
|
|
21,159
|
|
|
|
(2,327
|
)
|
|
|
(3,847
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) before income
taxes
|
|
|
94,072
|
|
|
|
11,328
|
|
|
|
8,970
|
|
|
|
(5,425
|
)
|
|
|
5,281
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
93,882
|
|
|
$
|
11,328
|
|
|
$
|
8,970
|
|
|
$
|
(5,425
|
)
|
|
$
|
5,281
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data (at period
end):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
191,732
|
|
|
$
|
127,846
|
|
|
$
|
126,585
|
|
|
$
|
89,938
|
|
|
$
|
85,995
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
530,174
|
|
|
|
399,717
|
|
|
|
318,206
|
|
|
|
216,941
|
|
|
|
217,915
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
78,752
|
|
|
|
44,759
|
|
|
|
58,027
|
|
|
|
32,263
|
|
|
|
34,072
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
267,985
|
|
|
|
214,069
|
|
|
|
146,853
|
|
|
|
141,968
|
|
Partners capital
|
|
|
378,685
|
|
|
|
39,054
|
|
|
|
34,514
|
|
|
|
25,544
|
|
|
|
30,968
|
|
Cash Flow Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flow provided by (used
in):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
|
$
|
(34,001
|
)
|
|
$
|
(612
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,048
|
|
|
$
|
(4,326
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(75,803
|
)
|
|
|
(12,903
|
)
|
|
|
(42,930
|
)
|
|
|
(11,940
|
)
|
|
|
(9,924
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
(22,183
|
)
|
|
|
40,990
|
|
|
|
61,561
|
|
|
|
4,884
|
|
|
|
14,209
|
|
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
117,890
|
|
|
$
|
51,557
|
|
|
$
|
25,766
|
|
|
$
|
10,837
|
|
|
$
|
18,592
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
104,458
|
|
|
|
85,821
|
|
|
|
34,711
|
|
|
|
6,110
|
|
|
|
16,277
|
|
Operating Data (bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volume(2)
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
|
|
46,953
|
|
|
|
24,658
|
|
|
|
23,616
|
|
|
|
19,110
|
|
Total feedstock runs(3)
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
26,205
|
|
|
|
25,007
|
|
|
|
21,665
|
|
Total refinery production(4)
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
48,331
|
|
|
|
26,297
|
|
|
|
25,204
|
|
|
|
21,587
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incurred in connection with the decommissioning of the
Rouseville, Pennsylvania facility, the termination of the Bareco
joint venture and the closing of the Reno, Pennsylvania
facility, none of which were contributed to Calumet Specialty
Products Partners, L.P. in connection with the closing of our
initial public offering. |
|
(2) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
refineries and sales of inventories. |
|
(3) |
|
Feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil and
other feedstocks processed at our refineries. |
|
(4) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other refinery feedstocks at our refineries. The
difference between total refinery production and total feedstock
runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstock and production of end products and volume loss. |
Non-GAAP Financial
Measures
We include in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
the non-GAAP financial measures EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, and
provide reconciliations of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to net
income and net cash provided by (used in) operating activities,
our most directly comparable financial performance and liquidity
measures calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP.
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are used as supplemental financial
measures by our management and by external users of our
financial statements such as investors, commercial banks,
research analysts and others, to assess:
|
|
|
|
|
the financial performance of our assets without regard to
financing methods, capital structure or historical cost basis;
|
|
|
|
the ability of our assets to generate cash sufficient to pay
interest costs, support our indebtedness, and meet minimum
quarterly distributions;
|
|
|
|
our operating performance and return on capital as compared to
those of other companies in our industry, without regard to
financing or capital structure; and
|
|
|
|
the viability of acquisitions and capital expenditure projects
and the overall rates of return on alternative investment
opportunities.
|
42
We define EBITDA as net income plus interest expense (including
debt issuance and extinguishment costs), taxes and depreciation
and amortization. We define Adjusted EBITDA to be Consolidated
EBITDA as defined in our credit facilities. Consistent with that
definition. Adjusted EBITDA means, for any period: (1) net
income plus (2)(a) interest expense; (b) taxes;
(c) depreciation and amortization; (d) unrealized
losses from mark to market accounting for hedging activities;
(e) unrealized items decreasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); and (f) other
non-recurring expenses reducing net income which do not
represent a cash item for such period; minus (3)(a) tax credits;
(b) unrealized items increasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); (c) unrealized gains
from mark to market accounting for hedging activities; and
(d) other non-recurring expenses and unrealized items that
reduced net income for a prior period, but represent a cash item
in the current period. We are required to report Adjusted EBITDA
to our lenders under our credit facilities and it is used to
determine our compliance with the consolidated leverage test
thereunder. We are required to maintain a consolidated leverage
ratio of consolidated debt to Adjusted EBITDA, after giving
effect to any proposed distributions, of no greater than 3.75 to
1 in order to make distributions to our unitholders.
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered alternatives
to net income, operating incomenet cash provided by (used in)
operating activities or any other measure of financial
performance presented in accordance with GAAP. Our EBITDA and
Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled
measures of another company because all companies may not
calculate EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA in the same manner. The
following table presents a reconciliation of both net income to
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA and EBITDA to net
cash provided by (used in) operating activities, our most
directly comparable GAAP financial performance and liquidity
measures, for each of the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net income to
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
93,882
|
|
|
$
|
11,328
|
|
|
$
|
8,970
|
|
|
$
|
(5,425
|
)
|
|
$
|
5,281
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and debt
extinguishment costs
|
|
|
11,997
|
|
|
|
29,843
|
|
|
|
9,869
|
|
|
|
9,493
|
|
|
|
7,435
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
11,821
|
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
|
|
6,927
|
|
|
|
6,769
|
|
|
|
5,876
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
117,890
|
|
|
$
|
51,557
|
|
|
$
|
25,766
|
|
|
$
|
10,837
|
|
|
$
|
18,592
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized losses (gains) from
mark to market accounting for hedging activities
|
|
$
|
(13,145
|
)
|
|
$
|
27,586
|
|
|
$
|
7,788
|
|
|
$
|
(7,228
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
Non-cash impact of restructuring,
decommissioning and asset impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,766
|
|
|
|
(1,276
|
)
|
|
|
2,250
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and
accrued non-recurring expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
(287
|
)
|
|
|
4,912
|
|
|
|
2,433
|
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
(2,315
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
$
|
85,821
|
|
|
$
|
34,711
|
|
|
$
|
6,110
|
|
|
$
|
16,277
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Adjusted
EBITDA and EBITDA to net cash provided by (used in) operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
$
|
104,458
|
|
|
$
|
85,821
|
|
|
$
|
34,711
|
|
|
$
|
6,110
|
|
|
$
|
16,277
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (losses) gains from
mark to market accounting for hedging activities
|
|
|
13,145
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(7,788
|
)
|
|
|
7,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash impact of restructuring,
decommissioning and asset impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,766
|
)
|
|
|
1,276
|
|
|
|
(2,250
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid non-recurring expenses and
accrued non-recurring expenses, net of cash outlays
|
|
|
287
|
|
|
|
(4,912
|
)
|
|
|
(2,433
|
)
|
|
|
(251
|
)
|
|
|
2,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$
|
117,890
|
|
|
$
|
51,557
|
|
|
$
|
25,766
|
|
|
$
|
10,837
|
|
|
$
|
18,592
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense and debt
extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(11,997
|
)
|
|
|
(29,843
|
)
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
|
|
(9,493
|
)
|
|
|
(7,435
|
)
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
(190
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,693
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
874
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
294
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Equity in (loss) income of
unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427
|
|
|
|
(867
|
)
|
|
|
(2,442
|
)
|
Dividends received from
unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,470
|
|
|
|
750
|
|
|
|
2,925
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
|
|
4,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
16,031
|
|
|
|
(56,878
|
)
|
|
|
(19,399
|
)
|
|
|
(4,670
|
)
|
|
|
(1,025
|
)
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(2,554
|
)
|
|
|
(25,441
|
)
|
|
|
(20,304
|
)
|
|
|
15,547
|
|
|
|
(16,984
|
)
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
16,183
|
|
|
|
569
|
|
|
|
(11,596
|
)
|
|
|
(563
|
)
|
|
|
1,295
|
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
(13,143
|
)
|
|
|
31,598
|
|
|
|
5,046
|
|
|
|
(6,265
|
)
|
|
|
(3,682
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
33,993
|
|
|
|
(13,268
|
)
|
|
|
25,764
|
|
|
|
(1,809
|
)
|
|
|
9,587
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
3,083
|
|
|
|
5,874
|
|
|
|
1,203
|
|
|
|
1,379
|
|
|
|
(2,622
|
)
|
Other, including changes in
noncurrent assets and liabilities
|
|
|
4,333
|
|
|
|
(4,329
|
)
|
|
|
(1,336
|
)
|
|
|
1,316
|
|
|
|
(2,551
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities
|
|
$
|
166,768
|
|
|
$
|
(34,001
|
)
|
|
$
|
(612
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,048
|
|
|
$
|
(4,326
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
The historical consolidated financial statements included in
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
reflect all of the assets, liabilities and results of operations
of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(Calumet) when used in the present tense,
prospectively or for historical periods since January 31,
2006 and Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership
(Predecessor) for historical periods prior to
January 31, 2006 where applicable. These historical
consolidated financial statements include the results of
operations of the Rouseville and Reno facilities, which have
been closed. The following discussion analyzes the financial
condition and results of operations of Calumet for the year
ended December 31, 2006 and the Predecessor for the years
ended December 31, 2005 and 2004. The financial condition
and results of operations for the year ended December 31,
2006 are of Calumet and include the results of operation of the
Predecessor from January 1, 2006 to January 31, 2006.
Unitholders should read the following discussion and analysis of
the financial condition and results of operations for Calumet in
conjunction with the historical consolidated financial
statements and notes of Calumet included elsewhere in this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Overview
We are a leading independent producer of high-quality, specialty
hydrocarbon products in North America. Our business is organized
into two segments: specialty products and fuel products. In our
specialty products segment, we process crude oil into a wide
variety of customized lubricating oils, solvents and waxes. Our
specialty products are sold to domestic and international
customers who purchase them primarily as raw material components
for basic industrial, consumer and automotive goods. In our fuel
products segment, we process crude oil into a variety of fuel
and fuel-related products including unleaded gasoline, diesel
and jet fuel. In connection with our production of specialty
products and fuel products, we also produce asphalt and a
limited number of other by-products. The asphalt and other
by-products produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at the Princeton, Cotton Valley and
Shreveport refineries are included in our specialty products
segment. The by-products produced in connection with the
production of fuel products at the Shreveport refinery are
included in our fuel products segment. The fuels produced in
connection with the production of specialty products at the
Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries are included in our
specialty products segment. For the year ended December 31,
2006, approximately 74.9% of our gross profit was generated from
our specialty products segment and approximately 25.1% of our
gross profit was generated from our fuel products segment.
Subsequent to the acquisition of the Shreveport refinery, our
Predecessor streamlined its wax processing and marketing
operations by decommissioning its Rouseville facility, closing
its Reno facility and terminating its Bareco wax marketing joint
venture. None of the assets or liabilities of our
Predecessors Rouseville facility, Reno facility or Bareco
joint venture were contributed to Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. in connection with the closing of our initial
public offering on January 31, 2006. Our Predecessor began
decommissioning the Rouseville facility in 2003 and completed
the decommissioning in 2005. This resulted in restructuring
costs of $6.7 million in 2003 and $0.3 million in
2004. In 2005, our Predecessor closed the Reno facility for a
restructuring and decommissioning cost of $2.2 million. The
combined net book value of the Reno and Rouseville operations
was not included within the net assets contributed to Calumet by
our Predecessor, and therefore are not included within our
results of operations subsequent to January 31, 2006.
Our fuel products segment began operations in 2004, as we
substantially completed the approximately $39.7 million
reconfiguration of the Shreveport refinery to add motor fuels
production, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, to its
existing specialty products slate as well as to increase overall
feedstock throughput. The project was fully completed in
February 2005. The reconfiguration was undertaken to capitalize
on strong fuels refining margins, or crack spreads, relative to
historical levels, to utilize idled assets, and to enhance the
profitability of the Shreveport refinerys specialty
products segment by increasing overall refinery throughput. We
have commenced construction of an expansion project at our
Shreveport refinery to increase throughput capacity and
feedstock flexibility. Please read Liquidity and Capital
Resources Capital Expenditures below.
Our sales and net income are principally affected by the price
of crude oil, demand for specialty and fuel products, prevailing
crack spreads for fuel products, the price of natural gas used
as fuel in our operations and our results from derivative
instrument activities.
45
Our primary raw material is crude oil and our primary outputs
are specialty petroleum and fuel products. The prices of crude
oil, specialty and fuel products are subject to fluctuations in
response to changes in supply, demand, market uncertainties and
a variety of additional factors beyond our control. We monitor
these risks and enter into financial derivatives designed to
mitigate the impact of commodity price fluctuations on our
business. The primary purpose of our commodity risk management
activities is to economically hedge our cash flow exposure to
commodity price risk so that we can meet our cash distribution,
debt service and capital expenditure requirements despite
fluctuations in crude oil and fuel products prices. We enter
into derivative contracts for future periods in quantities which
do not exceed our projected purchases of crude oil and sales of
fuel products. Please read Item 7A Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk Commodity
Price Risk. As of December 31, 2006, we have hedged
28.8 million barrels of fuel products selling prices
through December 2011 at an average refining margin of
$12.00 per barrel and average refining margins range from a
low of $9.13 in 2011 to a high of $12.66 in the third and fourth
quarters of 2007. Please refer to Item 7A
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk Commodity Price Risk Existing
Commodity Derivative Instruments for a detailed listing of
our hedge positions.
Our management uses several financial and operational
measurements to analyze our performance. These measurements
include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Sales volumes;
|
|
|
|
Production yields; and
|
|
|
|
Specialty products and fuel products gross profit.
|
Sales volumes. We view the volumes of
specialty and fuels products sold as an important measure of our
ability to effectively utilize our refining assets. Our ability
to meet the demands of our customers is driven by the volumes of
crude oil and feedstocks that we run at our refineries. Higher
volumes improve profitability both through the spreading of
fixed costs over greater volumes and the additional gross profit
achieved on the incremental volumes.
Production yields. We seek the optimal product
mix for each barrel of crude oil we refine in order to maximize
our gross profits and minimize lower margin by-products which we
refer to as production yield.
Specialty products and fuel products gross
profit. Specialty products and fuel products
gross profit are an important measure of our ability to maximize
the profitability of our specialty products and fuel products
segments. We define specialty products and fuel products gross
profit as sales less the cost of crude oil and other feedstocks
and other production-related expenses, the most significant
portion of which include labor, fuel, utilities, contract
services, maintenance and processing materials. We use specialty
products and fuel products gross profit as an indicator of our
ability to manage our business during periods of crude oil and
natural gas price fluctuations, as the prices of our specialty
products and fuel products generally do not change immediately
with changes in the price of crude oil and natural gas. The
increase in selling prices typically lags behind the rising
costs of crude oil feedstocks for specialty products. Other than
plant fuel, production-related expenses generally remain stable
across broad ranges of throughput volumes, but can fluctuate
depending on the maintenance and turnaround activities performed
during a specific period. Maintenance expense includes accruals
for turnarounds and other maintenance expenses.
In addition to the foregoing measures, we also monitor our
general and administrative expenditures, substantially all of
which are incurred through our general partner, Calumet GP, LLC.
46
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth information about our combined
refinery operations. Refinery production volume differs from
sales volume due to changes in inventory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Total sales volume (bpd)(1)
|
|
|
50,345
|
|
|
|
46,953
|
|
|
|
24,658
|
|
Total feedstock runs (bpd)(2)
|
|
|
51,598
|
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
26,205
|
|
Refinery production (bpd)(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
|
11,436
|
|
|
|
11,556
|
|
|
|
9,437
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
|
|
4,422
|
|
|
|
4,973
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
1,157
|
|
|
|
1,020
|
|
|
|
1,010
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
6,596
|
|
|
|
6,313
|
|
|
|
5,992
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
2,038
|
|
|
|
2,354
|
|
|
|
3,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
26,588
|
|
|
|
25,665
|
|
|
|
25,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
9,430
|
|
|
|
8,278
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
6,823
|
|
|
|
8,891
|
|
|
|
583
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
6,911
|
|
|
|
5,080
|
|
|
|
342
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
461
|
|
|
|
417
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
23,625
|
|
|
|
22,666
|
|
|
|
954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total refinery production
|
|
|
50,213
|
|
|
|
48,331
|
|
|
|
26,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total sales volume includes sales from the production of our
refineries and sales of inventories. |
|
(2) |
|
Feedstock runs represents the barrels per day of crude oil and
other feedstocks processed at our refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Total refinery production represents the barrels per day of
specialty products and fuel products yielded from processing
crude oil and other refinery feedstocks at our refineries. The
difference between total refinery production and total feedstock
runs is primarily a result of the time lag between the input of
feedstock and production of end products and volume loss. |
47
The following table sets forth information about the sales of
our principal products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
|
$
|
394.4
|
|
|
$
|
251.9
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
|
|
114.7
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
39.5
|
|
Fuels
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
72.7
|
|
Asphalt and other by-products
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
913.1
|
|
|
|
703.3
|
|
|
|
530.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
|
336.7
|
|
|
|
223.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
By-products
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
585.8
|
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated sales
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
$
|
539.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48
The following table reflects our consolidated results of
operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
$
|
539.6
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,437.8
|
|
|
|
1,148.7
|
|
|
|
501.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
203.2
|
|
|
|
140.4
|
|
|
|
38.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
56.9
|
|
|
|
46.9
|
|
|
|
34.0
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Restructuring, decommissioning and
asset impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
121.4
|
|
|
|
65.7
|
|
|
|
(12.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in loss of unconsolidated
affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(9.0
|
)
|
|
|
(23.0
|
)
|
|
|
(9.9
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
(6.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Realized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments
|
|
|
(30.3
|
)
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
39.2
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on
derivative instruments
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
(27.6
|
)
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
|
(27.3
|
)
|
|
|
(54.4
|
)
|
|
|
21.2
|
|
Net income before income taxes
|
|
|
94.1
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
9.0
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
93.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.3
|
|
|
$
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
Year
Ended December 31, 2006 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Sales. Sales increased $352.0 million, or
27.3%, to $1,641.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $1,289.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2005. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Sales by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
509.9
|
|
|
$
|
394.4
|
|
|
|
29.3
|
%
|
Solvents
|
|
|
201.9
|
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
|
|
39.3
|
%
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
40.2
|
%
|
Fuels(1)
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
(6.2
|
)%
|
Asphalt and by-products(2)
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products
|
|
|
913.1
|
|
|
|
703.3
|
|
|
|
29.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products sales
volume (in barrels)
|
|
|
9,165,000
|
|
|
|
8,900,000
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
336.7
|
|
|
$
|
223.6
|
|
|
|
50.6
|
%
|
Diesel
|
|
|
207.1
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
(10.3
|
)%
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
|
|
45.4
|
%
|
By-products(3)
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
(23.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products
|
|
|
727.9
|
|
|
|
585.8
|
|
|
|
24.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products sales volumes
(in barrels)
|
|
|
9,211,000
|
|
|
|
8,238,000
|
|
|
|
11.8
|
%
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,641.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
|
27.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volumes (in barrels)
|
|
|
18,376,000
|
|
|
|
17,138,000
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents fuels produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at the Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents asphalt and other by-products produced in connection
with the production of specialty products at the Princeton,
Cotton Valley and Shreveport refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents by-products produced in connection with the
production of fuels at the Shreveport refinery. |
This $352.0 million increase in sales resulted from a
$209.9 million increase in sales by the specialty products
segment and a $142.0 increase in sales in the fuel products
segment.
Specialty products segment sales for the year ended
December 31, 2006 increased $209.9 million, or 29.9%,
primarily due to a 26.1% increase in the average selling price
per barrel across all product lines and a more favorable product
mix of lubricating oils and solvents. Average selling prices per
barrel for lubricating oils, solvents, waxes, fuels, and asphalt
and by-product increased at rates comparable to or in excess of
the overall 15.6% increase in the cost of crude oil per barrel
during the period. In addition, specialty products segment sales
were positively affected by a 3.0% increase in volumes sold,
from approximately 8.9 million barrels in the year ended
December 31, 2005 to 9.2 million barrels in the year
ended December 31, 2006 due to increased sales volumes for
lubricating oils and solvents, partially offset by decreased
sales volume of fuels.
Fuel products segment sales for the year ended December 31,
2006 increased $142.0 million, or 24.2%, partially due to
an 11.1% increase in the average selling price per barrel.
Average selling prices per barrel for gasoline, diesel, jet
fuel, and by-products increased at rates comparable to or less
than the overall 15.2% increase in the cost of crude oil per
barrel for the period due to market conditions. The fuel
products segment sales were also
50
positively affected by an 11.8% increase in volumes sold
attributable to the
ramp-up of
the fuels operations at the Shreveport refinery in the first
quarter of 2005. The settlement of our fuel products cash flow
hedges had an immaterial impact on fuel products segment sales
for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Gross Profit. Gross profit increased
$62.9 million, or 44.8%, to $203.2 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006 from $140.4 million for
the year ended December 31, 2005. Gross profit for our
specialty and fuel products segments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Gross profit by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
152.3
|
|
|
$
|
73.3
|
|
|
|
107.9
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
16.7
|
%
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
$
|
50.9
|
|
|
$
|
67.1
|
|
|
|
(24.1
|
)%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
203.2
|
|
|
$
|
140.4
|
|
|
|
44.8
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
12.4
|
%
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
This $62.9 million increase in total gross profit includes
an increase in gross profit of $79.1 million in the
specialty products segment offset by a $16.2 million
decrease in the fuel products segment.
The increase in the specialty products segment gross profit was
primarily due the average selling price per barrel increasing by
26.1%, which was more than the increase in the average cost of
crude oil of 15.6% during the period. This was primarily driven
by price increases across all product lines and a more favorable
product mix of lubricating oils and solvents. Specialty products
segment gross profit was also positively affected by 3.0%
increase in sales volumes, primarily driven by solvents and
waxes. The sales price and volume increases were partially
offset by the recognition of $9.4 million of derivative
losses on our cash flow hedges of crude oil and natural gas
purchases reflected in cost of sales in the consolidated
statements of operations. The segment gross profit was also
positively affected by lower operating costs due to lower costs
for plant fuel and maintenance.
The decrease in the fuel products segment gross profit of
$16.2 million was primarily the result of the average
selling price increasing by 11.1%, which was less than the
increase in the average cost of crude of 15.2%. Fuel products
segment gross profit was also negatively impacted by
approximately $13.4 million due primarily to increases in
other material costs from the use of certain gasoline
blendstocks in the third and fourth quarter of 2006 to maintain
compliance with environmental regulations. The Company does not
believe it will be necessary to purchase such gasoline
blendstocks in 2007. Further contributing to the decrease in
segment gross profit was the recognition of $1.7 million of
derivative losses from our cash flow hedges of fuel products
sales and crude oil purchases. These decreases were partially
offset by an 11.8% increase in sales volumes, primarily in
gasoline and jet fuel.
Selling, general and administrative. Selling,
general and administrative expenses decreased $1.7 million,
or 7.7%, to $20.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $22.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2005. This decrease primarily reflects
decreased employee compensation costs due to incentive bonuses.
This decrease was offset by increased general and administrative
costs incurred as a result of being a public company.
Transportation. Transportation expenses
increased $10.1 million, or 21.5%, to $56.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2006 from $46.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase in
transportation expense over the period is due to significant
price increases for rail transportation services as well as the
3.0% increase in volumes for the specialty products segment for
the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the same
period in 2005.
Restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments. Restructuring, decommissioning and
asset impairment expenses were $2.3 for the year ended
December 31, 2005, and we incurred no such expenses in
2006. The charges recorded in 2005 related to decommissioning
and asset impairment costs of the Reno wax packaging assets. No
other assets impairments have occurred in 2006.
51
Interest expense. Interest expense decreased
$13.9 million, or 60.7%, to $9.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2006 from $23.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2005. This decrease was primarily due to
the debt refinancing in December 2005 and the repayment of debt
with the proceeds of the initial public offering and follow-on
equity offering, which closed on January 31, 2006 and
July 5, 2006, respectively.
Interest income. Interest income increased
$2.7 million to $3.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $0.2 million in the year ended
December 31, 2005. This increase was primarily due to the
investment of the remaining proceeds from our follow-on equity
offering, which closed on July 5, 2006, after the pay down
of indebtedness. The Predecessor did not have significant cash
or cash equivalent balances during 2005.
Debt extinguishment costs. Debt extinguishment
costs decreased to $3.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to $6.9 million for the
year ended December 31, 2005. The $6.9 million
recognized in the year ended December 31, 2005 is the
result of the repayment of existing credit facilities in the
fourth quarter of 2005 using the proceeds of credit agreements
entered into in that same period. For the year ended
December 31, 2006, the debt extinguishment costs of
$3.0 million resulted from the repayment of a portion of
borrowings under Calumets term loan and revolving credit
facilities using the proceeds of the initial public offering,
which closed on January 31, 2006.
Realized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Realized loss on derivative
instruments increased $33.1 million to a $30.3 million
loss in the year ended December 31, 2006 from a
$2.8 million gain in the year ended December 31, 2005.
This increased loss primarily was the result of the unfavorable
settlement of crude oil and fuel products margin derivative
contracts, which experienced decreases in market value due to
rising crack spreads upon their settlement during the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to 2005.
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments. Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments increased $39.9 million, to a
$12.3 million gain in the year ended December 31, 2006
from a $27.6 million loss for the year ended
December 31, 2005. This increase is primarily due to the
entire mark to market change of our derivative instruments being
recorded to unrealized loss on derivative instruments in the
prior year. Calumet designated certain of these derivatives as
cash flow hedges on April 1, 2006 and has subsequently
recorded the mark to market change on the effective portion of
these hedges to accumulated other comprehensive income on the
consolidated balance sheet.
52
Year
Ended December 31, 2005 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2004
Sales. Sales increased $749.5 million, or
138.9%, to $1,289.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2005 from $539.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2004. Sales for each of our principal
product categories in these periods were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Sales by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lubricating oils
|
|
$
|
394.4
|
|
|
$
|
251.9
|
|
|
|
56.6
|
%
|
Solvents
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
|
|
114.7
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
%
|
Waxes
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
39.5
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
Fuels(1)
|
|
|
44.0
|
|
|
|
72.7
|
|
|
|
(39.5
|
)%
|
Asphalt and by-products(2)
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
|
|
|
48.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products
|
|
|
703.3
|
|
|
|
530.0
|
|
|
|
32.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total specialty products volume
(in barrels)
|
|
|
8,900,000
|
|
|
|
8,807,000
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
Fuel products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline
|
|
$
|
223.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
6,885.7
|
%
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
121.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By-products(3)
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
59.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products
|
|
|
585.8
|
|
|
$
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
5,998.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fuel products sales volumes
(in barrels)
|
|
|
8,238,000
|
|
|
|
193,000
|
|
|
|
4,168.4
|
%
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,289.1
|
|
|
$
|
539.6
|
|
|
|
138.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales volumes (in barrels)
|
|
|
17,138,000
|
|
|
|
9,000,000
|
|
|
|
90.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents fuels produced in connection with the production of
specialty products at the Princeton and Cotton Valley refineries. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents asphalt and other by-products produced in connection
with the production of specialty products at the Princeton,
Cotton Valley and Shreveport refineries. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents by-products produced in connection with the
production of fuels at the Shreveport refinery. |
This $749.5 million increase in sales resulted primarily
from the startup of our fuels operations at Shreveport in the
fourth quarter of 2004, which accounted for $576.2 million
of the increase, and also from a $173.3 million increase in
sales by our specialty products segment.
Specialty products segment sales for 2005 increased
$173.3 million, or 32.7%, due to a 31.3% increase in the
average selling price per barrel and a 1.1% increase in volumes
sold, from approximately 8.8 million barrels in 2004 to
8.9 million barrels in 2005. Average selling prices per
barrel for lubricating oils, solvents and fuels increased at
rates comparable to or in excess of the overall 30.9% increase
in the cost of crude oil per barrel during the period. Asphalt
and by-product prices per barrel increased by only 7.4% due to
market conditions. The slight increase in volumes sold was
largely due to higher production volumes offset by downtime in
February 2005 at Cotton Valley for a plant expansion project,
which resulted in reduced volumes of fuels and solvents for that
period. Fuel sales decreased disproportionately more than
solvents because we had higher levels of inventory of solvents
at Cotton Valley available for sale.
53
Fuel products segment sales for 2005 increased
$576.2 million which is attributable to the reconfiguration
of the Shreveport refinery, which was fully completed by
February 2005, and the
start-up of
our fuel products segment in the fourth quarter of 2004.
Gross Profit. Gross profit increased
$102.0 million, or 266.2%, to $140.4 million for the
year ended December 31, 2005 from $38.3 million for
year ended December 31, 2004. Gross profit for our
specialty and fuel products segments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Gross profit by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
73.3
|
|
|
$
|
40.6
|
|
|
|
80.5
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
$
|
67.1
|
|
|
$
|
(2.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
(24.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
140.4
|
|
|
$
|
38.3
|
|
|
|
266.2
|
%
|
Percentage of sales
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
This $102.0 million increase in total gross profit includes
an increase in gross profit of $69.4 million in our fuel
products segment, which began operations late in 2004, and an
increase of $32.7 million in our specialty product segment
gross profit which was driven by a 31.3% increase in selling
prices and improved profitability on specialty products
manufactured at our Shreveport refinery due to the increase in
the refinerys overall throughput largely resulting from
its reconfiguration. The increase in specialty products gross
profit was offset by a 30.9% increase in the average price of
crude oil per barrel. During 2005, we were able to successfully
increase prices on our lubricating oils, solvents and fuels at
rates comparable to or in excess of the rising cost of crude oil.
Selling, general and administrative. Selling,
general and administrative expenses increased $9.0 million,
or 68.5%, to $22.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2005 from $13.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2004. This increase primarily reflects
increased employee compensation costs due to incentive bonuses.
Transportation. Transportation expenses
increased $12.9 million, or 38.1%, to $46.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2005 from $33.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2004. The year over year
increase in transportation expense was due to the overall
increase in volumes which was partially offset by more localized
marketing of fuels products.
Restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments. Restructuring, decommissioning and
asset impairment expenses increased $2.0 million to
$2.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2005 from
$0.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2004.
During 2005, we recorded a $2.2 million charge related to
decommissioning and asset impairment costs of the Reno wax
packaging assets. During 2004, we recorded a $0.3 million
charge related to the completion of the Rouseville asset
decommissioning.
Interest expense. Interest expense increased
$13.1 million, or 132.7%, to $23.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2005 from $9.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2004. This increase was primarily due to
our debt refinancing and increased borrowings under our prior
credit agreements for the reconfiguration of the Shreveport
facility entered into during the fourth quarter of 2004.
Borrowings under the prior term loan agreement incurred interest
at a fixed rate of interest of 14.0%.
On December 9, 2005, we repaid our existing facilities from
the proceeds of our current credit agreements described later in
this section. This resulted in debt extinguishment costs of
$6.9 million being recorded in the fourth quarter.
Realized gain on derivative
instruments. Realized gain on derivative
instruments decreased $36.3 million to $2.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2005 from $39.2 million in
the year ended December 31, 2004. This decrease was
primarily the result of the unfavorable settlement of crude oil
and fuel products margin derivative
54
contracts, which experienced decreases in market value upon
settlement during the year ended December 31, 2005 as
compared to 2004.
Unrealized loss on derivative
instruments. Unrealized loss on derivative
instruments increased $19.8 million, to $27.6 million
in the year ended December 31, 2005 from $7.8 million
for the year ended December 31, 2004. This increased loss
is primarily due to the decline in fair value on a larger volume
of crude oil and fuel products margin derivative contracts due
to increased crack spreads as of December 31, 2005.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Our principal sources of cash have included proceeds from public
offerings, issuance of private debt, bank borrowings, and cash
flow from operations. Principal historical uses of cash have
included capital expenditures, growth in working capital,
distributions and debt service. We expect that our principal
uses of cash in the future will be to finance working capital,
capital expenditures, distributions and debt service.
Cash
Flows
We believe that we have sufficient liquid assets, cash flow from
operations and borrowing capacity to meet our financial
commitments, debt service obligations, contingencies and
anticipated capital expenditures. However, we are subject to
business and operational risks that could materially adversely
affect our cash flows. A material decrease in our cash flow from
operations would likely produce a corollary materially adverse
effect on our borrowing capacity.
The following table summarizes our primary sources and uses of
cash in the periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities
|
|
$
|
166.8
|
|
|
$
|
(34.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.6
|
)
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
$
|
(75.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(42.9
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
financing activities
|
|
$
|
(22.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
41.0
|
|
|
$
|
61.6
|
|
Operating Activities. Operating activities
provided $166.8 million in cash during the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to using $34.0 million in
cash during the year ended December 31, 2005. The cash
provided by operating activities during the year ended
December 31, 2006 primarily consisted of net income after
adjusting for non-cash items of $108.9 million and
$57.8 million of working capital improvements. Net income
after adjustments for non-cash items increased to
$108.9 million in 2006 from $28.1 million in 2005
primarily due to an increase in net income of
$82.6 million. The improvements in working capital were
primarily due to a $34.0 million increase in accounts
payable due to improvements in payment terms with suppliers and
the issuance of letters of credit, a $29.7 million decrease
in current assets primarily due to lower accounts receivable as
a result of decreased sales volume in the fourth quarter of 2006
as compared to the same period in 2005 and lower prepaid
expenses driven by decreased prepaid crude oil purchases.
Operating activities used $34.0 million of cash for the
year ended December 31, 2005 compared to using
$0.6 million of cash for the year ended December 31,
2004. This increase is primarily due to increases in accounts
receivable of $56.9 million and inventory of
$25.4 million, which relate to the rising price of crude
oil and the increase in throughput in our fuel products segment
as the Shreveport reconfiguration was completed in
February 2005. The increase was also driven by the decrease
in accounts payable which relates to the timing of payments and
the increase in purchases from suppliers who required shorter
payment terms. The increase was partially offset by the mark to
market impact of derivative instruments.
Investing Activities. Cash used in investing
activities increased to $75.8 million during the year ended
December 31, 2006 as compared to $12.9 million during
the year ended December 31, 2005. This increase was
primarily due to the $65.5 million of additions to
property, plant and equipment related to the Shreveport refinery
expansion project during 2006, with no comparable expenditures
in 2005. In 2005, capital expenditures primarily consisted of an
upgrade to the capacity and enhancement of the product mix at
our Cotton Valley refinery.
55
In 2004, capital expenditures were primarily due to
$36.0 million of additions related to the fuels
reconfiguration at our Shreveport refinery.
Financing Activities. Financing activities
used cash of $22.2 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to providing $41.0 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005. This decrease is
primarily due to the use of cash from operations to make
distributions to partners of $45.2 million. In addition, we
used all of the proceeds of our initial public offering and a
portion of the proceeds of our follow-on public offering to
paydown debt during the year ended December 31, 2006. The
remaining proceeds from our follow-on public offering were
invested in highly liquid short-term investments and will be
utilized as needed to fund the Shreveport refinery expansion
project.
Cash provided by financing activities decreased to
$41.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005
compared to $61.6 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004. This decrease is primarily due to
distributions to our partners of $7.3 million and increased
borrowings in 2004 to finance the growth in working capital
related to the startup of fuel products operations at Shreveport.
On January 5, 2007, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.60 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$18.7 million, for the quarter ended December 31,
2006. The distribution will be paid on February 14, 2007 to
unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 4, 2007. This quarterly distribution of
$0.60 per unit equates to $2.40 per unit, or
$74.7 million, on an annualized basis.
Capital
Expenditures
Our capital expenditure requirements consist of capital
improvement expenditures, replacement capital expenditures and
environmental capital expenditures. Capital improvement
expenditures include expenditures to acquire assets to grow our
business and to expand existing facilities, such as projects
that increase operating capacity. Replacement capital
expenditures replace worn out or obsolete equipment or parts.
Environmental capital expenditures include asset additions to
meet or exceed environmental and operating regulations. We
expense all maintenance costs associated with major maintenance
and repairs (facility turnarounds) through the
accrue-in-advance
method over the period between turnarounds. The accounting
method used for facility turnarounds will change effective
January 1, 2007 as discussed below in
Recent Accounting Prounouncements.
The following table sets forth our capital improvement
expenditures, replacement capital expenditures and environmental
expenditures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Capital improvement expenditures
|
|
$
|
69.9
|
|
|
$
|
10.1
|
|
|
$
|
39.0
|
|
Replacement capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
4.5
|
|
|
$
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
Environmental expenditures
|
|
$
|
1.7
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
76.1
|
|
|
$
|
13.0
|
|
|
$
|
43.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We anticipate that future capital improvement requirements will
be provided through long-term borrowings, other debt financings,
equity offerings
and/or cash
on hand. Until the Shreveport refinery expansion project is
complete and increases cash flow from operations per unit, as
discussed in Item 1A Risk Factors, our ability
to raise additional capital through the sale of common units is
limited to 3,233,000 common units.
Capital improvement expenditures for the year ended
December 31, 2006 were primarily related to an expansion
project at our Shreveport refinery to increase its throughput
capacity and its production of specialty products. The expansion
project involves several of the refinerys operating units
and is estimated to result in a crude oil throughput capacity
increase of approximately 15,000 bpd, bringing total crude
oil throughput capacity of the refinery to approximately
57,000 bpd. The expansion is expected to be completed and
fully operational in the third quarter of 2007.
56
As part of the Shreveport refinery expansion project, we plan to
increase the Shreveport refinerys capacity to process an
additional 8,000 bpd of sour crude oil, bringing total
capacity to process sour crude oil to 13,000 bpd. Of the
anticipated 57,000 bpd throughput rate upon completion of
the expansion project, we expect the refinery to have the
capacity to process approximately 42,000 bpd of sweet crude
oil and 13,000 bpd of sour crude oil, with the remainder
coming from interplant feedstocks.
During the second quarter of 2006, we began purchasing equipment
for the Shreveport expansion project and have spent a total of
$65.5 million on capital expenditures for the expansion
through December 31, 2006, of which approximately
$13.0 million relates to assets and services yet to be
received. In July 2006 we completed a follow-on public offering
of 3.3 million common units raising $103.5 million to
fund the majority of this project. On December 27, 2006,
the LDEQ approved our application for a modification of our air
emissions permit for the Shreveport refinery expansion. We were
required to obtain approval of this modified air emissions
permit from the LDEQ prior to commencing construction of the
expansion activities. Upon receipt of the permit approval from
the LDEQ, we have commenced construction of the Shreveport
refinery expansion project. On February 22, 2007, we
received notice that on February 13, 2007 an individual
filed, on behalf of the Residents for Air
Neutralization, a Petition for Review in the 19th Judicial
District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, asking
the Court to review the approval granted by the LDEQ for our
application for a modified air emissions permit. The Petition
alleges the information in the final LDEQ decision report was
inaccurate and that, based on the LDEQs decision to grant
the modified air emissions permit, the LDEQ had not reviewed the
evidence put before them properly. There is a question,
unresolved at this time, concerning whether the Petition was
timely filed. If it was timely filed, the LDEQ will have sixty
days after service of the Petition to file the record of its
proceedings with the district court. We believe that the LDEQ
will be successful in defending its approval of our application
for a modified air emissions permit. Neither we nor any of our
subsidiaries is named at this time as a party to the Petition.
Management estimates that Calumet will incur approximately
$84.5 million of capital expenditures in calendar year 2007
on the expansion project. We currently estimate the total cost
of the Shreveport refinery expansion project will be
approximately $150.0 million. Cash on hand from the
follow-on offering, cash flow from operations and borrowings
under the secured revolving credit facility, to the extent
necessary, will fund these expenditures.
Debt
and Credit Facilities
On December 9, 2005, we repaid all of our existing
indebtedness under our prior credit facilities and entered into
new credit agreements with syndicates of financial institutions
for credit facilities that consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
a $225.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility,
with a standby letter of credit sublimit of
$200.0 million; and
|
|
|
|
a $225.0 million senior secured first lien credit facility
consisting of a $175.0 million term loan facility and a
$50.0 million letter of credit facility to support crack
spread hedging.
|
The revolving credit facility borrowings are limited by advance
rates of percentages of eligible accounts receivable and
inventory (the borrowing base) as defined by the revolving
credit agreement. At December 31, 2006 we had borrowings of
$49.5 million under our term loan and no borrowings under
our revolving credit facility. Our letters of credit outstanding
as of December 31, 2006 were $42.8 million under the
revolving credit facility and $50.0 million under the
$50.0 million letter of credit facility to support crack
spread hedging.
The secured revolving credit facility currently bears interest
at prime or LIBOR plus 150 basis points (which basis point
margin may fluctuate), has a first priority lien on our cash,
accounts receivable and inventory and a second priority lien on
our fixed assets and matures in December 2010. On
December 31, 2006, we had availability on our revolving
credit facility of $136.0 million, based upon its
$178.8 million borrowing base, $42.8 million in
outstanding letters of credit, and no outstanding borrowings.
The term loan facility bears interest at a rate of LIBOR plus
350 basis points and the letter of credit facility to support
crack spread hedging bears interest at a rate of 3.5%. Each
facility has a first priority lien on our fixed assets and a
second priority lien on our cash, accounts receivable and
inventory and matures in December 2012. Under the terms of our
term loan facility, we applied a portion of the net proceeds we
received from our initial public offering
57
and the underwriters over-allotment option as a repayment
of the term loan facility, and are required to make mandatory
repayments of approximately $0.1 million at the end of each
fiscal quarter, beginning with the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2006 and ending with the fiscal quarter ending
December 31, 2011. At the end of each fiscal quarter in
2012 we are required to make mandatory repayments of
approximately $11.8 million per quarter, with the remainder
of the principal due at maturity. On April 24, 2006, the
Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement with a
counterparty to fix the LIBOR component of the interest rate on
a portion of outstanding borrowings under its term loan
facility. The notional amount of the interest rate swap
agreement is 85% of the outstanding term loan balance over its
remaining term, with LIBOR fixed at 5.44%.
Our letter of credit facility to support crack spread hedging is
secured by a first priority lien on our fixed assets. We have
issued a letter of credit in the amount of $50.0 million,
the full amount available under the letter of credit facility,
to one counterparty. As long as this first priority lien is in
effect and such counterparty remains the beneficiary of the
$50.0 million letter of credit, we will have no obligation
to post additional cash, letters of credit or other collateral
with such counterparty to provide additional credit support for
a mutually-agreed maximum volume of executed crack spread
hedges. In the event such counterpartys exposure exceeds
$100.0 million, we would be required to post additional
credit support to enter into additional crack spread hedges up
to the aforementioned maximum volume. In addition, we have other
crack spread hedges in place with other approved counterparties
under the letter of credit facility whose credit exposure to us
is also secured by a first priority lien on our fixed assets.
The credit facilities permit us to make distributions to our
unitholders as long as we are not in default or would not be in
default following the distribution. Under the credit facilities,
we are obligated to comply with certain financial covenants
requiring us to maintain a Consolidated Leverage Ratio of no
more than 3.75 to 1 (as of the end of each fiscal quarter and
after giving effect to a proposed distribution) and available
liquidity of at least $30.0 million (after giving effect to
a proposed distribution). The Consolidated Leverage Ratio is
defined under our credit agreements to mean the ratio of our
consolidated debt (as defined in the credit agreements) as of
the last day of any fiscal quarter to our Adjusted EBITDA (as
defined below) for the four fiscal quarter period ending on such
date. Available liquidity is a measure used under our credit
agreements to mean the sum of the cash and borrowing capacity
under our revolving credit facility that we have as of a given
date. Adjusted EBITDA means Consolidated EBITDA as defined in
our credit facilities to mean, for any period: (1) net
income plus (2)(a) interest expense; (b) taxes;
(c) depreciation and amortization; (d) unrealized
losses from mark to market accounting for hedging activities;
(e) unrealized items decreasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); and (f) other
non-recurring expenses reducing net income which do not
represent a cash item for such period; minus (3)(a) tax credits;
(b) unrealized items increasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); (c) unrealized gains
from mark to market accounting for hedging activities; and
(d) other non-recurring expenses and unrealized items that
reduced net income for a prior period, but represent a cash item
in the current period.
In addition, at any time that our borrowing capacity under our
revolving credit facility falls below $25.0 million, we
must maintain a Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio of at least 1 to 1
(as of the end of each fiscal quarter). The Fixed Charge
Coverage Ratio is defined under our credit agreements to mean
the ratio of (a) Adjusted EBITDA minus Consolidated Capital
Expenditures minus Consolidated Cash Taxes, to (b) Fixed
Charges (as each such term is defined in our credit agreements).
We anticipate that we will continue to be in compliance with the
financial covenants contained in our credit facilities and will,
therefore, be able to make distributions to our unitholders.
In addition, our credit agreements contain various covenants
that limit, among other things, our ability to: incur
indebtedness; grant liens; make certain acquisitions and
investments; make capital expenditures above specified amounts;
redeem or prepay other debt or make other restricted payments
such as distributions to unitholders; enter into transactions
with affiliates; enter into a merger, consolidation or sale of
assets; and cease our refining margin hedging program (our
lenders have required us to obtain and maintain derivative
contracts for fuel products margins in our fuel products segment
for a rolling two-year period for at least 40%, and no more than
80%, of our anticipated fuels production). On June 19
and 22, 2006, the Company amended its credit agreements to
increase the amount of permitted capital expenditures with
respect to the Shreveport refinery expansion project as well as
annual capital expenditure limitations.
58
If an event of default exists under our credit agreements, the
lenders will be able to accelerate the maturity of the credit
facilities and exercise other rights and remedies. An event of
default is defined as nonpayment of principal interest, fees or
other amounts; failure of any representation or warranty to be
true and correct when made or confirmed; failure to perform or
observe covenants in the credit agreement or other loan
documents, subject to certain grace periods; payment defaults in
respect of other indebtedness; cross-defaults in other
indebtedness if the effect of such default is to cause the
acceleration of such indebtedness under any material agreement
if such default could have a material adverse effect on us;
bankruptcy or insolvency events; monetary judgment defaults;
asserted invalidity of the loan documentation; and a change of
control in us. As of December 31, 2006, we believe we are
in compliance with all debt covenants and has adequate liquidity
to conduct its business.
Equity
Transactions
On January 31, 2006, we completed the initial public
offering of our common units and sold 5,699,900 of those units
to the underwriters of the initial public offering at a price to
the public of $21.50 per common unit. We also sold a total
of 750,100 common units to certain other investors at a price of
$19.995 per common unit. In addition, on February 8,
2006, we sold an additional 854,985 common units to the
underwriters at a price to the public of $21.50 per common
unit pursuant to the underwriters over-allotment option.
We received total net proceeds of approximately
$144.4 million. The net proceeds were used to:
(i) repay indebtedness and accrued interest under the first
lien term loan facility in the amount of approximately
$125.7 million, (ii) repay indebtedness under the
secured revolving credit facility in the amount of approximately
$13.1 million and (iii) pay transaction fees and
expenses in the amount of approximately $5.6 million.
On July 5, 2006, we completed a follow-on public offering
of common units in which we sold 3,300,000 common units to the
underwriters of this offering at a price to the public of
$32.94 per common unit and received net proceeds of
$103.5 million. The net proceeds were used (or will be
used) to: (i) repay all of our borrowings under our
revolving credit facility, which were approximately
$9.2 million as of June 30, 2006, (ii) fund the
future construction and other
start-up
costs of the planned expansion project at our Shreveport
refinery and (iii) to the extent available, for general
partnership purposes. The general partner contributed an
additional $2.2 million to us to retain its 2% general
partner interest.
Contractual
Obligations and Commercial Commitments
A summary of our total contractual cash obligations as of
December 31, 2006, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
1-3
|
|
|
3-5
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt obligations
|
|
$
|
49,500
|
|
|
$
|
500
|
|
|
$
|
1,000
|
|
|
$
|
48,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations(1)
|
|
|
34,407
|
|
|
|
8,837
|
|
|
|
11,184
|
|
|
|
7,942
|
|
|
|
6,444
|
|
Letters of credit(2)
|
|
|
92,775
|
|
|
|
42,775
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase commitments(3)
|
|
|
301,302
|
|
|
|
263,317
|
|
|
|
37,985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment agreements(4)
|
|
|
1,360
|
|
|
|
333
|
|
|
|
666
|
|
|
|
361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total obligations
|
|
$
|
479,344
|
|
|
$
|
315,762
|
|
|
$
|
50,835
|
|
|
$
|
106,303
|
|
|
$
|
6,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We have various operating leases for the use of land, storage
tanks, pressure stations, railcars, equipment, precious metals
and office facilities that extend through August 2015. |
|
(2) |
|
Letters of credit supporting crude oil purchases and hedging
activities. |
|
(3) |
|
Purchase commitments consist of obligations to purchase fixed
volumes of crude oil from various suppliers based on current
market prices at the time of delivery. |
|
(4) |
|
Annual compensation under the employment agreement of F. William
Grube, chief executive officer and president. |
59
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our discussion and analysis of results of operations and
financial condition are based upon our consolidated financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004. These consolidated financial statements have been prepared
in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these financial
statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that
affect the amounts reported in those financial statements. On an
ongoing basis, we evaluate estimates and base our estimates on
historical experience and assumptions believed to be reasonable
under the circumstances. Those estimates form the basis for our
judgments that affect the amounts reported in the financial
statements. Actual results could differ from our estimates under
different assumptions or conditions. Our significant accounting
policies, which may be affected by our estimates and
assumptions, are more fully described in Note 2 to our
consolidated financial statements in Item 8 Financial
Statements of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
We believe that the following are the more critical judgment
areas in the application of our accounting policies that
currently affect our financial condition and results of
operations.
Revenue
Recognition
We recognize revenue on orders received from our customers when
there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement with the customer
that is supportive of revenue recognition, the customer has made
a fixed commitment to purchase the product for a fixed or
determinable sales price, collection is reasonably assured under
our normal billing and credit terms, and ownership and all risks
of loss have been transferred to the buyer, which is upon
shipment to the customer.
Turnaround
Periodic major maintenance and repairs (turnaround costs)
applicable to refining facilities are accounted for using the
accrue-in-advance
method. Accruals are based upon managements estimate of
the nature and extent of maintenance and repair necessary for
each facility. Actual expenditures could vary significantly from
managements estimates as the scope of a turnaround may
significantly change once the actual maintenance has commenced.
In accordance with FASB Staff Position No. AUG AIR-1,
Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities, the
accounting method used for facility turnarounds will change
beginning January 1, 2007 as discussed in Note 2 to
the consolidated financial statements.
Inventory
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method. Costs include crude oil and other
feedstocks, labor and refining overhead costs. We review our
inventory balances quarterly for excess inventory levels or
obsolete products and write down, if necessary, the inventory to
net realizable value. The replacement cost of our inventory,
based on current market values, would have been
$46.7 million and $47.8 million higher at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Derivatives
We utilize derivative instruments to minimize our price risk and
volatility of cash flows associated with the purchase of crude
oil and natural gas, the sale of fuel products and interest
payments. In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFAS) No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, which was amended in June
2000 by SFAS No. 138 and in May 2003 by
SFAS No. 149 (collectively referred to as
SFAS 133), we recognize all derivative
transactions as either assets or liabilities at fair value on
the consolidated balance sheets. To the extent designated as an
effective cash flow hedge of an exposure to future changes in
the value of a purchase or sale transaction, the change in fair
value of the derivative is deferred in accumulated other
comprehensive income until the forecasted transaction being
hedged is recognized in the consolidated statements of
operations. Cash flow hedges of purchases and sales are recorded
in cost of goods sold and sales, respectively, in the
consolidated statements of operations. The realized gain or loss
upon the settlement of a cash flow hedge of interest payments is
recorded to interest expense in the consolidated statement of
operations. For derivative instruments not designated as cash
flow hedges and the portion of any cash flow hedge that is
determined to be ineffective, the change in fair value of the
asset or liability for the period is recorded to unrealized gain
or loss on derivative
60
instruments in the consolidated statement of operations. Upon
the settlement of a derivative not designated as a cash flow
hedge, the gain or loss at settlement is recorded to realized
gain or loss on derivative instruments in the consolidated
statement of operations. The company utilizes third party
valuations and published market data to determine the fair value
of these derivatives.
The effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated
other comprehensive income related to these natural gas, crude
oil, interest and fuel products derivative contracts at
December 31, 2006 is $52.3 million and, absent a
change in their fair market value, will be reclassified to
earnings by December 31, 2012 with balances expected to be
recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
(Thousands)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
13,803
|
|
2008
|
|
|
15,321
|
|
2009
|
|
|
12,618
|
|
2010
|
|
|
10,702
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
52,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109. The Interpretation clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes by prescribing a recognition
threshold and measurement methodology for the financial
statement recognition and measurement of a tax position to be
taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The
Interpretation is effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2006. This Interpretation will not have a
material effect on the financial position, results of operations
or cash flows when adopted on January 1, 2007.
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Staff Position No. AUG AIR-1,
Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities,
which amends certain provisions in the AICPA Industry Audit
Guides, Audits of Airlines, and APB Opinion No. 28,
Interim Financial Reporting (the Position).
The Position prohibits the use of the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities
and requires the use of the direct expensing method, built-in
overhaul method, or deferral method. The Position is effective
for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006.
Effective January 1, 2007, we will adopt the Position and
elect the deferral method. Under this method, actual costs of an
overhaul are capitalized and amortized to cost of sales until
the next overhaul date. Prior to the adoption of this standard,
we accrued for such overhaul costs in advance of the turnarounds
and recorded the expense to cost of sales. The adoption of the
position in prior periods would have resulted in a decrease
(increase) in turnaround costs, a component of cost of sales, of
$1.7 million, $1.6 million and $(0.7) million for
the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
respectively. Furthermore, the adoption will result in the
capitalization of turnaround costs of $1.5 million and
$2.2 million as of December 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively, as compared to turnaround liabilities previously
recorded of $5.1 million and $2.7 million for the same
dates.
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (the Statement). The Statement
applies to assets and liabilities required or permitted to be
measured at fair value under other accounting pronouncements.
The Statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value, and expands disclosure requirements about
fair value, but does not provide guidance whether assets and
liabilities are required or permitted to be measured at fair
value. The Statement is effective for fiscal years beginning
after November 15, 2007. The Company does not anticipate
that this Statement will have a material effect on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
61
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest
Rate Risk
Our profitability and cash flows are affected by changes in
interest rates, specifically LIBOR and prime rates. The primary
purpose of our interest rate risk management activities is to
hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates.
We are exposed to market risk from fluctuations in interest
rates. As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately
$49.5 million of variable rate debt. Holding other
variables constant (such as debt levels) a one hundred basis
point change in interest rates on our variable rate debt as of
December 31, 2006 would be expected to have an impact on
net income and cash flows for 2006 of approximately
$0.5 million.
The Company has entered into a forward swap contract to manage
interest rate risk related to its variable priced term loan. The
Company has hedged 85% of its future interest payments related
to this term loan indebtedness. The Company has a
$225.0 million revolving credit facility, bearing interest
at the prime rate or LIBOR, at its option. No borrowings were
outstanding under this facility as of December 31, 2006.
Commodity
Price Risk
Both our profitability and our cash flows are affected by
volatility in prevailing crude oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel,
and natural gas prices. The primary purpose of our commodity
risk management activities is to hedge our exposure to price
risks associated with the cost of crude oil and natural gas and
sales prices of our fuel products.
Crude
Oil Price Volatility
We are exposed to significant fluctuations in the price of crude
oil, our principal raw material. Given the historical volatility
of crude oil prices, this exposure can significantly impact
product costs and gross profit. Holding all other variables
constant, and excluding the impact of our current hedges, we
expect a $1.00 change in the per barrel price of crude oil would
change our specialty product segment cost of sales by
$9.2 million and our fuel product segment cost of sales by
$9.2 million based on our results for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Crude
Oil Hedging Policy
Because we typically do not set prices for our specialty
products in advance of our crude oil purchases, we can take into
account the cost of crude oil in setting prices. We further
manage our exposure to fluctuations in crude oil prices in our
specialty products segment through the use of derivative
instruments. Our policy is generally to enter into crude oil
contracts for three to nine months forward and for 50% to 70% of
our anticipated crude oil purchases related to our specialty
products production. Our fuel products sales are based on market
prices at the time of sale. Accordingly, in conjunction with our
fuel products hedging policy discussed below, we enter into
crude oil derivative contracts for up to five years and no more
than 75% of our fuel products sales on average for each fiscal
year.
Natural
Gas Price Volatility
Since natural gas purchases comprise a significant component of
our cost of sales, changes in the price of natural gas also
significantly affect our profitability and our cash flows.
Holding all other cost and revenue variables constant, and
excluding the impact of our current hedges, we expect a $0.50
change per MMBtu (one million British Thermal Units) in the
price of natural gas would change our cost of sales by
$2.5 million based on our results for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Natural
Gas Hedging Policy
In order to manage our exposure to natural gas prices, we enter
into derivative contracts. Our policy is generally to enter into
natural gas swap contracts during the summer months for
approximately 50% of our anticipated natural gas requirements
for the upcoming fall and winter months.
62
Fuel
Products Selling Price Volatility
We are exposed to significant fluctuations in the prices of
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Given the historical volatility
of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices, this exposure can
significantly impact sales and gross profit. Holding all other
variables constant, and excluding the impact of our current
hedges, we expect that a $1 change in the per barrel selling
price of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel would change our
forecasted fuel products segment sales by $9.2 million
based on our results for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Fuel
Products Hedging Policy
In order to manage our exposure to changes in gasoline, diesel,
and jet fuel selling prices, we enter into fuels product swap
contracts. Our policy is to enter into derivative contracts to
hedge our fuel products sales for a period no greater than five
years forward and for no more than 75% of anticipated fuels
sales on average for each fiscal year, which is consistent with
our crude purchase hedging policy for our fuel products segment
discussed above. We believe this policy lessens the volatility
of our cash flows. In addition, in connection with our credit
facilities, our lenders require us to obtain and maintain
derivative contracts to hedge our fuels product margins for a
rolling
two-year
period for at least 40%, and no more than 80%, of our
anticipated fuels production.
The unrealized gain or loss on derivatives at a given point in
time is not necessarily indicative of the results realized when
such contracts mature. Please read Derivatives in
Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements for a
discussion of the accounting treatment for the various types of
derivative transactions, and a further discussion of our hedging
policies.
Existing
Commodity Derivative Instruments
The following tables provide information about our derivative
instruments related to our fuel products segment as of
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,710,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
65.14
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,728,000
|
|
|
|
18,989
|
|
|
|
64.68
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
8,143,000
|
|
|
|
22,249
|
|
|
|
67.37
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
7,482,500
|
|
|
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
66.04
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
5,840,000
|
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
67.40
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
363,500
|
|
|
|
996
|
|
|
|
65.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
28,751,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
66.49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,080,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
81.10
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,092,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
80.74
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
4,941,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
82.18
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
4,562,500
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
80.50
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
3,650,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
80.52
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
748
|
|
|
|
76.52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
17,802,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.07
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
72.09
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
636,000
|
|
|
|
6,989
|
|
|
|
71.38
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
3,202,000
|
|
|
|
8,749
|
|
|
|
76.17
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
2,920,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
73.45
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,190,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
75.27
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
90,500
|
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
70.87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
10,948,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.30
|
|
The following table provides a summary of these derivatives and
implied crack spreads for the crude oil, diesel and gasoline
swaps disclosed above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implied Crack
|
|
Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
Spread ($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,710,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
12.64
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,728,000
|
|
|
|
18,989
|
|
|
|
12.62
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
12.66
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
12.66
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
8,143,000
|
|
|
|
22,249
|
|
|
|
12.45
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
7,482,500
|
|
|
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
11.71
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
5,840,000
|
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
11.15
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
363,500
|
|
|
|
996
|
|
|
|
9.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
28,751,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
12.00
|
|
The following tables provide information about our derivative
instruments related to our specialty products segment as of
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
48.66
|
|
|
$
|
58.66
|
|
|
$
|
68.66
|
|
|
$
|
78.66
|
|
February 2007
|
|
|
224,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
49.28
|
|
|
|
59.28
|
|
|
|
69.28
|
|
|
|
79.28
|
|
March 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
50.85
|
|
|
|
60.85
|
|
|
|
70.85
|
|
|
|
80.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
720,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.61
|
|
|
$
|
59.61
|
|
|
$
|
69.61
|
|
|
$
|
79.61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Mmbtu
|
|
|
$/MMbtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.87
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.52
|
|
64
As of February 9, 2007, the Company has added the following
derivative instruments to the above transactions for our fuel
products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
366,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
63.46
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
365,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
62.93
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
182,500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
63.36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
913,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
63.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
183,000
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
78.96
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
365,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
76.23
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
182,500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
74.76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
730,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
76.55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
183,000
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
70.56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
183,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
70.56
|
|
The following table provides a summary of these derivatives and
implied crack spreads for the crude oil, diesel and gasoline
swaps disclosed above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implied Crack
|
|
Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
Spread ($/Bbl)
|
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
366,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
11.30
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
365,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
13.30
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
182,500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
11.40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
913,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
12.12
|
|
As of February 9, 2007, the Company has added the following
derivative instruments to the above transactions for our
specialty products segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
April 2007
|
|
|
240,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
42.25
|
|
|
$
|
52.25
|
|
|
$
|
62.25
|
|
|
$
|
72.25
|
|
May 2007
|
|
|
124,000
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
45.38
|
|
|
|
55.38
|
|
|
|
65.38
|
|
|
|
75.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
364,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
43.29
|
|
|
$
|
53.29
|
|
|
$
|
63.29
|
|
|
$
|
73.29
|
|
65
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements
|
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors of Calumet GP, LLC
General Partner of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, partners capital, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2006. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an
audit of the Companys internal control over financial
reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control
over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and 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
consolidated financial position of Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. at December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the
consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
2006, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 22, 2007
66
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
80,955
|
|
|
$
|
12,173
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful
accounts of $782 and $750, respectively
|
|
|
97,740
|
|
|
|
109,757
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,260
|
|
|
|
5,537
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99,000
|
|
|
|
115,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
110,985
|
|
|
|
108,431
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
1,506
|
|
|
|
10,799
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
40,802
|
|
|
|
3,359
|
|
Deposits and other current assets
|
|
|
1,961
|
|
|
|
8,851
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
335,209
|
|
|
|
258,907
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
191,732
|
|
|
|
127,846
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
3,233
|
|
|
|
12,964
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
530,174
|
|
|
$
|
399,717
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS
CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
78,752
|
|
|
$
|
44,759
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and
benefits
|
|
|
5,675
|
|
|
|
8,164
|
|
Turnaround costs
|
|
|
5,105
|
|
|
|
2,679
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
7,038
|
|
|
|
4,209
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
2,424
|
|
|
|
2,418
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
2,995
|
|
|
|
30,449
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
102,489
|
|
|
|
93,178
|
|
Long-term debt, less current
portion
|
|
|
49,000
|
|
|
|
267,485
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
151,489
|
|
|
|
360,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners capital:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor partners capital
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
38,557
|
|
Common unitholders
(16,366,000 units issued and outstanding)
|
|
|
272,973
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated unitholders
(13,066,000 units issued and outstanding)
|
|
|
40,802
|
|
|
|
|
|
General partners interest
|
|
|
12,659
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income
|
|
|
52,251
|
|
|
|
497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total partners capital
|
|
|
378,685
|
|
|
|
39,054
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
partners capital
|
|
$
|
530,174
|
|
|
$
|
399,717
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
67
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands except per unit data)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
1,437,804
|
|
|
|
1,148,715
|
|
|
|
501,284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
203,244
|
|
|
|
140,357
|
|
|
|
38,332
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
20,430
|
|
|
|
22,126
|
|
|
|
13,133
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
56,922
|
|
|
|
46,849
|
|
|
|
33,923
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
3,592
|
|
|
|
2,493
|
|
|
|
2,309
|
|
Other
|
|
|
863
|
|
|
|
871
|
|
|
|
839
|
|
Restructuring, decommissioning and
asset impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
121,437
|
|
|
|
65,685
|
|
|
|
(12,189
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in loss of unconsolidated
affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(427
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
|
|
(22,961
|
)
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
|
|
(6,882
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Realized (loss) gain on derivative
instruments
|
|
|
(30,309
|
)
|
|
|
2,830
|
|
|
|
39,160
|
|
Unrealized (loss) gain on
derivative instruments
|
|
|
12,264
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(7,788
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
|
(27,365
|
)
|
|
|
(54,357
|
)
|
|
|
21,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income before income taxes
|
|
|
94,072
|
|
|
|
11,328
|
|
|
|
8,970
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
93,882
|
|
|
$
|
11,328
|
|
|
$
|
8,970
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to
Predecessor for the period through January 31, 2006
|
|
|
4,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to Calumet
|
|
|
89,474
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum quarterly distribution to
common unitholders
|
|
|
(24,495
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General partners incentive
distribution rights
|
|
|
(18,157
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General partners interest in
net income
|
|
|
(840
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common unitholders share of
income in excess of minimum quarterly distribution
|
|
|
(17,958
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited partners interest in
net income
|
|
|
28,024
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per limited
partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
2.14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted net income per limited
partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
2.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
2.14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner
common units outstanding basic
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner
subordinated units outstanding basic
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner
common units outstanding diluted
|
|
|
14,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner
subordinated units outstanding diluted
|
|
|
13,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
68
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS CAPITAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners Capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
General
|
|
|
Limited Partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partners Capital
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Partner
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Balance at January 1, 2004
|
|
$
|
25,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
25,544
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
8,970
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,970
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
34,514
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,514
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
11,328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,328
|
|
Change in fair value of cash flow
hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,825
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
38,557
|
|
|
|
497
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
39,054
|
|
Comprehensive income through
January 31, 2006 for the Predecessor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income through January 31,
2006
|
|
|
4,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,408
|
|
Hedge (gain)/loss reclassified to
net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(497
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(497
|
)
|
Change in fair value of cash flow
hedges through January 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income through
January 31, 2006 for the Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,489
|
|
Distributions to Predecessor
partners
|
|
|
(6,900
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,900
|
)
|
Assets and liabilities not
contributed to Calumet
|
|
|
(5,626
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,626
|
)
|
Allocation of Predecessors
capital
|
|
|
(30,439
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
609
|
|
|
|
9,128
|
|
|
|
20,702
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from initial public
offering, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138,743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138,743
|
|
Contribution from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
Comprehensive income from
February 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 for Calumet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income from February 1,
2006 through December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,470
|
|
|
|
41,917
|
|
|
|
37,087
|
|
|
|
89,474
|
|
Change in fair value of cash flow
hedges from February 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income from
February 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 for Calumet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140,147
|
|
Proceeds from follow-on public
offering, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,479
|
|
Contribution from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,218
|
|
Units repurchased for phantom unit
grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
Amortization of vested phantom units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,013
|
)
|
|
|
(20,286
|
)
|
|
|
(16,987
|
)
|
|
|
(38,286
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
52,251
|
|
|
$
|
12,659
|
|
|
$
|
272,973
|
|
|
$
|
40,802
|
|
|
$
|
378,685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
69
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
93,882
|
|
|
$
|
11,328
|
|
|
$
|
8,970
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income
to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
11,760
|
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
|
|
6,927
|
|
Provision for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
294
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
Loss on disposal of property and
equipment
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
232
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
Amortization of vested phantom units
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in loss of unconsolidated
affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,693
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
2,967
|
|
|
|
4,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends received from
unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,470
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
332
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
16,031
|
|
|
|
(56,878
|
)
|
|
|
(19,399
|
)
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(2,554
|
)
|
|
|
(25,441
|
)
|
|
|
(20,304
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
9,293
|
|
|
|
6,473
|
|
|
|
(8,472
|
)
|
Derivative activity
|
|
|
(13,143
|
)
|
|
|
31,598
|
|
|
|
5,046
|
|
Deposits and other current assets
|
|
|
6,890
|
|
|
|
(5,904
|
)
|
|
|
(3,124
|
)
|
Other noncurrent assets
|
|
|
4,242
|
|
|
|
(4,561
|
)
|
|
|
161
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
33,993
|
|
|
|
(13,268
|
)
|
|
|
25,764
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and benefits
|
|
|
(2,489
|
)
|
|
|
6,186
|
|
|
|
1,323
|
|
Accrued turnaround costs
|
|
|
2,426
|
|
|
|
581
|
|
|
|
246
|
|
Other taxes payable
|
|
|
2,962
|
|
|
|
3,774
|
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
Asset retirement obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
(1,276
|
)
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
184
|
|
|
|
(4,567
|
)
|
|
|
(172
|
)
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(753
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities
|
|
|
166,768
|
|
|
|
(34,001
|
)
|
|
|
(612
|
)
|
Investing
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant and
equipment
|
|
|
(76,064
|
)
|
|
|
(12,963
|
)
|
|
|
(43,033
|
)
|
Proceeds from disposal of property,
plant and equipment
|
|
|
261
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
|
(75,803
|
)
|
|
|
(12,903
|
)
|
|
|
(42,930
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from
borrowings credit agreements with third parties
|
|
|
335,069
|
|
|
|
1,415,374
|
|
|
|
93,940
|
|
Payments of borrowings
credit agreements with third parties
|
|
|
(553,554
|
)
|
|
|
(1,197,184
|
)
|
|
|
(44,145
|
)
|
Proceeds from
borrowings credit agreement with limited partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
546,565
|
|
|
|
586,410
|
|
Payments of borrowings
credit agreement with limited partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(710,839
|
)
|
|
|
(568,988
|
)
|
Proceeds from initial public
offering, net
|
|
|
138,743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from follow-on public
offering, net
|
|
|
103,479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions from Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
|
2,593
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution to Calumet Holding, LLC
|
|
|
(3,258
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions to Predecessor
partners
|
|
|
(6,900
|
)
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions to partners
|
|
|
(38,286
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of units for phantom
unit grants
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt issuance costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,641
|
)
|
|
|
(5,656
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in)
financing activities
|
|
|
(22,183
|
)
|
|
|
40,990
|
|
|
|
61,561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash
|
|
|
68,782
|
|
|
|
(5,914
|
)
|
|
|
18,019
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of period
|
|
|
12,173
|
|
|
|
18,087
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of
period
|
|
$
|
80,955
|
|
|
$
|
12,173
|
|
|
$
|
18,087
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash
flow information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid
|
|
$
|
11,986
|
|
|
$
|
22,890
|
|
|
$
|
9,367
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$
|
175
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
70
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
|
|
1.
|
Description
of the Business
|
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (Calumet, Partnership,
or the Company) is a Delaware limited partnership. The general
partner is Calumet GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company. On January 31, 2006, the Partnership completed the
initial public offering of its common units. At that time,
substantially all of the assets or liabilities of Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and its subsidiaries
(Predecessor) were contributed to Calumet. References to the
Predecessor in these consolidated financial statements refer to
Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and its
subsidiaries. On July 5, 2006, the Partnership completed a
follow-on public offering of its common units. See Note 9
for further discussion of the units sold and proceeds from these
offerings. As of December 31, 2006, we have 16,366,000
common units, 13,066,000 subordinated units, and 600,653 general
partner equivalent units outstanding. The general partner owns
2% of Calumet while the remaining 98% is owned by limited
partners. Calumet is engaged in the production and marketing of
crude oil-based specialty lubricating oils, fuels, solvents and
waxes. Calumet owns refineries located in Princeton, Louisiana,
Cotton Valley, Louisiana, and Shreveport, Louisiana, and a
terminal located in Burnham, Illinois.
Effective October 25, 2004 in conjunction with financing
agreements entered into related to the Shreveport refinery fuels
reconfiguration as discussed in Note 3, Calumet Lubricants
Co., Limited Partnership (Predecessor) contributed the assets
and certain liabilities related to the Shreveport refinery to an
Indiana limited liability company, Calumet Shreveport, LLC
(Calumet Shreveport). The Predecessor is the sole member of
Calumet Shreveport. Calumet Shreveport, LLC then contributed the
assets and certain liabilities of the Shreveport Refinery to two
Indiana limited liability companies, Calumet Shreveport Fuels,
LLC (Fuels) and Calumet Shreveport Lubricants & Waxes,
LLC (Lubricants & Waxes). The sole member of both Fuels
and Lubricants & Waxes is Calumet Shreveport.
|
|
2.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements of Calumet include the
accounts of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and its
wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership, Calumet Sales Company Incorporated and
Calumet Shreveport. Calumet Shreveports wholly-owned
operating subsidiaries are Fuels and Lubricants &
Waxes. All intercompany transactions and accounts have been
eliminated. Hereafter, the consolidated companies are referred
to as the Company. Certain reclassifications have been made to
prior years to conform to current year presentation of the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
Use of
Estimates
The Companys financial statements are prepared in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles which require management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents includes all highly liquid investments
with a maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase.
71
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Inventories
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method. Costs include crude oil and other
feedstocks, labor, processing costs and refining overhead costs.
Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market value.
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
26,791
|
|
|
$
|
28,299
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
30,130
|
|
|
|
29,737
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
54,064
|
|
|
|
50,395
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
110,985
|
|
|
$
|
108,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $46,711 and $47,763 higher at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. During the years
ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, the Company recorded
$2,127 and $5,168, respectively, of income in the consolidated
statements of operations due to the liquidation of a portion of
its LIFO inventory.
Accounts
Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. Receivables are generally due within
30 days for our specialty products segment and 10 days
for our fuel products segment. The Company maintains an
allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses in the
collection of accounts receivable. The Company makes estimates
regarding the future ability of its customers to make required
payments based on historical credit experience and expected
future trends. The activity in the allowance for doubtful
accounts was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
|
$
|
456
|
|
|
$
|
240
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
216
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(140
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
|
$
|
456
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid
Expenses
Prepaid expenses as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 include
payments made to crude oil suppliers of $0 and $8,271,
respectively, to prepay for certain of the Companys future
crude oil purchases.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are stated on the basis of cost.
Depreciation is calculated generally on composite groups, using
the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the
respective groups.
72
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
1,047
|
|
|
$
|
973
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to
40 years)
|
|
|
1,811
|
|
|
|
1,602
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to
20 years)
|
|
|
167,195
|
|
|
|
162,651
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to
10 years)
|
|
|
1,198
|
|
|
|
2,235
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
68,519
|
|
|
|
3,878
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
239,770
|
|
|
|
171,339
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(48,038
|
)
|
|
|
(43,493
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
191,732
|
|
|
$
|
127,846
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the composite depreciation method, the cost of partial
retirements of a group is charged to accumulated depreciation.
However, when there are dispositions of complete groups or
significant portions of groups, the cost and related accumulated
depreciation are retired, and any gain or loss is reflected in
earnings.
During the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004,
the Company incurred $10,998, $23,154, and $10,171,
respectively, of interest expense of which $1,968, $193, and
$302, respectively, was capitalized as a component of property,
plant and equipment.
Turnaround
Costs
The Company accounts for periodic major maintenance and repairs
(turnaround costs) applicable to its refining facilities using
the
accrue-in-advance
method. Normal maintenance and repairs of all other property,
plant and equipment are charged to cost of sales as incurred.
Renewals, betterments and major repairs that materially extend
the life of the properties are capitalized. Effective
January 1, 2007, the Company will adopt a new method of
accounting for turnaround costs in accordance with FASB Staff
Position No. AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major
Maintenance Activities, as discussed in New Accounting
Pronouncements. Turnaround activity was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
2,679
|
|
|
$
|
2,098
|
|
|
$
|
1,852
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
4,963
|
|
|
|
3,939
|
|
|
|
2,129
|
|
Usage
|
|
|
(2,537
|
)
|
|
|
(3,358
|
)
|
|
|
(1,883
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
5,105
|
|
|
$
|
2,679
|
|
|
$
|
2,098
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment
of Long-Lived Assets
The Company periodically evaluates the carrying value of
long-lived assets to be held and used, including definite-lived
intangible assets, when events or circumstances warrant such a
review. The carrying value of a long-lived asset to be held and
used is considered impaired when the anticipated separately
identifiable undiscounted cash flows from such an asset are less
than the carrying value of the asset. In that event, a
write-down of the asset would be recorded through a charge to
operations, based on the amount by which the carrying value
exceeds the fair market value of the long-lived asset. Fair
market value is determined primarily using the anticipated cash
flows
73
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
discounted at a rate commensurate with the risk involved.
Long-lived assets to be disposed of other than by sale are
considered held and used until disposal.
Revenue
Recognition
The Company recognizes revenue on orders received from its
customers when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement
with the customer that is supportive of revenue recognition, the
customer has made a fixed commitment to purchase the product for
a fixed or determinable sales price, collection is reasonably
assured under the Companys normal billing and credit
terms, all of the Companys obligations related to product
have been fulfilled and ownership and all risks of loss have
been transferred to the buyer, which is upon shipment to the
customer.
Income
Taxes
The Company, as a partnership, is not liable for income taxes on
the earnings of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and
its wholly-owned subsidiaries Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership and Calumet Shreveport. However, Calumet Sales
Company Incorporated, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
is a corporation and as a result, is liable for income taxes on
its earnings. Income taxes on the earnings of the Company, with
the exception of Calumet Sales Company Incorporated, are the
responsibility of the partners, with earnings of the Company
included in partners earnings.
Net income for financial statement purposes may differ
significantly from taxable income reportable to unitholders as a
result of differences between the tax bases and financial
reporting bases of assets and liabilities and the taxable income
allocation requirements under the partnership agreement.
Individual unitholders have different investment bases depending
upon the timing and price of acquisition of their partnership
units. Furthermore, each unitholders tax accounting, which
is partially dependent upon the unitholders tax position,
differs from the accounting followed in the consolidated
financial statements. Accordingly, the aggregate difference in
the basis of net assets for financial and tax reporting purposes
cannot be readily determined because information regarding each
unitholders tax attributes in the partnership is not
readily available.
Derivatives
The Company utilizes derivative instruments to minimize its
price risk and volatility of cash flows associated with the
purchase of crude oil and natural gas, the sale of fuel products
and interest payments. In accordance with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, which was amended
in June 2000 by SFAS No. 138 and in May 2003 by
SFAS No. 149 (collectively referred to as
SFAS 133), the Company recognizes all
derivative transactions as either assets or liabilities at fair
value on the balance sheet. To the extent a derivative
instrument is designated effective as a cash flow hedge of an
exposure to changes in the fair value of a future transaction,
the change in fair value of the derivative is deferred in
accumulated other comprehensive income, a component of
partners capital. The Company accounts for certain
derivatives hedging purchases of crude oil and natural gas, the
sale of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel and the payment of
interest as cash flow hedges. The derivatives hedging purchases
and sales are recorded to cost of sales and sales in the
consolidated statements of operations, respectively, upon
recording the related hedged transaction in sales or cost of
sales. The derivatives hedging payments of interest are recorded
in interest expense in the consolidated statements of
operations. For the year ended December 31, 2006, the
Company has recorded a derivative gain of $6 to sales and a
derivative loss of $11,070 to cost of sales. An interest rate
swap loss of $7 for the year ended December 31, 2006 was
recorded to interest expense. For derivative instruments not
designated as cash flow hedges and the portion of any cash flow
hedge that is determined to be ineffective, the change in fair
value of the asset or liability for the period is recorded to
unrealized gain or loss on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations. The Company does not
account for fuel products margin swap or collar contracts
(crack spread swaps or collars) as cash flow hedges.
As of December 31, 2006, the Company has no such derivative
contracts
74
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
outstanding. Upon the settlement of a derivative not designated
as a cash flow hedge, the gain or loss at settlement is recorded
to realized gain or loss on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
During 2004 and through November 30, 2005, none of our
outstanding derivative transactions were designated as hedges.
At December 31, 2005, certain derivatives hedging natural
gas and crude oil purchases for our specialty products segment
were designated as cash flow hedges. Effective April 1,
2006, the Company restructured and designated certain derivative
contracts for its fuel products segment as cash flow hedges of
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel sales and crude oil purchases to
the extent they qualify for hedge accounting, and the effective
portion of these hedges is recorded in accumulated other
comprehensive income on the consolidated balance sheets until
the underlying transaction hedged is recognized in the
consolidated statements of operations. Prior to this date, the
historical impact of fair value fluctuations in our gasoline,
diesel and crude oil derivative instruments for the fuel
products segment had been reflected in the realized/unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments line items in our
consolidated statements of operations. The Company utilizes
third party valuations and published market data to determine
the fair value of these derivatives.
The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an
on-going basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging
transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash
flows of hedged items. The Companys estimate of the
ineffective portion of the hedges for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005, was a gain of $4,071 and $0,
respectively, which was recorded to unrealized (loss) gain on
derivative instruments. The effective portion of the hedges
classified in accumulated other comprehensive income is $52,251
and, absent a change in the fair market value of the underlying
transactions, will be reclassified to earnings by
December 31, 2012 with balances being recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
13,803
|
|
2008
|
|
|
15,321
|
|
2009
|
|
|
12,618
|
|
2010
|
|
|
10,702
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
52,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance with our counterparties on these derivative
transactions. The Company does not expect nonperformance on any
derivative contract.
Equity
Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates
Bareco Products (Bareco) was a South Carolina general
partnership which marketed finished wax products. The
Predecessor acquired a 50% interest in Bareco during 2000. The
Predecessor accounted for this investment under the equity
method of accounting. Therefore, the Predecessors share of
income and loss generated by Bareco is reflected as equity in
income (loss) of unconsolidated affiliates in the consolidated
statements of operations. As further discussed in Note 4,
during December 2003 the Company and its joint venture partner
entered into an agreement to dissolve the Bareco Products
partnership.
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets at December 31, 2006 and 2005
include $2,112 and $5,565, respectively, of deferred debt
issuance costs, which are being amortized on a straight-line
basis over the life of the related debt instruments. These
amounts are net of accumulated amortization of $562 and $76 at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
75
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Other noncurrent assets also include $566 and $1,021 at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, of intangible
assets, net of accumulated amortization, purchased to facilitate
the sales of horticultural spray oil products. These intangible
assets are being amortized on a straight-line basis, over an
estimated useful life of five years. Accumulated amortization on
these intangible assets was $1,710 and $1,255 at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Annual
amortization for 2007 and 2008 will be $455 and $111,
respectively.
Earnings
per Unit
The Partnership calculates earnings per unit in accordance with
SFAS 128, Earnings Per Share, as interpreted by
Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 03-06,
Participating Securities and the Two
Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128. Under this
approach, common and subordinated limited units represent
separate classes of limited partner units that require two-class
presentation under SFAS No. 128. Therefore, the
Partnership calculates basic and diluted earnings per unit on a
discrete quarterly basis assuming the minimum quarterly
distribution, prorated if necessary, is paid on all common units
outstanding and that all undistributed earnings or losses in the
period are fully allocated to limited partner units and the
general partner based on their contractual participation rights
as if all of the earnings or losses for the period had been
distributed.
Shipping
and Handling Costs
The Company adheres to Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF)
00-10,
Accounting for Shipping and Handling Fees and Costs. This
EITF requires the classification of shipping and handling costs
billed to customers in sales and the classification of shipping
and handling costs incurred in cost of sales, or if classified
elsewhere to be disclosed. The Company has reflected $56,922,
$46,849 and $33,923 for the years ended December 31, 2006,
2005, and 2004, respectively, in transportation expense in the
consolidated statements of operations, of which a significant
portion is billed to customers.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109. The Interpretation clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes by prescribing a recognition
threshold and measurement methodology for the financial
statement recognition and measurement of a tax position to be
taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The
Interpretation is effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2006. This Interpretation will not have a
material effect on the financial position, results of operations
or cash flows of the Company when adopted on January 1,
2007.
On December 16, 2004, the FASB issued Statement
No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, which is a
revision of FASB Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock
Based Compensation. Statement 123(R) supersedes APB Opinion
No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and
amends FASB Statement No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows.
Generally, the approach in Statement 123(R) is similar to the
approach described in Statement 123. However,
Statement 123(R) requires all share-based payments to
employees, including grants of employee stock options, to be
recognized in the income statement based on their fair values.
Pro forma disclosure is no longer an alternative.
Statement 123(R) is effective for fiscal years beginning
after July 1, 2005. The Company adopted
Statement 123(R) using the modified prospective
method in which compensation cost is recognized beginning with
the effective date based on the requirements of
Statement 123(R) for all share-based payments granted after
the effective date and based on the requirements of
Statement 123 for all awards granted to employees prior to
the effective date of Statement 123(R) that remain unvested
on the effective date. The total impact of adoption of
Statement 123(R) was not material.
76
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Staff Position No. AUG AIR-1,
Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities,
which amends certain provisions in the AICPA Industry Audit
Guides, Audits of Airlines, and APB Opinion No. 28,
Interim Financial Reporting (the Position).
The Position prohibits the use of the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities,
or turnarounds, and requires the use of the direct expensing
method, built-in overhaul method, or deferral method. The
Position is effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2006.
Effective January 1, 2007, the Company will adopt the
Position and elect the deferral method. Under this method,
actual costs of an overhaul are capitalized and amortized to
cost of sales until the next overhaul date. Prior to the
adoption of this standard, the Company accrued for such overhaul
costs in advance of the turnaround and recorded the expense to
cost of sales. The adoption of the position would have resulted
in a decrease in turnaround costs, a component of cost of sales,
of $1,696, $1,598 and $(689) for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Furthermore, the adoption will result in the capitalization of
turnaround costs of $1,478 and $2,234 as of December 31,
2006 and 2005, respectively, as compared to turnaround
liabilities previously recorded of $5,105 and 2,679,
respectively, for the same dates.
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (the Statement). The Statement
applies to assets and liabilities required or permitted to be
measured at fair value under other accounting pronouncements.
The Statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value, and expands disclosure requirements about
fair value, but does not provide guidance whether assets and
liabilities are required or permitted to be measured at fair
value. The Statement is effective for fiscal years beginning
after November 15, 2007. The Company does not anticipate
that this Statement will have a material effect on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
|
|
3.
|
Shreveport
Refinery Expansion and Reconfiguration
|
The Company commenced purchasing equipment for an expansion
project at its Shreveport refinery during the second quarter of
2006. As of December 31, 2006, the Company had capital
expenditures of $65,492 (including $1,684 of capitalized
interest) related to this expansion project, which is recorded
to
construction-in-progress,
a component of property, plant and equipment, of which
approximately $13,000 relates assets and services yet to be
received. In December 2006, the Company received an air permit
from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and
commenced construction. Management has estimated that the
Company will incur approximately $84,500 of additional capital
expenditures in 2007 related to the expansion project. The
expansion project is expected to be completed in the third
quarter of 2007. Management currently estimates the total cost
of the Shreveport refinery expansion project will be
approximately $150,000.
During 2004, the Company substantially completed the
reconfiguration of the Shreveport refinery to add motor fuels
production, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, as well as
to increase overall feedstock throughput. The Shreveport
refinery fuels reconfiguration was fully operational and met its
completion requirements as of February 28, 2005, as
required by the Companys loan agreements then in effect.
The capital project, of which $39,663 was expended in total,
included the recommissioning of several existing idled fuel
production units. As discussed in Note 1, the Company
formed legal entities to hold the assets and liabilities related
to the Shreveport refinery. In conjunction with the
reconfiguration, Calumet Shreveport, Fuels and
Lubricants & Waxes entered into standalone financing
arrangements during 2004, including a term loan agreement and a
revolving loan agreement to fund capital expenditures and
additional working capital requirements related to the
reconfiguration. These financing arrangements were repaid on
December 9, 2005 as described in Note 6.
77
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
4.
|
Restructuring,
Decommissioning and Asset Impairments
|
Rouseville
In connection with the Companys decision to exit its
multigrade wax processing facility located in Rouseville,
Pennsylvania (Rouseville), in 2003 the Company began
implementation of a plan to demolish the Rouseville facility
assets. The demolition was completed during 2004. The facility
assets included operating units, equipment, tankage and real
property. As a result of the decision to demolish the Rouseville
facility assets, the Company recorded a facility asset
impairment charge in 2003 for the full amount of the carrying
value of the assets as of the decision date to demolish the
assets. In 2004, the Company incurred additional charges
totaling $317 primarily related to the completion of the
Rouseville asset decommissioning.
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations, the Company recorded an asset retirement
obligation during 2003 for obligations associated with the
retirement of fixed assets at its Rouseville wax processing
facility as of its decision date to demolish the facility, as
discussed above. This obligation consisted primarily of
remaining asbestos abatement costs as well as other costs, which
were substantially completed by the end of 2004. The net book
value of the Rouseville operation was not included within the
net assets contributed to Calumet by its Predecessor as a part
of the initial public offering, and therefore are not included
within its results of operations subsequent to January 31,
2006.
A rollforward of the Companys asset retirement obligation
for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Balance January 1, 2004
|
|
$
|
1,376
|
|
2004 Rouseville asset retirement
obligation provision
|
|
|
|
|
2004 Interest cost accretion
|
|
|
35
|
|
2004 Payments
|
|
|
(1,311
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2004
|
|
|
100
|
|
2005 Payments
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2005
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bareco
Products
During December 2003, the Company entered into an agreement with
its joint venture partner to dissolve the Bareco Products
partnership and for each partner to pursue its own wax marketing
interests. Per the terms of the agreement, all significant
business activities undertaken by the partnership ended as of
December 31, 2003. The affairs of Bareco Products were
wound down during 2004, and legal dissolution of the partnership
was completed during 2005.
In 2004, the Company incurred costs in excess of amounts
estimated in 2003 related to the liquidation of the partnership.
These costs of $427 are reflected in equity in (loss) income of
unconsolidated affiliates in the consolidated statements of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2004.
Reno
In June 2005, the Company began the process of closing its wax
packaging facility in Reno, Pennsylvania (Reno) including the
termination of employees and the commencement of decommissioning
activities. The Company recognized $509 of decommissioning
expense associated with these activities in the year ended
December 31, 2005. Given these circumstances, the Company
evaluated the carrying amount of long-lived assets at Reno in
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 144, Accounting for Impairment or Disposal of
Long-lived Assets (SFAS 144). The Company concluded
that the carrying value of these assets was impaired. Thus, an
impairment charge of $1,718 has been recorded in restructuring,
decommissioning and asset
78
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
impairments in the consolidated statements of operations for the
year ended December 31, 2005 in order to write-down the
carrying value of the assets to estimated fair value. This
facility has historically been included in the specialty
products segment and served to package multigrade waxes. The net
book value of the Reno operation was not included within the net
assets contributed to Calumet by its Predecessor as a part of
the initial public offering, and therefore are not included
within its results of operations subsequent to January 31,
2006.
|
|
5.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Leases
The Company has various operating leases for the use of land,
storage tanks, compressor stations, rail cars, equipment,
precious metals, operating unit catalyst and office facilities
that extend through August 2015. Renewal options are available
on certain of these leases in which the Company is the lessee.
Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005,
and 2004 was $10,894, $8,389 and $7,415, respectively.
As of December 31, 2006, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under leases which, at
inception, had a noncancelable term of more than one year, as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
8,837
|
|
2008
|
|
|
5,927
|
|
2009
|
|
|
5,257
|
|
2010
|
|
|
4,664
|
|
2011
|
|
|
3,278
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
6,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
34,407
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective March 1, 2005, the Company entered into a crude
purchase contract with a supplier that contains minimum annual
purchase requirements. To the extent the Company does not meet
this requirement, it would be required to pay $0.25 per
barrel on the difference between the minimum purchase
requirement and the actual purchases. Since inception of the
contract, the Company has taken delivery of all minimum
requirements. As of December 31, 2006, the estimated
minimum purchase requirements under this contract and other
crude purchase contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
263,317
|
|
2008
|
|
|
37,985
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
301,302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to certain claims and
litigation incidental to its business. Management is of the
opinion that the ultimate resolution of any known claims, either
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material
adverse impact on the Companys financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.
79
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Environmental
The Company operates crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon
refining and terminal operations, which are subject to stringent
and complex federal, state, and local laws and regulations
governing the discharge of materials into the environment or
otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and
regulations can impair the Companys operations that affect
the environment in many ways, such as requiring the acquisition
of permits to conduct regulated activities; restricting the
manner in which the Company can release materials into the
environment; requiring remedial activities or capital
expenditures to mitigate pollution from former or current
operations; and imposing substantial liabilities for pollution
resulting from its operations. Certain environmental laws impose
joint and several, strict liability for costs required to
remediate and restore sites where petroleum hydrocarbons,
wastes, or other materials have been released or disposed.
Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may
result in the triggering of administrative, civil and criminal
measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the
imposition of remedial obligations, and the issuance of
injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of the
Companys operations. On occasion, the Company receives
notices of violation, enforcement and other complaints from
regulatory agencies alleging non-compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations. In particular, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has
proposed penalties totaling $191 and supplemental projects for
the following alleged violations: (i) a May 2001
notification received by the Cotton Valley refinery from the
LDEQ regarding several alleged violations of various air
emission regulations, as identified in the course of the
Companys Leak Detection and Repair program, and also for
failure to submit various reports related to the facilitys
air emissions; (ii) a December 2002 notification received
by the Companys Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ
regarding alleged violations for excess emissions, as identified
in the LDEQs file review of the Cotton Valley refinery;
and (iii) a December 2004 notification received by the
Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding alleged
violations for the construction of a multi-tower pad and
associated pump pads without a permit issued by the agency. The
Company is currently in settlement negotiations with the LDEQ to
resolve these matters, as well as a number of similar matters at
the Princeton refinery, for which no penalty has yet been
proposed. We anticipate that any penalties that may be assessed
due to the alleged violations at our Princeton refinery will be
consolidated in a settlement agreement that we anticipate
executing with the LDEQ in connection with the agencys
Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery Initiative
described below.
The Company has recently entered into discussions on a voluntary
basis with the LDEQ regarding the Companys participation
in that agencys Small Refinery and Single Site
Refinery Initiative. This state initiative is patterned
after the EPAs National Petroleum Refinery
Initiative, which is a coordinated, integrated compliance
and enforcement strategy to address federal Clean Air Act
compliance issues at the nations largest petroleum
refineries. The Company expects that the LDEQs primary
focus under the state initiative will be on four compliance and
enforcement concerns: (i) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration/New Source Review; (ii) New Source
Performance Standards for fuel gas combustion devices, including
flares, heaters and boilers; (iii) Leak Detection and
Repair requirements; and (iv) Benzene Waste Operations
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The
Company is only in the beginning stages of discussion with the
LDEQ and, consequently, while no significant compliance and
enforcement expenditures have been requested as a result of the
Companys discussions, the Company anticipates that it will
ultimately be required to make emissions reductions requiring
capital investments between approximately $1,000 and $3,000 over
a three to five year period at the Companys three
Louisiana refineries.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of our refinery sites. The remedial projects are being
overseen by the appropriate state agencies. Based on current
investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled
or remedied without having a material adverse effect on our
financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable
and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs
will not become material.
80
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Company is indemnified by Shell Oil Company, as successor to
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Atlas Processing Company, for
specified environmental liabilities arising from the operations
of the Shreveport refinery prior to the Companys
acquisition of the facility. The indemnity is unlimited in
amount and duration, but requires the Company to contribute up
to $1,000 of the first $5,000 of indemnified costs for certain
of the specified environmental liabilities.
On December 27, 2006, the LDEQ approved the Companys
application for a modification of its air emissions permit for
the Shreveport refinery expansion. The Company was required to
obtain approval of this modified air emissions permit from the
LDEQ prior to commencing construction of the expansion
activities. Upon receipt of the permit approval from the LDEQ,
the Company commenced construction of the Shreveport refinery
expansion project. On February 22, 2007, the Company
received notice that on February 13, 2007 an individual
filed, on behalf of the Residents for Air
Neutralization, a Petition for Review in the 19th Judicial
District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, asking
the Court to review the approval granted by the LDEQ for the
Companys application for a modified air emissions permit.
The Petition alleges the information in the final LDEQ decision
report was inaccurate and that, based on the LDEQs
decision to grant the modified air emissions permit, the LDEQ
had not reviewed the evidence put before them properly. There is
a question, unresolved at this time, concerning whether the
Petition was timely filed. If it was timely filed, the LDEQ will
have sixty days after service of the Petition to file the record
of its proceedings with the district court. The Company believes
that the LDEQ will be successful in defending its approval of
the Companys application for a modified air emissions
permit. The Company is not named at this time as a party to the
Petition.
Standby
Letters of Credit
The Company has agreements with various financial institutions
for standby letters of credit which have been issued to domestic
vendors. As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, the Company had
outstanding standby letters of credit of $42,775 and $37,746,
respectively, under its senior secured revolving credit
facility. As discussed in Note 6 below, as of
December 31, 2006 the Company also had a $50,000 letter of
credit outstanding under the senior secured first lien letter of
credit facility for its fuels hedging program, which bears
interest at 3.50%.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured
revolving credit agreement with third-party lenders, interest at
prime (8.25% and 7.25% at December 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively), interest payments monthly, borrowings due
December 2010
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
92,985
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured
first lien term loan with third-party lenders, interest at rate
of three-month LIBOR plus 3.50% (8.85% and 7.99% at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively), interest and
principal payments quarterly with borrowings due December 2012
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
175,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
267,985
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less current portion of long-term
debt
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
49,000
|
|
|
$
|
267,485
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On December 9, 2005, the Company paid off its existing
indebtedness by entering into a $225,000 senior secured
revolving credit facility due December 2010 and a $225,000
senior secured first lien credit facility consisting of a
$175,000 term loan facility and a $50,000 letter of credit
facility to support its fuels hedging program
81
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
due December 2012. These facilities contain financial covenants
including a fixed charge coverage ratio and a consolidated
leverage ratio. The revolving credit facility borrowings are
limited by advance rates of percentages of eligible accounts
receivable and inventory (the borrowing base) as defined by the
revolving credit agreement. All guarantees and pledges of assets
under the indebtedness repaid on December 9, 2005 were
released upon its repayment with the borrowings under our
current agreements.
The maximum borrowing capacity at December 31, 2006 was
$178,757, with $135,981 available for additional borrowings
based on collateral and specified availability limitations. The
term loan facility borrowings are secured by a first lien on the
property, plant and equipment of the Company and its
subsidiaries. The net proceeds of our initial public offering
(see Note 9) were used to repay indebtedness and
accrued interest under the first lien term loan facility in the
amount of approximately $125,700 and repay indebtedness under
the secured revolving credit facility in the amount of
approximately $13,100. After this repayment, the term loan
requires quarterly principal payments of
$125 through December 2011 and quarterly principal payments of
approximately $11,800 thereafter until maturing in December
2012. The Company is in compliance with all covenants and
restrictions defined in these credit agreements.
As of December 31, 2006, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
500
|
|
2008
|
|
|
500
|
|
2009
|
|
|
500
|
|
2010
|
|
|
500
|
|
2011
|
|
|
500
|
|
2012
|
|
$
|
47,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has the following derivative instruments outstanding
as of December 31, 2006 and 2005.
Crude
Oil Collar Contracts
The Company utilizes combinations of options to manage crude oil
price risk and volatility of cash flows in its specialty
products segment. These combinations of options are designated
as cash flow hedges of the future purchase of crude oil. The
Companys policy is generally to enter into crude oil
derivative contracts for a period no greater than three to six
months forward and for 50% to 75% of anticipated crude oil
purchases related to our specialty products production. At
December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
48.66
|
|
|
$
|
58.66
|
|
|
$
|
68.66
|
|
|
$
|
78.66
|
|
February 2007
|
|
|
224,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
49.28
|
|
|
|
59.28
|
|
|
|
69.28
|
|
|
|
79.28
|
|
March 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
50.85
|
|
|
|
60.85
|
|
|
|
70.85
|
|
|
|
80.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
720,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.61
|
|
|
$
|
59.61
|
|
|
$
|
69.61
|
|
|
$
|
79.61
|
|
82
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
At December 31, 2005, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2006
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
46.02
|
|
|
$
|
55.57
|
|
|
$
|
65.57
|
|
|
$
|
75.57
|
|
February 2006
|
|
|
224,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
46.13
|
|
|
|
55.71
|
|
|
|
65.71
|
|
|
|
75.71
|
|
March 2006
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
45.64
|
|
|
|
55.41
|
|
|
|
65.41
|
|
|
|
75.41
|
|
April 2006
|
|
|
240,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
45.85
|
|
|
|
55.58
|
|
|
|
65.58
|
|
|
|
75.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
960,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
45.90
|
|
|
$
|
55.56
|
|
|
$
|
65.56
|
|
|
$
|
75.56
|
|
Crude
Oil Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage crude oil price
risk and volatility of cash flows in its fuel products segment.
The Companys policy is generally to enter into crude oil
swap contracts for a period no greater than five years forward
and for no more than 75% of crude purchases used in fuels
production. At December 31, 2006, the Company had the
following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,710,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
65.14
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,728,000
|
|
|
|
18,989
|
|
|
|
64.68
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
8,143,000
|
|
|
|
22,249
|
|
|
|
67.37
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
7,482,500
|
|
|
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
66.04
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
5,840,000
|
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
67.40
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
363,500
|
|
|
|
996
|
|
|
|
65.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
28,751,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
66.49
|
|
Fuels
Product Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage diesel, gasoline
and jet fuel price risk and volatility of cash flows in its fuel
products segment. The Companys policy is generally to
enter into diesel and gasoline swap contracts for a period no
greater than five years forward and for no more than 75% of
forecasted fuels sales.
Diesel
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges except
for 169,855 barrels in 2007. As a result of these barrels
not being designated as hedges, the Company recognized $1,314 of
gains in unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
83
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,080,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
81.10
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,092,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
80.74
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
4,941,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
82.18
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
4,562,500
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
80.50
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
3,650,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
80.52
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
748
|
|
|
|
76.52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
17,802,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.07
|
|
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
72.09
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
636,000
|
|
|
|
6,989
|
|
|
|
71.38
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
3,202,000
|
|
|
|
8,749
|
|
|
|
76.17
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
2,920,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
73.45
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,190,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
75.27
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
90,500
|
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
70.87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
10,948,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.30
|
|
Fuels
Product Margin (Crack Spread) Swap and Collar
Contracts
Additionally, as of December 31, 2005 the Company had
utilized combinations of options and forward swap contracts to
manage fuels product margin (crack spread) price risk and
volatility of cash flows. These contracts were not designated as
hedges under SFAS 133. For purposes of these swap
contracts, crack spread is defined as the difference between the
selling price of one barrel of refined product (gasoline or
diesel) less the price of one barrel of crude oil, with all
component pricing based on standard market indices as defined in
the contracts. The Company entered into various combinations of
these swap contracts to achieve an approximate 2/1/1 crack
spread ratio, which means two barrels of crude oil and one
barrel each of gasoline and diesel. At December 31, 2005,
the Company had the following derivative positions related its
fuel products segment. These derivatives have been restructured
as of April 1, 2006 as discussed above.
84
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crack Spread
|
|
Crack Spread Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2006
|
|
|
1,035,000
|
|
|
|
11,500
|
|
|
$
|
9.00
|
|
Second Quarter 2006
|
|
|
1,039,000
|
|
|
|
11,418
|
|
|
|
8.98
|
|
Third Quarter 2006
|
|
|
1,043,000
|
|
|
|
11,337
|
|
|
|
8.65
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2006
|
|
|
1,043,000
|
|
|
|
11,337
|
|
|
|
8.28
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,260,000
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
11.59
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,273,000
|
|
|
|
13,989
|
|
|
|
11.56
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,282,000
|
|
|
|
13,935
|
|
|
|
11.60
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,282,000
|
|
|
|
13,935
|
|
|
|
11.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
9,257,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
10.30
|
|
As of December 31, 2005, the Company had entered into fuels
product margin (crack spread) collar contracts with
counterparties whereby the Company purchased a crack spread put
option while simultaneously selling a crack spread call option.
These crack spread collar contracts required no net premium to
be paid by the Company to the counterparties as the premium for
the purchased crack spread put option is offset by the premium
for the sold crack spread call option. These contracts were not
designated as hedges under SFAS 133. The Company had no
fuels product margin collar contracts outstanding at
December 31, 2006.
Fuels product margin collar contracts consisted of the following
at December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Put Option
|
|
|
Call Option
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strike Price
|
|
|
Strike Price
|
|
Crack Spread Collar Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2006
|
|
|
675,000
|
|
|
|
7,500
|
|
|
$
|
7.29
|
|
|
$
|
9.62
|
|
Second Quarter 2006
|
|
|
680,000
|
|
|
|
7,473
|
|
|
|
7.82
|
|
|
|
10.15
|
|
Third Quarter 2006
|
|
|
685,000
|
|
|
|
7,446
|
|
|
|
7.59
|
|
|
|
9.59
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2006
|
|
|
685,000
|
|
|
|
7,446
|
|
|
|
6.30
|
|
|
|
8.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
2,725,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.25
|
|
|
$
|
9.41
|
|
Natural
Gas Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes forward swap contracts to manage natural
gas price risk and volatility of cash flows. These swap
contracts are designated as cash flow hedges of the future
purchase of natural gas. The Companys policy is generally
to enter into natural gas derivative contracts to hedge
approximately 50% or more of its upcoming fall and winter
months anticipated natural gas requirements. At
December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to natural gas purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMbtu
|
|
|
$/MMbtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.87
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.52
|
|
At December 31, 2005, the Company had the following
derivatives related to natural gas purchases.
85
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMbtu
|
|
|
$/MMbtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2006
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
9.84
|
|
Interest
Rate Swap Contracts
In 2006, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to its variable rate senior
secured first lien term loan. The Company hedges the interest
payments related to 85% of its future term loan indebtedness.
This swap contract is designated as a cash flow hedge of the
future payment of interest with LIBOR fixed at 5.44% per
annum.
|
|
8.
|
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
|
Our financial instruments, which require fair value disclosure,
consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, accounts
receivable, financial derivatives, accounts payable and
indebtedness. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents,
accounts receivable and accounts payable are considered to be
representative of their respective fair values, due to the short
maturity of these instruments. Derivative instruments are
reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
at fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 133. Based
upon borrowing rates available to the Company for long-term debt
with similar terms and the same remaining maturities, the fair
value of long-term debt approximates carrying value at
December 31, 2006 and 2005. In addition, based upon fees
charged for similar agreements, the face values of outstanding
standby letters of credit approximate their fair value at
December 31, 2006 and 2005.
On January 31, 2006, the Partnership completed the initial
public offering of its common units and sold 5,699,900 of those
units to the underwriters in the initial public offering at a
price to the public of $21.50 per common unit. The
Partnership also sold a total of 750,100 common units to certain
relatives of the chairman of our general partner at a price of
$19.995 per common unit. In addition, on February 8,
2006, the Partnership sold an additional 854,985 common units to
the underwriters at a price to the public of $21.50 per
common unit pursuant to the underwriters over-allotment
option. Each of these issuances was made pursuant to the
Partnerships Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2006. The proceeds received by the Partnership
(net of underwriting discounts and structuring fees and before
expenses) from the sale of an aggregate of 7,304,985 units
were approximately $144,400. The net proceeds were used to:
(i) repay indebtedness and accrued interest under the first
lien term loan facility in the amount of approximately $125,700,
(ii) repay indebtedness under the secured revolving credit
facility in the amount of approximately $13,100 and
(iii) pay transaction fees and expenses in the amount of
approximately $5,600. Underwriting discounts totaled
approximately $11,600 (including certain structuring fees paid
to certain of the underwriters of approximately $2,400).
On July 5, 2006, the Partnership completed a follow-on
public offering of its common units in which it sold 3,300,000
common units to the underwriters of the offering at a price to
the public of $32.94 per common unit. This issuance was
made pursuant to the Partnerships Registration Statement
on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-134993)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 28, 2006. The proceeds received by the Partnership
(net of underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses but
before its general partners capital contribution) from
this offering was $103,479. The use of proceeds from the
offering was to: (i) repay all of its borrowings under its
revolving credit facility, which were approximately $9,243 as of
June 30, 2006, (ii) fund the future construction and
other
start-up
costs of the planned expansion project at the Shreveport
refinery and (iii) to the extent available, for general
partnership purposes. Underwriting discounts totaled $4,620. The
general partner contributed $2,218 to retain its 2% general
partner interest.
86
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Of the 16,366,000 common units outstanding at December 31,
2006, 10,604,985 are held by the public, with the remaining
5,761,015 held by our affiliates. All of the 13,066,000
subordinated units are held by our affiliates.
Upon expiration of the subordination period, each outstanding
subordinated unit will convert into one common unit and will
then participate pro rata with the other common units in
distributions of available cash as defined in the Companys
partnership agreement. The subordination period will end on the
first day of any quarter beginning after December 31, 2010
in which we meet certain financial tests provided for in our
partnership agreement. Significant information regarding rights
of the limited partners include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Rights to received distributions of available cash within
45 days after the end of each quarter, to the extent the
Company has sufficient cash from operations after the
establishment of cash reserves.
|
|
|
|
Limited partners have limited voting rights on matters affecting
the Companys business. The general partner may consider
only the interest and factors that it desires, and has not duty
or obligation to give any consideration of any interest of, our
limited partners. Limited partners have no right to elect the
Companys board of directors or general partner.
|
|
|
|
The vote of the holders of at least
662/3%
of all outstanding units voting together as a single class is
required to remove the general partner. Any holder, other than
the general partner or the general partners affiliates,
that owns 20% or more of any class of units outstanding, cannot
vote on any matter.
|
|
|
|
During the subordination period, the general partner, without
approval of the limited partners, may cause the Company to issue
up to 3,233,000 of common units until the completion of the
Shreveport refinery expansion project. If, upon completion, this
project increases cash flow from operations per unit, the
general partner may cause the Company to issue up to 6,533,000
of additional common units. After the subordination period, we
may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests
without the approval of the limited partners.
|
|
|
|
Limited partners may be required to sell their units to the
general partner if at any time the general partner owns more
than 80% of the issued and outstanding common units.
|
Our general partner is entitled to incentive distributions if
the amount we distribute to unitholders with respect to any
quarter exceeds specified target levels shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage
|
|
|
|
Total Quarterly
|
|
Interest in
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
Distributions
|
|
|
|
Target Amount
|
|
Unitholders
|
|
|
General Partner
|
|
|
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
|
|
$0.45
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
First Target Distribution
|
|
up to $0.495
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Second Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.495 up to $0.563
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Third Target Distribution
|
|
above $0.563 up to $0.675
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Thereafter
|
|
above $0.675
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
The Predecessors policy was that distributions were
limited to the amount necessary to pay each partners
federal income tax and any state income tax on their share of
partnership income. However, additional distributions to the
partners could be made at the sole discretion of the general
partner. During the year ended December 31, 2005,
distributions of $7,300 were made to the Predecessor partners.
In January 2006, the Predecessor made its final distribution of
$6,900 to its partners. Subsequent to January 31, 2006,
Calumets distribution policy is as defined in its
Partnership Agreement. For the year ended December 31,
2006, Calumet made distributions of $38,286 to its partners.
87
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
10.
|
Unit-Based
Compensation
|
Our general partner adopted a Long-Term Incentive Plan (the
Plan) on January 24, 2006 for its employees,
consultants and directors and its affiliates who perform
services for us. The Plan provides for the grant of restricted
units, phantom units, unit options and substitute awards and,
with respect to unit options and phantom units, the grant of
distribution equivalent rights (DERs). Subject to
adjustment for certain events, an aggregate of 783,960 common
units may be delivered pursuant to awards under the Plan. Units
withheld to satisfy our general partners tax withholding
obligations are available for delivery pursuant to other awards.
The Plan is administered by the compensation committee of our
general partners board of directors.
On November 17, 2006, non-employee directors of our general
partner were granted phantom units under the terms of the Plan
as part of their director compensation package related to fiscal
year 2006. These phantom units have a four year service period,
beginning on January 1, with one quarter of the phantom
units vesting annually on each December 31 of the vesting
period. Although ownership of common units related to the
vesting of such phantom units does not transfer to the
recipients until the phantom units vest, the recipients have
DERs on these phantom units from the date of grant. The Company
uses the market price of its units on the grant date to
calculate the fair value and related compensation cost of the
units. The Company amortizes this compensation cost to
partners capital and selling, general and administrative
expense in the consolidated statements of operations using the
straight-line method over the four year vesting period, as we
expect these units to fully vest.
A summary of the Companys nonvested units as of
December 31, 2006, and the changes during the year ended
December 31, 2006, are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Nonvested Phantom Units
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested at January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
7,296
|
|
|
|
33.63
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(1,824
|
)
|
|
|
33.63
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
5,472
|
|
|
$
|
33.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2006, compensation expense
of $61 was recognized in the consolidated statements of
operations related to vested unit grants. As of
December 31, 2006, there was a total of $184 of
unrecognized compensation costs related to nonvested unit
grants. These costs are cost is expected to be recognized over a
weighted-average period of three years.
|
|
11.
|
Employee
Benefit Plan
|
The Company has a defined contribution plan administered by one
of its limited partners. All full-time employees who have
completed at least one hour of service are eligible to
participate in the plan. Participants are allowed to contribute
0% to 100% of their pre-tax earnings to the plan, subject to
government imposed limitations. The Company matches 100% of each
1% contribution by the participant up to 3% and 50% of each
additional 1% contribution up to 5% for a maximum contribution
by the Company of 4% per participant. The Companys
matching contribution was $1,109, $839, and $791 for the years
ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The
plan also includes a profit-sharing component. Contributions
under the profit-sharing component are determined by the Board
of Directors of the Companys general partner and are
discretionary. The Companys profit sharing contribution
was $870, $452, and $426 for the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
88
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
12.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
the Company had sales to related parties of $904, $209 and $9,
respectively. Trade accounts and other receivables from related
parties at December 31, 2006 and 2005 were $210 and $110,
respectively. The Company also had purchases from related
parties during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004 of $1,228, $1,114 and $864, respectively. Accounts payable
to related parties at December 31, 2006 and 2005 were $358
and $1,704, respectively.
Certain partners of the Predecessor had loaned the Predecessor
funds under long-term notes, which were repaid in the year ended
December 31, 2005, as discussed in Note 6. The
interest expense associated with the affiliated borrowings was
approximately $0, $9,659 and $8,940 for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
A limited partner provides certain administrative and accounting
services to the Company for an annual fee. Such services
include, but are not necessarily limited to, advice and
assistance concerning aspects of the operation, planning, and
human resources of the Company. Payments for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 were $549, $633 and $623,
respectively.
The Company participates in a self-insurance program for medical
benefits with a limited partner and several other related
companies. In connection with this program, contributions are
made to a voluntary employees benefit association (VEBA)
trust. Contributions made by the Company to the VEBA for the
years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 totaled
$3,093, $3,167 and $2,784, respectively.
The Company has placed a portion of its insurance underwriting
requirements, including general liability, automobile liability,
excess liability, workers compensation as well as
directors and officers liability with a commercial
insurance brokerage business. A member of the board of directors
of our general partner serves as an executive of this commercial
insurance brokerage company. The total premiums paid to this
company by Calumet for the years ended December 31, 2006
and 2005 were $1,647 and $784, respectively.
The Company participates in a self-insurance program for
workers compensation with a limited partner and several
other related companies. In connection with this program,
contributions are made to the limited partner. Contributions
made by the Company to the limited partner for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 totaled $213, $294 and
$327, respectively.
The Company participates in a self-insurance program for general
liability with a limited partner and several related companies.
In connection with this program, contributions are made to the
limited partner. Contributions made by the Company to the
limited partner for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005
and 2004 totaled $563, $590 and $337, respectively.
|
|
13.
|
Segments
and Related Information
|
a.
Segment Reporting
Under the provisions of SFAS No. 131, Disclosures
about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information, the
Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Products and Fuel
Products. The Specialty Products segment produces a variety of
lubricating oils, solvents and waxes. These products are sold to
customers who purchase these products primarily as raw material
components for basic automotive, industrial and consumer goods.
The Fuel Products segment produces a variety of fuel and
fuel-related products including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
89
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those
described in the summary of significant accounting policies
except that the Company evaluates segment performance based on
income from operations. The Company accounts for intersegment
sales and transfers at cost plus a specified
mark-up.
Reportable segment information is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2006 (Calumet)
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
913,143
|
|
|
$
|
727,905
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
653,842
|
|
|
|
34,135
|
|
|
|
687,977
|
|
|
|
(687,977
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,566,985
|
|
|
$
|
762,040
|
|
|
$
|
2,329,025
|
|
|
$
|
(687,977
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
11,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,760
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
81,830
|
|
|
|
39,607
|
|
|
|
121,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121,437
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,030
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,951
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,967
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivative
instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,045
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(274
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(190
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
76,064
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
76,064
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
76,064
|
|
90
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2005 (Predecessor)
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
703,214
|
|
|
$
|
585,858
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
552,563
|
|
|
|
15,020
|
|
|
|
567,583
|
|
|
|
(567,583
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,255,777
|
|
|
$
|
600,878
|
|
|
$
|
1,856,655
|
|
|
$
|
(567,583
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,386
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
4,430
|
|
|
|
61,255
|
|
|
|
65,685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,685
|
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,961
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
Debt extinguishment costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,882
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivative
instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,756
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
12,963
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,963
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,963
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 (Predecessor)
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Segments
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External customers
|
|
$
|
530,009
|
|
|
$
|
9,607
|
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
Intersegment sales
|
|
|
15,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,651
|
|
|
|
(15,651
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
545,660
|
|
|
$
|
9,607
|
|
|
$
|
555,267
|
|
|
$
|
(15,651
|
)
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
6,927
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,927
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,927
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
(9,406
|
)
|
|
|
(2,783
|
)
|
|
|
(12,189
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,189
|
)
|
Reconciling items to net income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in (loss) income of
unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(427
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Gain (loss) on derivative
instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,372
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,970
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
43,033
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
43,033
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
43,033
|
|
91
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Segment assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specialty products
|
|
$
|
972,377
|
|
|
$
|
606,023
|
|
|
$
|
315,336
|
|
Fuel products
|
|
|
681,677
|
|
|
|
375,153
|
|
|
|
69,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined segments
|
|
|
1,654,054
|
|
|
|
981,176
|
|
|
|
384,736
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
(1,123,880
|
)
|
|
|
(581,459
|
)
|
|
|
(66,530
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
530,174
|
|
|
$
|
399,717
|
|
|
$
|
318,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.
Geographic Information
International sales accounted for less than 10% of consolidated
sales in each of the three years ended December 31, 2006,
2005 and 2004.
c.
Product Information
The Company offers products primarily in four general categories
consisting of fuels, lubricants, waxes and solvents. Other
includes asphalt and other by-products. The following table sets
forth the major product category sales (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Fuels
|
|
$
|
761,469
|
|
|
$
|
619,842
|
|
|
$
|
82,288
|
|
Lubricants
|
|
|
509,933
|
|
|
|
394,363
|
|
|
|
251,880
|
|
Solvents
|
|
|
201,931
|
|
|
|
144,967
|
|
|
|
114,694
|
|
Waxes
|
|
|
61,192
|
|
|
|
43,638
|
|
|
|
39,526
|
|
Other
|
|
|
106,523
|
|
|
|
86,262
|
|
|
|
51,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
|
$
|
539,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d.
Major Customers
No customer represented 10% or greater of consolidated sales in
each of the three years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004.
92
CALUMET
SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, L.P.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
14.
|
Quarterly
Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Total(1)
|
|
|
2006 (Calumet)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
397,694
|
|
|
$
|
429,925
|
|
|
$
|
444,747
|
|
|
$
|
368,681
|
|
|
$
|
1,641,048
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
50,950
|
|
|
|
58,075
|
|
|
|
51,146
|
|
|
|
43,071
|
|
|
|
203,244
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
31,085
|
|
|
|
37,200
|
|
|
|
29,122
|
|
|
|
24,032
|
|
|
|
121,437
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
3,532
|
|
|
|
23,155
|
|
|
|
35,673
|
|
|
|
31,522
|
|
|
|
93,882
|
|
Basic and diluted net income per
limited partner unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
|
$
|
0.75
|
|
|
$
|
0.92
|
|
|
$
|
0.84
|
|
|
$
|
2.81
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
$
|
(0.36
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.75
|
|
|
$
|
0.91
|
|
|
$
|
0.84
|
|
|
$
|
2.14
|
|
Weighted average limited partner
common units outstanding basic and diluted
|
|
|
12,950,070
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
16,186,652
|
|
|
|
16,366,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average limited partner
subordinated units outstanding basic and diluted
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
13,066,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
(Predecessor)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
229,549
|
|
|
$
|
301,562
|
|
|
$
|
363,870
|
|
|
$
|
394,091
|
|
|
$
|
1,289,072
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
26,117
|
|
|
|
30,536
|
|
|
|
38,754
|
|
|
|
44,950
|
|
|
|
140,357
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
10,745
|
|
|
|
13,539
|
|
|
|
20,767
|
|
|
|
20,634
|
|
|
|
65,685
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(128
|
)
|
|
|
18,717
|
|
|
|
(39,406
|
)
|
|
|
32,145
|
|
|
|
11,328
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The sum of the four quarters may not equal the total year due to
rounding. |
On January 5, 2007, the Company declared a quarterly cash
distribution of $0.60 per unit on all outstanding units, or
$18,673, for the quarter ended December 31, 2006. The
distribution was paid on February 14, 2007 to unitholders
of record as of the close of business on February 4, 2007.
This quarterly distribution of $0.60 per unit equates to
$2.40 per unit, or $74,691, on an annualized basis.
93
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Members of
Calumet GP, LLC
We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Calumet GP,
LLC as of December 31, 2006. This financial statement is
the responsibility of Calumet GP, LLCs management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement based on our audit.
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. We were not engaged to perform an
audit of Calumet GP, LLCs internal control over financial
reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control
over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
Calumet GP, LLCs internal control over financial
reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit
also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements,
assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position
of Calumet GP, LLC at December 31, 2006, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 22, 2007.
94
CALUMET
GP, LLC
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
81,257
|
|
Accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, less allowance for doubtful
accounts of $782
|
|
|
97,740
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,262
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99,002
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
110,985
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
1,506
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
40,802
|
|
Deposits and other current assets
|
|
|
1,961
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
335,513
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
191,732
|
|
Other noncurrent assets, net
|
|
|
3,233
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
530,478
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND MEMBERS
CAPITAL
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
78,752
|
|
Accrued salaries, wages and
benefits
|
|
|
5,675
|
|
Turnaround costs
|
|
|
5,105
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
7,038
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
2,424
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
500
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
2,995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
102,489
|
|
Long-term debt, less current
portion
|
|
|
49,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
151,489
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
Minority interest
|
|
|
183,335
|
|
Members capital
|
|
|
143,403
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income
|
|
|
52,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total members capital
|
|
$
|
195,654
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
members capital
|
|
$
|
530,478
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the consolidated balance sheet.
95
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(in
thousands, except operating, unit and per unit data)
Calumet GP, LLC (the GP) is a Delaware limited liability company
formed on September 27, 2005 and is the general partner of
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (the Partnership). Its
sole purpose is to operate the Partnership. The GP is owned by
The Heritage Group as well as Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
family trusts and an F. William Grube family trust. The GP
owns a two percent general partner interest in the Partnership
and manages and operates all of the assets of the Partnership.
However, due to the substantive control granted to the GP by the
partnership agreement we consolidate our interest in the
Partnership (collectively Calumet or the Company).
Calumet is engaged in the production and marketing of crude
oil-based specialty lubricating oils, fuels, solvents and waxes.
Calumet owns a refinery located in Princeton, Louisiana, a
refinery located in Cotton Valley, Louisiana, a terminal located
in Burnham, Illinois and a refinery located in Shreveport,
Louisiana.
On January 31, 2006, the Partnership completed the initial
public offering of its common units and sold 5,699,900 of those
units to the underwriters in the initial public offering at a
price to the public of $21.50 per common unit. The
Partnership also sold a total of 750,100 common units to certain
relatives of the chairman of our general partner at a price of
$19.995 per common unit. In addition, on February 8,
2006, the Partnership sold an additional 854,985 common units to
the underwriters at a price to the public of $21.50 per
common unit pursuant to the underwriters over-allotment
option. Each of these issuances was made pursuant to the
Partnerships Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2006. The proceeds received by the Partnership
(net of underwriting discounts and structuring fees and before
expenses) from the sale of an aggregate of 7,304,985 units
were approximately $144,400. The net proceeds were used to:
(i) repay indebtedness and accrued interest under the first
lien term loan facility in the amount of approximately $125,700,
(ii) repay indebtedness under the secured revolving credit
facility in the amount of approximately $13,100 and
(iii) pay transaction fees and expenses in the amount of
approximately $5,600. Underwriting discounts totaled
approximately $11,600 (including certain structuring fees paid
to certain of the underwriters of approximately $2,400).
On July 5, 2006, the Partnership completed a follow-on
public offering of its common units in which it sold 3,300,000
common units to the underwriters of the offering at a price to
the public of $32.94 per common unit. This issuance was
made pursuant to the Partnerships Registration Statement
on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-134993)
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 28, 2006. The proceeds received by the Partnership
(net of underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses but
before its general partners capital contribution) from
this offering was $103,479. The use of proceeds from the
offering was to: (i) repay all of its borrowings under its
revolving credit facility, which were approximately $9,243 as of
June 30, 2006, (ii) fund the future construction and
other
start-up
costs of the planned expansion project at the Shreveport
refinery and (iii) to the extent available, for general
partnership purposes. Underwriting discounts totaled $4,620. The
general partner contributed $2,218 to retain its 2% general
partner interest.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, the GP received
cash distributions of $1,013 from the Partnership.
|
|
3.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
the GP, the Partnership and its wholly-owned operating
subsidiaries, Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership,
Calumet Sales Company Incorporated and Calumet Shreveport, LLC
(Calumet Shreveport). Calumet Shreveports
wholly-owned operating subsidiaries are Calumet Shreveport
Fuels, LLC and Calumet Shreveport Lubricants & Waxes,
LLC. All intercompany transactions and accounts have been
eliminated. Hereafter, the consolidated companies are referred
to as the Company.
96
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
Use of
Estimates
The Companys financial statements are prepared in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles which require management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents includes all highly liquid investments
with a maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase.
Inventories
The cost of inventories is determined using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method. Costs include crude oil and other
feedstocks, labor, processing costs and refining overhead costs.
Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market value.
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
26,791
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
30,130
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
54,064
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
110,985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The replacement cost of these inventories, based on current
market values, would have been $46,711 higher at
December 31, 2006.
Accounts
Receivable
The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of
customers financial condition and generally does not
require collateral. Receivables are generally due within
30 days for our specialty products segment and 10 days
for our fuel products segment. The Company maintains an
allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses in the
collection of accounts receivable. The Company makes estimates
regarding the future ability of its customers to make required
payments based on historical credit experience and expected
future trends. The activity in the allowance for doubtful
accounts was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
172
|
|
Write-offs, net
|
|
|
(140
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are stated on the basis of cost.
Depreciation is calculated generally on composite groups, using
the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the
respective groups.
97
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
Property, plant and equipment, including depreciable lives,
consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
1,047
|
|
Buildings and improvements (10 to
40 years)
|
|
|
1,811
|
|
Machinery and equipment (10 to
20 years)
|
|
|
167,195
|
|
Furniture and fixtures (5 to
10 years)
|
|
|
1,198
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
68,519
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
239,770
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(48,038
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
191,732
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the composite depreciation method, the cost of partial
retirements of a group is charged to accumulated depreciation.
However, when there are dispositions of complete groups or
significant portions of groups, the cost and related accumulated
depreciation are retired, and any gain or loss is reflected in
earnings.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, the Company
incurred $10,998 of interest expense of which $1,968 was
capitalized as a component of property, plant and equipment.
Turnaround
Costs
The Company accounts for periodic major maintenance and repairs
(turnaround costs) applicable to its refining facilities using
the
accrue-in-advance
method. Normal maintenance and repairs of all other property,
plant and equipment are charged to cost of sales as incurred.
Renewals, betterments and major repairs that materially extend
the life of the properties are capitalized. Effective
January 1, 2007, the Company will adopt a new method of
accounting for turnaround costs in accordance with FASB Staff
Position No. AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major
Maintenance Activities, as discussed in New Accounting
Pronouncements. Turnaround activity was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
2,679
|
|
Provision
|
|
|
4,963
|
|
Usage
|
|
|
(2,537
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
5,105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment
of Long-Lived Assets
The Company periodically evaluates the carrying value of
long-lived assets to be held and used, including definite-lived
intangible assets, when events or circumstances warrant such a
review. The carrying value of a long-lived asset to be held and
used is considered impaired when the anticipated separately
identifiable undiscounted cash flows from such an asset are less
than the carrying value of the asset. In that event, a
write-down of the asset would be recorded through a charge to
operations, based on the amount by which the carrying value
exceeds the fair market value of the long-lived asset. Fair
market value is determined primarily using the anticipated cash
flows discounted at a rate commensurate with the risk involved.
Long-lived assets to be disposed of other than by sale are
considered held and used until disposal.
98
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
Revenue
Recognition
The Company recognizes revenue on orders received from its
customers when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement
with the customer that is supportive of revenue recognition, the
customer has made a fixed commitment to purchase the product for
a fixed or determinable sales price, collection is reasonably
assured under the Companys normal billing and credit
terms, all of the Companys obligations related to product
have been fulfilled and ownership and all risks of loss have
been transferred to the buyer, which is upon shipment to the
customer.
Income
Taxes
The Company, as a partnership, is not liable for income taxes on
the earnings of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and
its wholly-owned subsidiaries Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership and Calumet Shreveport. However, Calumet Sales
Company Incorporated, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
is a corporation and as a result, is liable for income taxes on
its earnings. Income taxes on the earnings of the Company, with
the exception of Calumet Sales Company Incorporated, are the
responsibility of the partners, with earnings of the Company
included in partners earnings.
Net income for financial statement purposes may differ
significantly from taxable income reportable to unitholders as a
result of differences between the tax bases and financial
reporting bases of assets and liabilities and the taxable income
allocation requirements under the partnership agreement.
Individual unitholders have different investment bases depending
upon the timing and price of acquisition of their partnership
units. Furthermore, each unitholders tax accounting, which
is partially dependent upon the unitholders tax position,
differs from the accounting followed in the consolidated
financial statements. Accordingly, the aggregate difference in
the basis of net assets for financial and tax reporting purposes
cannot be readily determined because information regarding each
unitholders tax attributes in the partnership is not
readily available.
Derivatives
The Company utilize derivative instruments to minimize our price
risk and volatility of cash flows associated with the purchase
of crude oil and natural gas, the sale of fuel products and
interest payments. In accordance with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, which was amended
in June 2000 by SFAS No. 138 and in May 2003 by
SFAS No. 149 (collectively referred to as
SFAS 133), the Company recognizes all
derivative transactions as either assets or liabilities at fair
value on the balance sheet. To the extent a derivative
instrument is designated effective as a cash flow hedge of an
exposure to changes in the fair value of a future transaction,
the change in fair value of the derivative is deferred in
accumulated other comprehensive income, a component of
partners capital. The Company accounts for certain
derivatives hedging purchases of crude oil and natural gas, the
sale of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel and the payment of
interest as cash flow hedges. The derivatives hedging purchases
and sales are recorded to cost of sales and sales in the
consolidated statements of operations, respectively, upon
recording the related hedged transaction in sales or cost of
sales. The derivatives hedging payments of interest are recorded
in interest expense in the consolidated statements of
operations. For the year ended December 31, 2006, the
Company has recorded a derivative gain of $6 to sales and a
derivative loss of $11,070 to cost of sales. An interest rate
swap loss of $7 for the year ended December 31, 2006 was
recorded to interest expense. For derivative instruments not
designated as cash flow hedges and the portion of any cash flow
hedge that is determined to be ineffective, the change in fair
value of the asset or liability for the period is recorded to
unrealized gain or loss on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations. The Company does not
account for fuel products margin swap or collar contracts
(crack spread swaps or collars) as cash flow hedges.
As of December 31, 2006, the Company has no such derivative
contracts outstanding. Upon the settlement of a derivative not
designated as a cash flow hedge, the gain or loss at settlement
is recorded to realized gain or loss on derivative instruments
in the consolidated statements of operations.
99
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
During 2004 and through November 30, 2005, none of our
outstanding derivative transactions were designated as hedges.
At December 31, 2005, certain derivatives hedging natural
gas and crude oil purchases for our specialty products segment
were designated as cash flow hedges. Effective April 1,
2006, the Company restructured and designated certain derivative
contracts for its fuel products segment as cash flow hedges of
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel sales and crude oil purchases to
the extent they qualify for hedge accounting, and the effective
portion of these hedges is recorded in accumulated other
comprehensive income on the consolidated balance sheets until
the underlying transaction hedged is recognized in the
consolidated statements of operations. Prior to this date, the
historical impact of fair value fluctuations in our gasoline,
diesel and crude oil derivative instruments for the fuel
products segment had been reflected in the realized/unrealized
gain (loss) on derivative instruments line items in our
consolidated statements of operations. The Company utilizes
third party valuations and published market data to determine
the fair value of these derivatives.
The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an
on-going basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging
transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash
flows of hedged items. The Companys estimate of the
ineffective portion of the hedges for the year ended
December 31, 2006 was a gain of $4,071, which was recorded
to unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments. The
effective portion of the hedges classified in accumulated other
comprehensive income is $52,251 and, absent a change in the fair
market value of the underlying transactions, will be
reclassified to earnings by December 31, 2012 with balances
being recognized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Year
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
13,803
|
|
2008
|
|
|
15,321
|
|
2009
|
|
|
12,618
|
|
2010
|
|
|
10,702
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
2012
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
52,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company is exposed to credit risk in the event of
nonperformance with our counterparties on these derivative
transactions. The Company does not expect nonperformance on any
derivative contract.
Other
Noncurrent Assets
Other noncurrent assets at December 31, 2006 include $2,112
of deferred debt issuance costs, which are being amortized on a
straight-line basis over the life of the related debt
instruments. These amounts are net of accumulated amortization
of $562 at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Other noncurrent assets also include $566 at December 31,
2006 of intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization,
purchased to facilitate the sales of horticultural spray oil
products. These intangible assets are being amortized on a
straight-line basis, over an estimated useful life of five
years. Accumulated amortization on these intangible assets was
$1,710 at December 31, 2006. Annual amortization for 2007
and 2008 will be $455 and $111, respectively.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes (the
Interpretation), an interpretation of FASB
Statement No. 109. The Interpretation clarifies the
accounting for uncertainty in income taxes by prescribing a
recognition threshold
100
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
and measurement methodology for the financial statement
recognition and measurement of a tax position to be taken or
expected to be taken in a tax return. The Interpretation is
effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2006. This Interpretation will not have a material effect on the
financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the
Company when adopted on January 1, 2007.
On December 16, 2004, the FASB issued Statement
No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, which is a
revision of FASB Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock
Based Compensation. Statement 123(R) supersedes APB Opinion
No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and
amends FASB Statement No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows.
Generally, the approach in Statement 123(R) is similar to the
approach described in Statement 123. However,
Statement 123(R) requires all share-based payments to
employees, including grants of employee stock options, to be
recognized in the income statement based on their fair values.
Pro forma disclosure is no longer an alternative.
Statement 123(R) is effective for fiscal years beginning
after July 1, 2005. The Company adopted
Statement 123(R) using the modified prospective
method in which compensation cost is recognized beginning with
the effective date based on the requirements of
Statement 123(R) for all share-based payments granted after
the effective date and based on the requirements of
Statement 123 for all awards granted to employees prior to
the effective date of Statement 123(R) that remain unvested
on the effective date. The total impact of adoption of
Statement 123(R) was not material.
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Staff Position No. AUG AIR-1,
Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities,
which amends certain provisions in the AICPA Industry Audit
Guides, Audits of Airlines, and APB Opinion No. 28,
Interim Financial Reporting (the Position).
The Position prohibits the use of the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for planned major maintenance activities
and requires the use of the direct expensing method, built-in
overhaul method, or deferral method. The Position is effective
for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006.
Effective January 1, 2007, the Company will adopt the
Position and elect the deferral method. Under this method,
actual costs of an overhaul are capitalized and amortized to
cost of sales until the next overhaul date. Prior to the
adoption of this standard, the Company accrued for such overhaul
costs in advance of the turnaround, or turnarounds, and recorded
the expense to cost of sales. The adoption of the position would
have resulted the capitalization of turnaround costs of $1,478
as of December 31, 2006, as compared to turnaround
liabilities previously recorded of $5,105 for the same date.
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (the Statement). The Statement
applies to assets and liabilities required or permitted to be
measured at fair value under other accounting pronouncements.
The Statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value, and expands disclosure requirements about
fair value, but does not provide guidance whether assets and
liabilities are required or permitted to be measured at fair
value. The Statement is effective for fiscal years beginning
after November 15, 2007. The Company does not anticipate
that this Statement will have a material effect on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
|
|
4.
|
Shreveport
Refinery Expansion and Reconfiguration
|
The Company commenced purchasing equipment for an expansion
project at its Shreveport refinery during the second quarter of
2006. As of December 31, 2006, the Company had capital
expenditures of $65,492 (including $1,684 of capitalized
interest) related to this expansion project, which is recorded
to
construction-in-progress,
a component of property, plant and equipment, of which
approximately $13,000 relates assets and services yet to be
received. In December 2006, the Company received an air permit
from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and
commenced construction. Management has estimated that the
Company will incur approximately $84,500 of additional capital
expenditures in 2007 related to the expansion project. The
expansion project is
101
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2007.
Management currently estimates the total cost of the Shreveport
refinery expansion project will be approximately $150,000.
|
|
5.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Leases
The Company has various operating leases for the use of land,
storage tanks, compressor stations, rail cars, equipment,
precious metals, operating unit catalyst and office facilities
that extend through August 2015. Renewal options are available
on certain of these leases in which the Company is the lessee.
Rent expense for the year ended December 31, 2006 was
$10,894.
As of December 31, 2006, the Company had estimated minimum
commitments for the payment of rentals under leases which, at
inception, had a noncancelable term of more than one year, as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
8,837
|
|
2008
|
|
|
5,927
|
|
2009
|
|
|
5,257
|
|
2010
|
|
|
4,664
|
|
2011
|
|
|
3,278
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
6,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
34,407
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective March 1, 2005, the Company entered into a crude
purchase contract with a supplier that contains minimum annual
purchase requirements. To the extent the Company does not meet
this requirement, it would be required to pay $0.25 per
barrel on the difference between the minimum purchase
requirement and the actual purchases. Since inception of the
contract, the Company has taken delivery of all minimum
requirements. As of December 31, 2006, the estimated
minimum purchase requirements under this contract and other
crude purchase contracts were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
263,317
|
|
2008
|
|
|
37,985
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
301,302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to certain claims and
litigation incidental to its business. Management is of the
opinion that the ultimate resolution of any known claims, either
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material
adverse impact on the Companys financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.
102
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
Environmental
The Company operates crude oil and specialty hydrocarbon
refining and terminal operations, which are subject to stringent
and complex federal, state, and local laws and regulations
governing the discharge of materials into the environment or
otherwise relating to environmental protection. These laws and
regulations can impair the Companys operations that affect
the environment in many ways, such as requiring the acquisition
of permits to conduct regulated activities; restricting the
manner in which the Company can release materials into the
environment; requiring remedial activities or capital
expenditures to mitigate pollution from former or current
operations; and imposing substantial liabilities for pollution
resulting from its operations. Certain environmental laws impose
joint and several, strict liability for costs required to
remediate and restore sites where petroleum hydrocarbons,
wastes, or other materials have been released or disposed.
Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations may
result in the triggering of administrative, civil and criminal
measures, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the
imposition of remedial obligations, and the issuance of
injunctions limiting or prohibiting some or all of the
Companys operations. On occasion, the Company receives
notices of violation, enforcement and other complaints from
regulatory agencies alleging non-compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations. In particular, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has
proposed penalties totaling $191 and supplemental projects for
the following alleged violations: (i) a May 2001
notification received by the Cotton Valley refinery from the
LDEQ regarding several alleged violations of various air
emission regulations, as identified in the course of the
Companys Leak Detection and Repair program, and also for
failure to submit various reports related to the facilitys
air emissions; (ii) a December 2002 notification received
by the Companys Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ
regarding alleged violations for excess emissions, as identified
in the LDEQs file review of the Cotton Valley refinery;
and (iii) a December 2004 notification received by the
Cotton Valley refinery from the LDEQ regarding alleged
violations for the construction of a multi-tower pad and
associated pump pads without a permit issued by the agency. The
Company is currently in settlement negotiations with the LDEQ to
resolve these matters, as well as a number of similar matters at
the Princeton refinery, for which no penalty has yet been
proposed. We anticipate that any penalties that may be assessed
due to the alleged violations at our Princeton refinery will be
consolidated in a settlement agreement that we anticipate
executing with the LDEQ in connection with the agencys
Small Refinery and Single Site Refinery Initiative
described below.
The Company has recently entered into discussions on a voluntary
basis with the LDEQ regarding the Companys participation
in that agencys Small Refinery and Single Site
Refinery Initiative. This state initiative is patterned
after the EPAs National Petroleum Refinery
Initiative, which is a coordinated, integrated compliance
and enforcement strategy to address federal Clean Air Act
compliance issues at the nations largest petroleum
refineries. The Company expects that the LDEQs primary
focus under the state initiative will be on four compliance and
enforcement concerns: (i) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration/New Source Review; (ii) New Source
Performance Standards for fuel gas combustion devices, including
flares, heaters and boilers; (iii) Leak Detection and
Repair requirements; and (iv) Benzene Waste Operations
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The
Company is only in the beginning stages of discussion with the
LDEQ and, consequently, while no significant compliance and
enforcement expenditures have been requested as a result of the
Companys discussions, the Company anticipates that it will
ultimately be required to make emissions reductions requiring
capital investments between approximately $1,000 and $3,000 over
a three to five year period at the Companys three
Louisiana refineries.
Voluntary remediation of subsurface contamination is in process
at each of our refinery sites. The remedial projects are being
overseen by the appropriate state agencies. Based on current
investigative and remedial activities, we believe that the
groundwater contamination at these refineries can be controlled
or remedied without having a material adverse effect on our
financial condition. However, such costs are often unpredictable
and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the future costs
will not become material.
103
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
The Company is indemnified by Shell Oil Company, as successor to
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Atlas Processing Company, for
specified environmental liabilities arising from the operations
of the Shreveport refinery prior to the Companys
acquisition of the facility. The indemnity is unlimited in
amount and duration, but requires the Company to contribute up
to $1,000 of the first $5,000 of indemnified costs for certain
of the specified environmental liabilities.
On December 27, 2006, the LDEQ approved the Companys
application for a modification of its air emissions permit for
the Shreveport refinery expansion. The Company was required to
obtain approval of this modified air emissions permit from the
LDEQ prior to commencing construction of the expansion
activities. Upon receipt of the permit approval from the LDEQ,
the Company commenced construction of the Shreveport refinery
expansion project. On February 22, 2007, the Company
received notice that on February 13, 2007 an individual
filed, on behalf of the Residents for Air
Neutralization, a Petition for Review in the 19th Judicial
District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, asking
the Court to review the approval granted by the LDEQ for the
Companys application for a modified air emissions permit.
The Petition alleges the information in the final LDEQ decision
report was inaccurate and that, based on the LDEQs
decision to grant the modified air emissions permit, the LDEQ
had not reviewed the evidence put before them properly. There is
a question, unresolved at this time, concerning whether the
Petition was timely filed. If it was timely filed, the LDEQ will
have sixty days after service of the Petition to file the record
of its proceedings with the district court. The Company believes
that the LDEQ will be successful in defending its approval of
the Companys application for a modified air emissions
permit. The Company is not named at this time as a party to the
Petition.
Standby
Letters of Credit
The Company has agreements with various financial institutions
for standby letters of credit which have been issued to domestic
vendors. As of December 31, 2006, the Company had
outstanding standby letters of credit of $42,775 under its
senior secured revolving credit facility. As discussed in
Note 6 below, as of December 31, 2006 the Company also
had a $50,000 letter of credit outstanding under the letter of
credit facility for its fuels hedging program, which bears
interest at 3.50%.
Long-term debt consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured
revolving credit agreement with third-party lenders, interest at
prime (8.25% at December 31, 2006), interest payments
monthly, borrowings due December 2010
|
|
$
|
|
|
Borrowings under senior secured
first lien term loan with third-party lenders, interest at rate
of LIBOR plus 3.50% (8.85% at December 31, 2006), interest
and principal payments quarterly with borrowings due December
2012
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
49,500
|
|
Less current portion of long-term
debt
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
49,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On December 9, 2005, the Company paid off its existing
indebtedness by entering into a $225,000 senior secured
revolving credit facility due December 2010 and a $225,000
senior secured first lien credit facility consisting of a
$175,000 term loan facility and a $50,000 letter of credit
facility to support its fuel hedging program due December 2012.
These facilities contain financial covenants including a fixed
charge coverage ratio and a consolidated leverage ratio. The
revolving credit facility borrowings are limited by advance
rates of percentages of eligible accounts receivable and
inventory (the borrowing base) as defined by the revolving
credit agreement. All
104
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
guarantees and pledges of assets under the indebtedness repaid
on December 9, 2005 were released upon its repayment with
the borrowings under our current agreements.
The maximum borrowing capacity at December 31, 2006 was
$178,757, with $135,981 available for additional borrowings
based on collateral and specified availability limitations. The
term loan facility borrowings are secured by a first lien on the
property, plant and equipment of the Company and its
subsidiaries. The net proceeds of our initial public offering
(see Note 9) were used to repay indebtedness and
accrued interest under the first lien term loan facility in the
amount of approximately $125,700 and repay indebtedness under
the secured revolving credit facility in the amount of
approximately $13,100. After this repayment, the term loan
requires quarterly principal payments of $125 through December
2011 and quarterly principal payments of approximately $11,800
thereafter until maturing in December 2012. The Company is in
compliance with all covenants and restrictions defined in these
credit agreements.
As of December 31, 2006, maturities of the Companys
long-term debt is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
500
|
|
2008
|
|
|
500
|
|
2009
|
|
|
500
|
|
2010
|
|
|
500
|
|
2011
|
|
|
500
|
|
2012
|
|
$
|
47,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
49,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has the following derivative instruments outstanding
as of December 31, 2006.
Crude
Oil Collar Contracts
The Company utilizes combinations of options to manage crude oil
price risk and volatility of cash flows in its specialty
products segment. These combinations of options are designated
as cash flow hedges of the future purchase of crude oil. The
Companys policy is generally to enter into crude oil
derivative contracts for a period no greater than three to six
months forward and for 50% to 75% of anticipated crude oil
purchases related to our specialty products production. At
December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to crude oil purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Put
|
|
|
Upper Put
|
|
|
Lower Call
|
|
|
Upper Call
|
|
Crude Oil Put/Call Spread Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
January 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
48.66
|
|
|
$
|
58.66
|
|
|
$
|
68.66
|
|
|
$
|
78.66
|
|
February 2007
|
|
|
224,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
49.28
|
|
|
|
59.28
|
|
|
|
69.28
|
|
|
|
79.28
|
|
March 2007
|
|
|
248,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
50.85
|
|
|
|
60.85
|
|
|
|
70.85
|
|
|
|
80.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
720,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
49.61
|
|
|
$
|
59.61
|
|
|
$
|
69.61
|
|
|
$
|
79.61
|
|
105
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
Crude
Oil Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage crude oil price
risk and volatility of cash flows in its fuel products segment.
The Companys policy is generally to enter into crude oil
swap contracts for a period no greater than five years forward
and for no more than 75% of crude purchases used in fuels
production. At December 31, 2006, the Company had the
following derivatives related to crude oil purchases in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,710,000
|
|
|
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
65.14
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,728,000
|
|
|
|
18,989
|
|
|
|
64.68
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,742,000
|
|
|
|
18,935
|
|
|
|
65.51
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
8,143,000
|
|
|
|
22,249
|
|
|
|
67.37
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
7,482,500
|
|
|
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
66.04
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
5,840,000
|
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
67.40
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
363,500
|
|
|
|
996
|
|
|
|
65.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
28,751,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
66.49
|
|
Fuels
Product Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes swap contracts to manage diesel, gasoline
and jet fuel price risk and volatility of cash flows in its fuel
products segment. The Companys policy is generally to
enter into diesel and gasoline swap contracts for a period no
greater than five years forward and for no more than 75% of
forecasted fuels sales.
Diesel
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to diesel and jet fuel sales in its fuel
products segment, all of which are designated as hedges except
for 169,855 barrels in 2007. As a result of these barrels
not being designated as hedges, the Company recognized $1,314 of
gains in unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments in the
consolidated statements of operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diesel Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,080,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
81.10
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,092,000
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
80.74
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
1,102,000
|
|
|
|
11,978
|
|
|
|
81.36
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
4,941,000
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
82.18
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
4,562,500
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
80.50
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
3,650,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
80.52
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
748
|
|
|
|
76.52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
17,802,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
81.07
|
|
106
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
Gasoline
Swap Contracts
At December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to gasoline sales in its fuel products
segment, all of which are designated as hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
Barrels
|
|
|
BPD
|
|
|
($/Bbl)
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
72.09
|
|
Second Quarter 2007
|
|
|
636,000
|
|
|
|
6,989
|
|
|
|
71.38
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
640,000
|
|
|
|
6,957
|
|
|
|
72.67
|
|
Calendar Year 2008
|
|
|
3,202,000
|
|
|
|
8,749
|
|
|
|
76.17
|
|
Calendar Year 2009
|
|
|
2,920,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
73.45
|
|
Calendar Year 2010
|
|
|
2,190,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
75.27
|
|
Calendar Year 2011
|
|
|
90,500
|
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
70.87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
10,948,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74.30
|
|
Natural
Gas Swap Contracts
The Company utilizes forward swap contracts to manage natural
gas price risk and volatility of cash flows. These swap
contracts are designated as cash flow hedges of the future
purchase of natural gas. The Companys policy is generally
to enter into natural gas derivative contracts to hedge
approximately 50% or more of its upcoming fall and winter
months anticipated natural gas requirements. At
December 31, 2006, the Company had the following
derivatives related to natural gas purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Swap Contracts by Expiration Dates
|
|
MMbtu
|
|
|
$/MMbtu
|
|
|
First Quarter 2007
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
8.87
|
|
Third Quarter 2007
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2007
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
7.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.52
|
|
Interest
Rate Swap Contracts
In 2006, the Company entered into a forward swap contract to
manage interest rate risk related to its variable rate senior
secured first lien term loan. The Company hedges the interest
payments related to 85% of its future term loan indebtedness.
This swap contract is designated as a cash flow hedge of the
future payment of interest with LIBOR fixed at 5.44% per
annum.
107
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
|
|
8.
|
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
|
Our financial instruments, which require fair value disclosure,
consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, accounts
receivable, financial derivatives, accounts payable and
indebtedness. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents,
accounts receivable and accounts payable are considered to be
representative of their respective fair values, due to the short
maturity of these instruments. Derivative instruments are
reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
at fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 133. Based
upon borrowing rates available to the Company for long-term debt
with similar terms and the same remaining maturities, the fair
value of long-term debt approximates carrying value at
December 31, 2006. In addition, based upon fees charged for
similar agreements, the face values of outstanding standby
letters of credit approximate their fair value at
December 31, 2006.
|
|
9.
|
Unit-Based
Compensation
|
Our general partner adopted a Long-Term Incentive Plan (the
Plan) on January 24, 2006 for its employees,
consultants and directors and its affiliates who perform
services for us. The Plan provides for the grant of restricted
units, phantom units, unit options and substitute awards and,
with respect to unit options and phantom units, the grant of
distribution equivalent rights (DERs). Subject to
adjustment for certain events, an aggregate of 783,960 common
units may be delivered pursuant to awards under the Plan. Units
withheld to satisfy our general partners tax withholding
obligations are available for delivery pursuant to other awards.
The Plan is administered by the compensation committee of our
general partners board of directors.
On November 17, 2006, non-employee directors of the GP were
granted phantom units under the terms of the Plan as part of
their director compensation package related to fiscal year 2006.
These phantom units have a four year service period, beginning
on January 1, with one quarter of the phantom units vesting
annually on each December 31 of the vesting period.
Although full ownership of the common units related to the
vesting of such phantom units does not transfer to the
recipients until the phantom units vest, the recipients have
DERs on these phantom units from the date of grant. The Company
uses the market price of its units on the grant date to
calculate the fair value and related compensation cost of the
units. The Company amortizes this compensation cost to
partners capital and selling general and administrative
expense on the consolidated statement of operations using the
straight-line method over the four year vesting period, as we
expect these units to fully vest.
A summary of the Companys nonvested units as of
December 31, 2006, and the changes during the year ended
December 31, 2006, are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Nonvested Phantom Units
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested at January 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
7,296
|
|
|
|
33.63
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(1,824
|
)
|
|
|
33.63
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
5,472
|
|
|
$
|
33.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2006, compensation expense
of $61 was recognized in the consolidated statements of
operations related to vested unit grants. As of
December 31, 2006, there was a total of $184 of
unrecognized compensation costs related to nonvested unit
grants. These costs are expected to be recognized over a
weighted-average period of three years.
108
CALUMET
GP, LLC
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET (Continued)
|
|
10.
|
Employee
Benefit Plan
|
The Partnership has a defined contribution plan administered by
one of its limited partners. All full-time employees who have
completed at least one hour of service are eligible to
participate in the plan. Participants are allowed to contribute
0% to 100% of their pre-tax earnings to the plan, subject to
government imposed limitations. The Partnership matches 100% of
each 1% contribution by the participant up to 3% and 50% of each
additional 1% contribution up to 5% for a maximum contribution
by the Company of 4% per participant. The Companys
matching contribution was $1,109 for the year ended
December 31, 2006. The plan also includes a profit-sharing
component. Contributions under the profit-sharing component are
determined by the Board of Directors of GP and are
discretionary. The Partnerships profit sharing
contribution was $870 for the year ended December 31, 2006.
|
|
11.
|
Transactions
with Related Parties
|
During the year ended December 31, 2006, the Company had
sales to related parties of $904. Trade accounts and other
receivables from related parties at December 31, 2006 were
$210. The Company also had purchases from related parties during
the year ended December 31, 2006 of $1,228. Accounts
payable to related parties at December 31, 2006 were $358.
A limited partner provides certain administrative and accounting
services to the Company for an annual fee. Such services
include, but are not necessarily limited to, advice and
assistance concerning aspects of the operation, planning, and
human resources of the Company. Payments for the year ended
December 31, 2006 were $549.
The Company participates in a self-insurance program for medical
benefits with a limited partner and several other related
companies. In connection with this program, contributions are
made to a voluntary employees benefit association (VEBA)
trust. Contributions made by the Company to the VEBA for the
year ended December 31, 2006 totaled $3,093.
The Company has placed a portion of its insurance underwriting
requirements, including general liability, automobile liability,
excess liability, workers compensation as well as
directors and officers liability with a commercial
insurance brokerage business. A member of the board of directors
of our general partner serves as an executive of this commercial
insurance brokerage company. The total premiums paid to this
company by Calumet for the year ended December 31, 2006
were approximately $1,647.
The Company participates in a self-insurance program for
workers compensation with a limited partner and several
other related companies. In connection with this program,
contributions are made to the limited partner. Contributions
made by the Company to the limited partner for the year ended
December 31, 2006 totaled $213.
The Company participates in a self-insurance program for general
liability with a limited partner and several related companies.
In connection with this program, contributions are made to the
limited partner. Contributions made by the Company to the
limited partner for the year ended December 31, 2006
totaled $563.
On January 5, 2007, the Partnership declared a quarterly
cash distribution of $0.60 per unit on all outstanding
units, or $18,673, for the quarter ended December 31, 2006.
The distribution was paid on February 14, 2007 to
unitholders of record as of the close of business on
February 4, 2007. This quarterly distribution of
$0.60 per unit equates to $2.40 per unit, or $74,691,
on an annualized basis. The GPs portion of this quarterly
cash distribution was $4,054.
109
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.
Our principal executive officer and principal financial officer
have evaluated, as required by
Rule 13a-15(b)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act), our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(e))
as of the end of the period covered by the Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Based on that evaluation, the principal executive officer and
principal financial officer concluded that the design and
operation of our disclosure controls and procedures are
effective in ensuring that information we are required to
disclose 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 Securities and Exchange
Commissions rules and forms.
(b) Changes in internal control over financial reporting.
There have been no changes in our internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in
Rule 13a-15(f)
under the Exchange Act) that occurred during our last fiscal
quarter that have materially affected or are reasonably likely
to materially affect our internal control over financial
reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers of Our General Partner and Corporate
Governance
|
Management
of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. and Director
Independence
Our general partner, Calumet GP, LLC, manages our operations and
activities. Unitholders are not entitled to elect the directors
of our general partner or directly or indirectly participate in
our management or operations. Our general partner owes a
fiduciary duty to our unitholders, as limited by the various
provisions of our partnership agreement modifying and
restricting the fiduciary duties that might otherwise be owed by
our general partner to our unitholders.
The directors of our general partner oversee our operations. The
owners of our general partner have appointed seven members to
our general partners board of directors. The directors of
our general partner are generally elected by a majority vote of
the owners of our general partner on an annual basis. However,
as long as our chief executive officer and president, F. William
Grube, or trusts established for the benefit of his family
members, continue to own at least 30% of the membership
interests in our general partner, Mr. Grube (or in certain
specified instances, his designee or transferee) has the right
to serve as a director of our general partner. The directors of
our general partner hold office until the earlier of their
death, resignation, removal or disqualification or until their
successors have been elected and qualified.
Pursuant to Section 4360 of the NASDAQ Stock Market
(NASDAQ) Marketplace Rules, NASDAQ does not require
a listed limited partnership like us to have a majority of
independent directors on the board of directors of our general
partner or to establish a compensation committee or a
nominating/governance committee. However, three of our general
partners seven directors are independent as
that term is defined in the applicable NASDAQ rules and
Rule 10A-3
of the Exchange Act. In determining the independence of each
director, our general partner has adopted standards that
incorporate the NASDAQ and Exchange Act standards. Our general
partners independent directors as determined in accordance
with those standards are: James S. Carter, Robert E. Funk and
Michael L. Smith.
The officers of our general partner manage the
day-to-day
affairs of our business. Officers serve at the discretion of the
board of directors.
110
Directors
and Executive Officers
The following table shows information regarding the directors
and executive officers of Calumet GP, LLC as of February 9,
2007. Directors are elected for one-year terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position with Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President
and Director
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
Vice President Crude
Oil Supply
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Vice President
Planning and Economics
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
Vice President Sales
and Marketing
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Director
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
Director
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
Director
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
Director
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Director
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. has served as the chairman
of the board of directors of our general partner since September
2005. Mr. Fehsenfeld has also served as the vice chairman
of the board of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since 1990.
Mr. Fehsenfeld has worked for The Heritage Group in various
capacities since 1977 and has served as its managing trustee
since 1980. Mr. Fehsenfeld received his B.S. in Mechanical
Engineering from Duke University and his M.S. in Management from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School.
F. William Grube has served as the chief executive
officer, president and director of our general partner since
September 2005. Mr. Grube has also served as president and
chief executive officer of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since
1990. From 1974 to 1990, Mr. Grube served as executive vice
president of the Rock Island Refinery. Mr. Grube received
his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology and his M.B.A. from Harvard University.
Allan A. Moyes, III has served as executive vice
president of our general partner since September 2005.
Mr. Moyes has also served as executive vice president of
Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since 1997. From 1994 to 1997,
Mr. Moyes served as manager of planning and economics for
Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. From 1989 to 1994, Mr. Moyes
worked for Marathon Oil Company as the technical service manager
in its Indianapolis refinery. From 1978 to 1989, Mr. Moyes
worked in various capacities at the Rock Island Refinery.
Mr. Moyes received his Computer Science degree at Memphis
State Technical University.
R. Patrick Murray, II has served as vice president,
chief financial officer and secretary of our general partner
since September 2005. Mr. Murray has also served as the
vice president and chief financial officer of
Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since 1999 and from 1998 to
1999 served as its controller. From 1993 to 1998,
Mr. Murray was a senior auditor with Arthur Andersen.
Mr. Murray is a certified public accountant and received
his B.B.A. in Accountancy from the University of Notre Dame.
Robert M. Mills has served as vice president
crude oil supply of our general partner since September 2005.
Mr. Mills has also served as the vice president
crude oil supply of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P. since 1995 and
from 1993 to 1995 served as manager of supply and distribution.
Mr. Mills received his B.S. in Business Administration from
Louisiana State University.
Jeffrey D. Smith has served as vice president
planning and economics of our general partner since September
2005. He has also served as the vice president
planning and economics of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.P.
since 2002. Mr. Smith joined our predecessor in 1994 and
served in various capacities prior to becoming vice president.
Mr. Smith received his B.S. in Geology from Louisiana Tech
University.
William A. Anderson has served as vice
president sales and marketing of our general partner
since September 2005. Mr. Anderson has also served as the
vice president sales and marketing of Calumet
Lubricants
111
Co., L.P. since 2000 and served in various other capacities for
our predecessor from 1993 to 2000. Mr. Anderson received
his B.A. in Communications from DePauw University.
James S. Carter has served as a member of the board of
directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Carter served as U.S. regional director of Exxon
Mobil Fuels Company, the fuels subsidiary of Exxon Mobil
Corporation, from 1999 until his retirement in 2003.
Mr. Carter received his M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting
from Tulane University.
William S. Fehsenfeld has served as a member of the board
of directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Fehsenfeld has served as vice president and secretary
of Schuler Books, Inc., the independent bookstore company he
founded with his wife, since 1982. He has also served as a
trustee of The Heritage Group from 2003 to the present.
Mr. Fehsenfeld received his B.G.S. from the University of
Michigan and his M.B.A. from Grand Valley State University. He
is also a first cousin of the chairman of the board of directors
of our general partner, Mr. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
Robert E. Funk has served as a member of the board of
directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Funk previously served as vice president-corporate
planning and economics of Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a refiner
and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants,
petrochemicals, refined waxes, asphalt and other industrial
products, from 1997 until his retirement in December 2004.
Mr. Funk previously served Citgo or its predecessor, Cities
Services Company, as general manager-facilities planning from
1988 to 1997, general manager-lubricants operations from 1983 to
1988 and manager-refinery east, Lake Charles refinery from 1982
to 1983. Mr. Funk received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering
from the University of Kansas.
Nicholas J. Rutigliano has served as a member of the
board of directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Rutigliano has served as president of Tobias Insurance
Group, Inc., a commercial insurance brokerage business he
founded, since 1973. He has also served as a trustee of The
Heritage Group from 1980 to the present. Mr. Rutigliano
received his B.S. in Business from the University of Evansville.
He is also the
brother-in-law
of the chairman of the board of directors of our general
partner, Mr. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
Michael L. Smith has served as a member of the board of
directors of our general partner since January 2006.
Mr. Smith is the chairman of the audit committee of our
board of directors and previously served as executive vice
president and chief financial officer of Wellpoint Inc. (f/k/a
Anthem Inc.), a publicly traded health benefits company, from
1999 until his retirement in January 2005. Mr. Smith
previously served as senior vice president of Anthem and chief
financial officer of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shields
Midwest and Connecticut operations from 1998 to 1999. From 1996
to 1998, he was chief operating officer and chief financial
officer of American Health Network, a former Anthem subsidiary.
Mr. Smith is a member of the board of directors of First
Indiana Corporation and its principal subsidiary, First Indiana
Bank, Kite Realty Group Trust, Vectren Corporation, InterMune
Inc. and Emergency Medical Services Corporation. He also serves
on the Board of Trustees of DePauw University. Mr. Smith
received his B.A. in Economics from DePauw University.
Board of
Directors Committees
Conflicts
Committee
Two members of the board of directors of our general partner
serve on a conflicts committee to review specific matters that
the board believes may involve conflicts of interest. The
conflicts committee determines if the resolution of the conflict
of interest is fair and reasonable to us. The members of the
conflicts committee may not be officers or employees of our
general partner or directors, officers, or employees of its
affiliates, and must meet the independence and experience
standards established by NASDAQ and the Exchange Act to serve on
an audit committee of a board of directors, and certain other
requirements. Any matters approved by the conflicts committee
will be conclusively deemed to be fair and reasonable to us,
approved by all of our partners, and not a breach by our general
partner of any duties it may owe us or our unitholders. The two
independent board members who serve on the conflicts committee
are Messrs. James S. Carter and Robert E. Funk.
Mr. Carter serves as the chairman of the conflicts
committee.
112
Compensation
Committee
The board of directors of our general partner also has a
compensation committee which, among other responsibilities,
oversees the compensation plans awarded to directors and
officers described in Item 11 Executive and Director
Compensation. NASDAQ does not require a limited
partnership like us to have a compensation committee comprised
entirely of independent directors. Accordingly,
Messrs. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. and F. William
Grube serve as members of our compensation committee.
Mr. Fehsenfeld serves as the chairman of the compensation
committee.
The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the
compensation committee which defines the scope of the
committees authority. The committee may form and delegate
some or all of its authority to subcommittees comprised of
committee members when it deems appropriate. The committee is
responsible for reviewing and recommending to the board of
directors for its approval the annual salary and other
compensation components for the chief executive officer. The
committee reviews and makes recommendations to the board of
directors for its approval any of the Partnerships equity
compensation-based plans, including the Long-Term Incentive
Plan, or any cash bonus or incentive compensation plans or
programs. Also, the committee reviews and approves all annual
salary and other compensation arrangements and components for
the senior executives of the Partnership. Further, each year the
compensation committee reviews and makes a recommendation to the
board of directors for its approval the compensation of all
directors. The committee has the authority to retain any
compensation consultant to assist it in the evaluation of
director and senior executive compensation.
Audit
Committee
The board of directors of our general partner has an audit
committee comprised of three directors, Messrs. James S.
Carter, Robert E. Funk and Michael L. Smith, each of whom the
board of directors of our general partner have determined meet
the independence and experience standards established by NASDAQ
and the SEC. In addition, the board of directors of our general
partner has determined that a Mr. Smith is an audit
committee financial expert (as defined by the SEC).
Mr. Smith serves as the chairman of the audit committee.
The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the
audit committee. The audit committee assists the board of
directors in its oversight of the integrity of our financial
statements and our compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements and corporate policies and controls. The audit
committee has the sole authority to retain and terminate our
independent registered public accounting firm, approves all
auditing services and related fees and the terms thereof and
pre-approves any non-audit services to be rendered by our
independent registered public accounting firm. The audit
committee is also responsible for confirming the independence
and objectivity of our independent registered public accounting
firm. Our independent registered public accounting firm is given
unrestricted access to the audit committee.
Code
of Ethics
We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that
applies to all officers, directors and employees.
Available on our website at www.calumetspecialty.com are copies
of our board of directors committee charters and Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics, all of which also will be provided
to unitholders without charge upon their written request to:
Investor Relations, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.,
2780 Waterfront Parkway E. Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis,
IN 46214.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) requires directors and officers
of our general partner and persons who beneficially own more
than ten percent of our common units to file with the SEC and
NASDAQ initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in
ownership of such securities. SEC regulations require officers
and directors of our general partner and greater than ten
percent beneficial owners to furnish us with copies of all
Section 16(a) forms they file.
Based solely on a review of the copies of those forms furnished
to the Partnership and written representations from the
applicable officers and directors, the Partnership believes its
officers and directors complied with all
113
applicable Section 16(a) filing requirements during the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 with the exception of
the following: (1) late filings on Form 4 relating to
single transactions for each of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., William
S. Fehsenfeld, Nicholas J. Rutigliano, James S. Carter, Robert
E. Funk and Michael L. Smith, all directors of our general
partner, were filed on November 30, 2006; (2) late
filings on Form 4 relating to single transactions for each
of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., William S. Fehsenfeld and Nicholas
J. Rutigliano were filed on February 3, 2006; (3) one
late filing on Form 4 relating to five transactions for
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. was filed on February 23, 2007;
(4) one late filing on Form 5 relating to a single
transaction for Allan A. Moyes, III was filed on
February 23, 2007; (5) one late filing on Form 5
relating to two transactions for William S. Fehsenfeld was filed
on February 23, 2007; (6) one late filing on
Form 4 relating to a single transaction for James S.
Carter was filed on February 23, 2007; (7) one late
filing on Form 4 relating to a single transaction for
William S. Fehsenfeld was filed on February 23, 2007;
and (8) one late filing on Form 5 relating to a single
transaction for James S. Carter was filed on February 23,
2007.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
and Director Compensation
|
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
Overview
The compensation committee of the board of directors of our
general partner oversees our compensation programs. Our general
partner maintains compensation and benefits programs designed to
allow us to attract, motivate and retain the best possible
employees to manage the Partnership, including executive
compensation programs designed to reward the achievement of both
short-term and long-term goals necessary to promote growth and
generate positive unitholder returns. Our general partners
executive compensation programs are based on a
pay-for-performance
philosophy, including measurement of the Partnerships
performance against a specified financial target, namely
distributable cash flow. The Partnerships executive
compensation programs include both long-term and short-term
compensation elements which together constitute a total
compensation package intended to be competitive with similar
companies. Although short-term compensation elements represent
the majority of total compensation which can be earned and paid
to our executives, the long-term elements as described in
Elements of Executive Compensation Long-Term,
Unit-Based Awards for which the compensation committee and
board of directors have approved for implementation beginning
with the 2007 fiscal year will represent a significant portion
of total compensation on a prospective basis to provide a
meaningful incentive for the executives to achieve goals and
objectives focused on long-term unitholder returns.
Under their collective authority, the compensation committee and
the board of directors maintain the right to develop and modify
compensation programs and policies as they deem appropriate.
Factors they may consider in making decisions to materially
increase or decrease compensation include overall Partnership
financial performance, growth of the Partnership over time,
changes in complexity of the Partnership as well as individual
executive job scope and complexity, and individual executive job
performance. In determining any forms of compensation other than
the base salary for the senior executives, or in the case of the
chief executive officer the recommendation to the board of
directors of the forms of compensation for the chief executive
officer, the compensation committee considers the
Partnerships financial performance and relative unitholder
return, the value of similar incentive awards to senior
executives at comparable companies and the awards given to
senior executives in past years.
Financial
Performance Metric Used in Compensation Programs
The primary measurement of performance taken into account in
setting policies and making compensation decisions is the
Partnerships distributable cash flow, as we believe this
represents the most objective measurement of the
Partnerships ability to generate cash flows to make
distributions to our unitholders. Both short-term and long-term
forms of executive compensation are specifically structured on
the Partnerships achievement relative to annual
distributable cash flow goals, and as such determination of
related awards, as well as their grant or payment, occurs
subsequent to the end of each fiscal year upon final
determination of distributable cash flow. We believe that
including this financial objective as the primary performance
measurement to determine compensation awards for all of our
executive officers recognizes the integrated and collaborative
effort required by the full executive team to maximize
performance. Distributable cash flow is a non-GAAP measure that
we define, consistent with our credit agreements, as our
Adjusted EBITDA less maintenance capital expenditures, cash
interest expense and income tax
114
expense. Adjusted EBITDA, for any period, equals: (1) net
income plus (2)(a) interest expense; (b) taxes;
(c) depreciation and amortization; (d) unrealized
losses from mark to market accounting for derivative activities;
(e) unrealized items decreasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring; decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); and (f) other
non-recurring expenses reducing net income which do not
represent a cash item for such period; minus (3)(a) tax credits;
(b) unrealized items increasing net income (including the
non-cash impact of restructuring, decommissioning and asset
impairments in the periods presented); (c) unrealized gains
from mark to market accounting for derivative activities; and
(d) other non-cash recurring expenses and unrealized items
that reduced net income for a prior period, but represent a cash
item in the current period.
Peer
Group and Compensation Targets
The Compensation Committee selected a compensation peer group of
companies consisting of eight publicly-traded, partnerships (the
Peer Group). The Peer Group is used to benchmark
executive compensation levels against companies that have
executive positions with responsibilities similar in breadth and
scope to ours and with similar market capitalizations and EBITDA
(a non-GAAP measurement). The members of the Peer Group included
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., Copano Energy, L.L.C., Crosstex
Energy, L.P., Genesis Energy, L.P., Inergy, L.P., Magellan
Midstream Partners, L.P., Markwest Energy Partners, L.P. and
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P.
The compensation committee requested that certain executive
officers complete an analysis and review of the Peer
Groups executive compensation, as reported in their public
filings. With these results, the compensation committee has
benchmarked total compensation, including Calumets
individual elements of executive compensation, with the
objective of targeting the middle range of total compensation
for the Peer Group.
Review
of Named Executive Officer Performance
The compensation committee reviews, on an annual basis, each
compensation element of a named executive officer. In each case,
the compensation committee takes into account the scope of
responsibilities and experience and balances these against
competitive salary levels. The compensation committee has the
opportunity to meet with the named executive officers at various
times during the year, which allows the compensation Committee
to form its own assessment of each individuals
performance. The compensation committee additionally enlists the
assistance of our general partners executive vice
president to provide direct input to the compensation committee
regarding performance appraisals of the other named executive
officers to assist the committee in its compensation decisions.
Objectives
of Compensation Programs
The Partnerships executive compensation programs are
designed with the following primary objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
Reward strong individual performance that drives positive
Partnership financial results.
|
|
|
|
Make incentive compensation a significant portion of an
executives total compensation, designed to balance
short-term and long-term performance.
|
|
|
|
Align the interests of our executives with those of our
unitholders.
|
|
|
|
Attract, develop and retain executives with a compensation
structure which is competitive with other publicly-traded
partnerships of similar size.
|
Elements
of Executive Compensation
The Compensation Committee believes the total compensation and
benefits program for the Partnerships named executive
officers should consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
base salary;
|
|
|
|
annual incentive plan;
|
|
|
|
long-term incentive compensation;
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
retirement, health and welfare benefits; and
|
|
|
|
perquisites.
|
These elements are designed to constitute an integrated
executive compensation structure meant to incentivize a high
level of individual executive officer performance in line with
Partnership financial and operating goals.
Base
Salary
Salaries provide executives with a base level of monthly income.
The salary program assists us in achieving our objective of
attracting and retaining the services of quality individuals who
are essential for the growth and profitability of Calumet.
Generally, the base salary levels for our named executive
officers are determined on an annual basis by the compensation
committee of the board of directors. This determination is based
on the following factors:
|
|
|
|
|
an assessment of the individual executives sustained
performance against his or her individual job responsibilities;
|
|
|
|
the impact of such performance on the business results of
Calumet;
|
|
|
|
general cost of living increases;
|
|
|
|
current salary relative to that of other Calumet
executives; and
|
|
|
|
a review by the compensation committee of the range of executive
salaries disclosed in public filings for other publicly traded
partnerships of similar size in the energy industry.
|
The compensation committee, in its discretion, may make base
salary adjustments at an interim date during the fiscal year for
executives deemed warranted due to changes in job complexity or
through comparison of executive compensation levels of
publicly-traded partnerships similar in size to us. During 2006,
the compensation committee approved an interim increase in base
salaries for three of our named executive officers as detailed
in the Summary Compensation Table. Additionally, the
compensation committee approved increased salaries for all of
the named executive officers for 2007. The compensation
committee determined that such interim base salary increases for
the named executive officers were appropriate as a result of its
review of comparative executive compensation levels and
increases in job complexity as a result of becoming a
publicly-traded partnership in January 2006. The increases in
base salaries for 2007 represented further adjustments
determined to be warranted in comparison to base salaries for
executives at other publicly-traded partnerships of similar size
and for general cost of living increases.
Per the terms of the compensation committees charter, the
recommendation of the base salary level for F. William
Grube, CEO and President, must be approved by the full board of
directors. In addition, the base salary for Mr. Grube was
initially established, and is governed on a continuing basis, by
the terms of his employment agreement, including a provision
that the amount of his annual salary increase at a minimum must
be equal to the average of the percentage increases of all
salaried employees of Calumets general partner. Please
read Grube Employment Agreement for additional
terms of Mr. Grubes employment agreement.
Short-Term
Cash Awards
Short-term cash awards are designed to aid Calumet in retaining
and motivating executives and to assist the Partnership in
meeting its financial performance objectives on an annual basis.
Short-term cash awards are granted to named executive officers
and certain other management employees based on Calumets
achievement of performance targets on its distributable cash
flow, thereby establishing a direct link between executive
compensation and Partnership financial performance.
Short-term cash awards currently consist of cash incentive
payments awarded to executives to reward their contributions to
Calumets financial performance during the past year. These
cash incentive payments are made pursuant to the Cash Incentive
Compensation Plan (the Cash Incentive Plan) which
was approved by the board of directors during 2006 upon the
recommendation of the compensation committee. The compensation
committee approved awards under the Cash Incentive Plan
beginning with the 2006 fiscal year. The purpose of the Cash
Incentive Plan is to aid the Partnership in retaining and
motivating executives and to assist the Partnership in
116
meeting its financial performance objectives. Cash bonuses are
paid to executives and certain other management employees based
on Calumets achievement of specified distributable cash
flow performance targets, thereby establishing a direct link
between a portion of the named executive officers pay and
a significant element of the Partnerships financial
performance.
Annual distributable cash flow goals are recommended by the
compensation committee to the board of directors and are based
upon the annual Partnership forecast of financial performance
for the coming fiscal year, which goals are reviewed and
approved by the board of directors. Three increasing
distributable cash flow goals are established to calculate
awards under the Cash Incentive Plan: minimum, target and
stretch. Under the Cash Incentive Plan, if the
Partnerships actual performance meets at least the minimum
distributable cash flow goal for the fiscal year, executives and
certain other management employees may receive incentive bonuses
ranging from 15% to 50% of base salary, depending on the
employees position with the general partner. If financial
performance exceeds the minimum distributable cash flow goal,
the cash bonus paid as a percentage of base salary may be
larger, ultimately reaching an upper range of 60% to 200% of
base salary, if distributable cash flow for the fiscal year
reaches the stretch goal. Cash bonuses are prorated if actual
performance falls between the defined minimum and stretch cash
flow goals. If distributable cash flow falls below the minimum
goal, no bonuses are paid under the Cash Incentive Plan. In
establishing the relative percentage levels of potential awards,
the compensation committee considered the peer group
compensation data described in Peer Group and Compensation
Targets, to determine the relative ranges of such awards
and to ensure comparability with the peer group when this
compensation component was included as part of total
compensation for each named executive officer. The following
table summarizes the levels of awards available to participants
in the Cash Incentive Plan:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Incentive Award Calculated as a
|
|
|
|
Percentage of Base Salary
|
|
Incentive Level (a)
|
|
Minimum
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Stretch
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
2
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
150
|
%
|
3
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
4
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Mr. Grube, our chief executive officer and president, and
Mr. Moyes, our executive vice president, are the only
employees who participate in the Cash Incentive Plan at
Incentive Level 1. The other named executive officers
(Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mills), along
with certain other officers, participate in the Cash Incentive
Plan at Incentive Level 2. |
For 2006 awards, the target distributable cash flow goal was
established at a level that the board of directors believe
reflected the reasonable expectations management had for the
financial performance of the Partnership during the fiscal year.
The stretch cash flow target was deemed to be possible to attain
with high levels of performance, but not probable to attain
based on the reasonable expectations management had for the
financial performance of the Partnership. For 2006, the
Partnerships achievement of distributable cash flow goals
exceeded expectations, resulting in overall cash incentives near
the upper range of percentages of base salaries as described
above. Under the Cash Incentive Plan, the maximum award to any
named executive officer related to fiscal year 2006 was $798,000.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, the board
of directors has approved new distributable cash flow targets
for the 2007 fiscal year based on budgets prepared by
management, with the cash incentive structure remaining
unchanged from the 2006 fiscal year, including the above
likelihoods of performance levels and incentive levels for the
named executive officers. Under the Cash Incentive Plan, the
maximum award to any named executive officer related to fiscal
year 2007 will be $822,000.
Per the terms of his employment agreement as described in the
section entitled Employment Agreement,
Mr. Grube is entitled to receive a payout of at least 150%
of the amount of any cash payout or distribution that may be
made to any other executive officer under the terms of any
incentive compensation plans.
117
Long-Term,
Unit-Based Awards
Long-term unit based awards will aid Calumet in retaining and
motivating executives and to assist the Partnership in meeting
its financial performance objectives. Equity awards will be
granted to named executive officers and certain other management
employees based on Calumets achievement of performance
targets on its distributable cash flow, thereby establishing a
direct link between executive compensation and Partnership
financial performance. In addition, the equity component of
executive compensation will, when coupled with an extended
ratable vesting periods and as compared to cash awards, further
align the interests of executives with the Partnerships
unitholders in the longer-term and will reinforce unit ownership
levels among executives.
Long-term unit-based awards consist of phantom units, restricted
units, unit options, substitution awards, and distribution
equivalent rights. These awards may be granted to employees,
consultants and directors of our general partner under the
provisions of the Long-Term Incentive Plan (the
Plan) adopted on January 24, 2006 and
administered by the compensation committee. No long-term
unit-based awards were granted to executives under the Plan
related to fiscal year 2006. Following is a summary of the major
terms and provisions of the Plan:
General. The Plan provides for the grant of
restricted units, phantom units, unit options and substitute
awards and, with respect to unit options and phantom units, the
grant of distribution equivalent rights (DERs).
Subject to adjustment for certain events, an aggregate of
783,960 common units may be delivered pursuant to awards under
the Plan, an aggregate of 7,296 of which have already been
awarded to the non-employee directors of our general partner.
Units withheld to satisfy our general partners tax
withholding obligations are available for delivery pursuant to
other awards.
Restricted Units and Phantom Units. A restricted unit is a
common unit that is subject to forfeiture. Upon vesting, the
grantee receives a common unit that is not subject to
forfeiture. A phantom unit is a notional unit that entitles the
grantee to receive a common unit upon the vesting of the phantom
unit or, in the discretion of the compensation committee, cash
equal to the fair market value of a common unit. The
compensation committee may make grants of restricted units and
phantom units under the Plan to eligible individuals containing
such terms, consistent with the Plan, as the compensation
committee may determine, including the period over which
restricted units and phantom units granted will vest. The
committee may, in its discretion, base vesting on the
grantees completion of a period of service or upon the
achievement of specified financial objectives or other criteria.
In addition, the restricted and phantom units will vest
automatically upon a change of control (as defined in the Plan)
of us or our general partner, subject to any contrary provisions
in the award agreement.
If a grantees employment, consulting or membership on the
board terminates for any reason, the grantees restricted
units and phantom units will be automatically forfeited unless,
and to the extent, the grant agreement or the compensation
committee provides otherwise. Common units to be delivered with
respect to these awards may be common units acquired by our
general partner in the open market, common units already owned
by our general partner, common units acquired by our general
partner directly from us or any other person, or any combination
of the foregoing. Our general partner is entitled to
reimbursement by us for the cost incurred in acquiring common
units. If we issue new common units with respect to these
awards, the total number of common units outstanding will
increase.
Distributions made by us on restricted units may, in the
compensation committees discretion, be subject to the same
vesting requirements as the restricted units. The compensation
committee, in its discretion, may also grant tandem DERs with
respect to phantom units on such terms as it deems appropriate.
DERs are rights that entitle the grantee to receive, with
respect to a phantom unit, cash equal to the cash distributions
made by us on a common unit.
We intend for the restricted units and phantom units granted
under the Plan to serve as a means of incentive compensation for
performance and not primarily as an opportunity to participate
in the equity appreciation of the common units. Therefore,
participants will not pay any consideration for the common units
they receive with respect to these types of awards, and neither
we nor our general partner will receive remuneration for the
units delivered with respect to these awards.
Unit Options. The Plan also permits the grant
of options covering common units. Unit options may be granted to
such eligible individuals and with such terms as the
compensation committee may determine, consistent
118
with the Plan; however, a unit option must have an exercise
price equal to the fair market value of a common unit on the
date of grant.
Upon exercise of a unit option, our general partner will acquire
common units in the open market at a price equal to the
prevailing price on the principal national securities exchange
upon which the common units are then traded, or directly from us
or any other person, or use common units already owned by the
general partner, or any combination of the foregoing. Our
general partner will be entitled to reimbursement by us for the
difference between the cost incurred by our general partner in
acquiring the common units and the proceeds received by our
general partner from an optionee at the time of exercise. Thus,
we will bear the cost of the unit options. If we issue new
common units upon exercise of the unit options, the total number
of common units outstanding will increase, and our general
partner will remit the proceeds it received from the optionee
upon exercise of the unit option to us. The unit option plan has
been designed to furnish additional compensation to employees,
consultants and directors and to align their economic interests
with those of common unitholders.
Substitution Awards. The compensation
committee, in its discretion, may grant substitute or
replacement awards to eligible individuals who, in connection
with an acquisition made by us, our general partner or an
affiliate, have forfeited an equity-based award in their former
employer. A substitute award that is an option may have an
exercise price less than the value of a common unit on the date
of grant of the award.
Termination of Plan. Our general
partners board of directors, in its discretion, may
terminate the Plan at any time with respect to the common units
for which a grant has not theretofore been made. The Plan will
automatically terminate on the earlier of the
10th anniversary of the date it was initially approved by
the board of directors of our general partner or when common
units are no longer available for delivery pursuant to awards
under the Plan. Our general partners board of directors
will also have the right to alter or amend the Plan or any part
of it from time to time and the compensation committee may amend
any award; provided, however, that no change in any outstanding
award may be made that would materially impair the rights of the
participant without the consent of the affected participant.
Subject to unitholder approval, if required by the rules of the
principal national securities exchange upon which the common
units are traded, the board of directors of our general partner
may increase the number of common units that may be delivered
with respect to awards under the Plan.
Upon the recommendation of the compensation committee and under
the provisions of the Plan, the board of directors has approved
a program for the 2007 fiscal year for the potential grant of
phantom units to named executive officers and certain other
management employees in order to add a long-term, equity-based
incentive to the executive compensation program. Pursuant to the
program, there will be two potential levels of phantom unit
grants based upon the Partnerships achievement of
specified distributable cash flow goals, which are the target
and stretch distributable cash flow goals utilized for the
incentive cash bonuses described above in Short-Term Cash
Awards. No phantom units will be granted under the program
unless the Partnership achieves at least the target
distributable cash flow goal, and no proration of awards will
occur for performance which falls between the two distributable
cash flow goal levels. Each named executive officers or
other management employees potential award is determined
by his or her position with the general partner. Potential
awards range from 1,000 to 6,000 phantom units for achievement
of the target distributable cash flow goal to 1,500 to 9,000
phantom units for achievement of the stretch distributable cash
flow goal. These phantom units, if awarded, will generally vest
ratably 25% upon grant and 25% on each successive
December 31 thereafter (at which vesting date the grantee
will be entitled to receive, at the election of the general
partner, either one common unit for each such vested phantom
unit or the fair market value of such a common unit). These
phantom units will also carry tandem distribution equivalent
rights whereby distributions will be paid during the vesting
period on all granted units, including those which have not yet
vested. Such grants will also include automatic full vesting
upon the occurrence of certain events including, but not limited
to, change of control of the Partnership, death, disability and
normal retirement. In establishing the relative levels of
potential awards, the compensation committee considered the peer
group compensation data described in Peer Group and
Compensation Targets, to determine the relative ranges of
such awards and to ensure comparability with the peer group when
this compensation component was included as
119
part of total compensation for each named executive officer. The
following table summarizes the levels of phantom unit awards
available to participants in this equity award program related
to fiscal year 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Phantom Units Awarded
|
|
Incentive Level (a)
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Stretch
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
2
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
3
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
4,500
|
|
4
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
5
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Mr. Grube is the only employee and named executive officer
who is eligible for an equity award under Incentive
Level 1. Mr. Moyes is the only employee and named
executive officer who is eligible for an equity award under
Incentive Level 2. The other named executive officers
(Mr. Murray, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mills), along
with certain other officers, participate in the program at
Incentive Level 3. |
Retirement,
Health and Welfare Benefits
We offer a variety of health and welfare benefits to all
eligible employees of our general partner. The named executive
officers generally are eligible for the same benefit programs on
the same basis as the rest of the employees. The health and
welfare programs are intended to protect employees against
catastrophic loss and encourage a healthy lifestyle. Our health
and welfare programs include medical, pharmacy, dental, life
insurance and accidental death and dismemberment. In addition,
certain employees are eligible for long-term disability
coverage. Coverage under long-term disability offers benefits
specific to the named executive officers. We provide the named
executive officers with a compensation allowance which is
grossed up for the payment of taxes to allow them to purchase
long-term disability coverage on an after-tax basis at no net
cost to them. As structured, these long-term disability benefits
will pay 60% of monthly earnings, as defined by the policy, up
to a maximum of $6,000 per month during a period of
continuing disability up to normal retirement age, as defined by
the policy. Named executive officers are also eligible to obtain
executive physical examinations which are paid for by the
Partnership.
Named executive officers participate in the same retirement
savings plan as other eligible employees. This plan is a
qualified defined contribution plan (401(k) plan) and is
designed to provide an appropriate level of replacement income
upon retirement. The Partnership matches 100% of each 1% of
eligible compensation contribution by the participant up to 3%
of eligible compensation contributions and 50% of each
additional 1% of eligible compensation contribution up to 5%,
for a maximum contribution by the Partnership of 4% of eligible
compensation contributions per participant. The retirement
savings plan also includes a discretionary profit-sharing
component. Determination of annual contributions are made by the
compensation committee based on overall profitability of the
Partnership. The compensation committee approved a discretionary
profit sharing contribution to the 401(k) plan for all eligible
participants equivalent to 3.0% of their eligible compensation
for the 2006 fiscal year. The value of Partnership contributions
to the retirement savings plan for named executive officers is
included in the Summary Compensation Table.
Perquisites
All named executive officers are provided with the following
benefits as a supplement to their other compensation:
|
|
|
|
|
Life Insurance & Accidental Death &
Dismemberment Coverage: We pay 100% of the
premium for both term life insurance and accidental death and
dismemberment coverage. Life insurance coverage is equal to one
times the named executive officers base salary. Accidental
death and dismemberment coverage is equal to one times the named
executive officers base salary. These benefits are the
same as those offered to all eligible employees.
|
120
|
|
|
|
|
Use of Company Vehicle: We provide each named
executive officer with a company vehicle that may be used for
personal use as well as business use. Personal use of a company
vehicle is treated as taxable compensation to the named
executive.
|
|
|
|
Executive Physical Program: We pay for a
complete and professional personal physical exam for each named
executive officer appropriate for his age, generally on an
annual basis.
|
In addition, we pay club membership fees for certain named
executive officers. Although such club memberships may be used
for personal purposes in addition to business entertainment
purposes, each named executive officer having such a membership
is responsible for the reimbursement of the partnership or
direct payment for any incremental costs above the base
membership fees associated with his personal use of such
membership.
The compensation committee periodically reviews the perquisite
program to determine if adjustments are appropriate.
Tax
Implications of Executive Compensation
Because Calumet is not an entity taxable as a corporation, many
of the tax issues associated with executive compensation that
face publicly traded corporations do not directly affect the
Partnership. However, on October 22, 2004, the American
Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4520) (the AJCA) was
signed into law by the President. The AJCA added new
Section 409A to the Internal Revenue Code
(Section 409A) which significantly alters the
rules relating to the taxation of deferred compensation.
Section 409A broadly applies to deferred compensation and
potentially results in additional tax to participants. The
Department of Treasury and IRS have issued guidance and proposed
regulations under Section 409A, however further guidance is
anticipated. Based on current guidance, the award of options to
employees, consultants and directors of certain of our
affiliates may be very limited in order to meet the requirements
of Section 409A. However, we expect that we will be able to
structure awards under the Plan in a manner that complies with
Section 409A. Because we expect additional guidance to be
issued under Section 409A, we may be required to alter
certain provisions of the Plan and future awards.
Compensation costs, as calculated under SFAS 123(R),
associated with the vesting of phantom units is a deductible
expense for tax purposes.
Executive
Ownership of Units
While we have not adopted any security ownership requirements or
policies for our executives, our executive compensation programs
foster the enhancement of executives equity ownership
through our plans to offer, beginning with fiscal year 2007,
long-term, unit based awards pursuant to Calumets
Long-Term Incentive Plan. Further, in 2006 several executives
purchased a significant number of our common units as
participants in our directed unit program in conjunction with
our initial public offering. For a listing of security ownership
by our named executive officers, refer to Item 12
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management and Related Unitholder Matters.
The board of directors has adopted the Insider Trading Policy of
Calumet GP, LLC and Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
(the Insider Trading Policy) which provides
guidelines to employees, officers and directors with respect to
transactions in the Partnerships securities. Pursuant to
Calumets Insider Trading Policy, all executive officers
and directors must confer with the Chief Financial Officer
before effecting any put or call options for the
Partnerships securities. Further, the Insider Trading
Policy states that the Partnership strongly discourages all such
transactions by officers, directors and all other employees and
consultants. The Insider Trading Policy is available on our
website at www.calumetspecialty.com or a copy will be
provided at no cost to unitholders upon their written request
to: Investor Relations, Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P., 2780 Waterfront Parkway E. Drive, Suite 200,
Indianapolis, IN 46214.
Employment
Agreement
Upon consummation of the initial public offering on
January 31, 2006, F. William Grube entered into an
employment agreement with our general partner. Pursuant to the
employment agreement, Mr. Grube serves as chief
121
executive officer and president of our general partner as well
as a member of the board of directors of our general partner.
The employment agreement provides that Mr. Grube will have
powers and duties and responsibilities that are customary to
this position and that are assigned to him by the board of
directors of our general partner in connection with his general
management and supervision of the operations of our general
partner.
The employment agreement has an initial term of five years, with
automatic annual extensions beginning on the third anniversary
of its effective date. The agreement provides for an annual base
salary of approximately $333,000, subject to annual adjustment
by the compensation committee of the board of directors of our
general partner, as well as the right to participate in our Long
Term Incentive Plan and other bonus plans. Mr. Grube will
generally be entitled to receive a payout or distribution of at
least 150% of the amount of any cash, equity or other payout or
distribution that may be made to any other executive officer
under the terms of these plans. The employment agreement also
contains non-competition provisions.
Mr. Grubes employment agreement may be terminated at
any time by either party with proper notice. If
Mr. Grubes employment is terminated without cause, as
defined in the agreement, or by Mr. Grube for good reason,
as defined in the agreement, then our general partner will be
required to pay Mr. Grube a lump sum equal to three times
his then current base salary as well as a lump sum cash payment
for amounts accrued under our various incentive and benefit
plans. In addition, all of Mr. Grubes equity based
awards, if any, would vest in full in the event of such a
termination. For further description of our obligations upon
termination of Mr. Grubes employment, please read
Potential Payments Upon Termination Employment
Agreement with F. William Grube. The general partner of
the Partnership deems that such particular events triggering the
payments previously described are customary for an executive of
Mr. Grubes position and value to the Partnership.
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our executive officers for the year ended December 31,
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Salary(1)
|
|
|
Plan Compensation(2)
|
|
|
Compensation(3)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
$
|
332,800
|
|
|
$
|
654,263
|
|
|
$
|
31,138
|
|
|
$
|
1,018,201
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and
President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
152,500
|
|
|
|
224,379
|
|
|
|
30,464
|
|
|
|
407,343
|
|
Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
251,592
|
|
|
|
436,175
|
|
|
|
32,184
|
|
|
|
719,951
|
|
Executive Vice
President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
163,917
|
|
|
|
230,979
|
|
|
|
35,106
|
|
|
|
430,002
|
|
Vice President
Sales and Marketing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
141,032
|
|
|
|
186,103
|
|
|
|
31,605
|
|
|
|
358,740
|
|
Vice President
Crude Oil Supply
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Effective August 1, 2006, the compensation committee
approved an increase in Mr. Moyes base salary from
$241,300 to $266,000. Effective January 1, 2007,
Mr. Moyes base salary for fiscal year 2007 is
$274,000. |
|
|
|
Effective August 1, 2006, the compensation committee
approved an increase in Mr. Andersons base salary
from $156,000 to $175,000. Effective January 1, 2007,
Mr. Andersons base salary for fiscal year 2007 is
$182,000. |
|
|
|
Effective August 1, 2006, the compensation committee
approved an increase in Mr. Murrays base salary from
$140,000 to $170,000. Effective January 1, 2007,
Mr. Murrays base salary for fiscal year 2007 is
$180,000. |
|
|
|
Please refer to Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Base Salary for a discussion of
interim adjustments to base salary for our executives. |
122
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Represents amounts earned for the 2006 fiscal year under the
Partnerships Cash Incentive Compensation Plan. Please read
Compensation Discussion and Analysis Elements
of Executive Compensation Short-Term Cash
Awards. |
|
(3) |
|
This column shows the cost to the Partnership of contributions
made to Calumets defined contribution retirement savings
plan (401(k) plan) for company matching contributions and annual
discretionary profit sharing contributions for the named
executives, life insurance premiums, compensation amounts which
have been grossed up for taxes to allow named executive officers
to purchase long-term disability coverage on an after-tax basis
at no net cost to them, club memberships, spousal travel and
executive physical examinations. Also included are the
allocations for personal usage of Partnership-owned vehicles for
the named executive officers. |
|
|
|
Contributions made by the Partnership to the 401(k) plan for the
named executives, including company matching contributions to be
made related to the earned non-equity incentive awards are as
follows: |
|
|
|
Mr. Grube :
|
|
$23,115
|
Mr. Murray :
|
|
$23,500
|
Mr. Moyes :
|
|
$23,030
|
Mr. Anderson :
|
|
$21,498
|
Mr. Mills :
|
|
$22,851
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each named executive officer received company matching
contributions equivalent to the full 4% of eligible compensation
per the provisions of the 401(k) plan, with the exception of
Mr. Grube, whose company matching contributions were 3% of
eligible compensation per the provisions of the 401(k) plan. |
|
|
|
Based on the overall financial results of the Partnership for
the 2006 fiscal year, the compensation committee approved a
discretionary profit sharing contribution to the 401(k) plan for
all eligible employees equivalent to 3.0% of their eligible
compensation for the 2006 fiscal year. Accordingly, other than
F. William Grube, who received a total company contribution of
6% of his total eligible compensation, each named executive
officer received a total company contribution of 7% of his total
eligible compensation. |
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards
The following table sets forth grants of plan-based awards to
our executive officers for the year ended December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
|
|
Name
|
|
Threshold
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
F. William Grube
|
|
$
|
166,400
|
|
|
$
|
332,800
|
|
|
$
|
665,600
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
$
|
85,000
|
|
|
$
|
170,000
|
|
|
$
|
255,000
|
|
Allan A. Moyes III
|
|
$
|
133,000
|
|
|
$
|
266,000
|
|
|
$
|
532,000
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
$
|
87,500
|
|
|
$
|
175,000
|
|
|
$
|
262,500
|
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
$
|
70,500
|
|
|
$
|
141,000
|
|
|
$
|
211,500
|
|
The above table shows the ranges of cash incentive awards
granted to executives under Calumets Cash Incentive
Compensation Plan related to fiscal year 2006. For a description
of this plan and available awards, please read
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Elements of Executive Compensation Short-Term Cash
Awards. Awards earned under this plan are generally paid
in the first quarter of the following fiscal year after
finalizing the calculation of the Partnerships performance
relative to distributable cash flow targets.
123
For fiscal year 2006 based on the Partnerships
distributable cash flow, executives earned awards which were
prorated between the target and maximum levels. Specific awards
under the plan were as follows:
|
|
|
Mr. Grube :
|
|
$655,263
|
Mr. Murray :
|
|
$224,379
|
Mr. Moyes :
|
|
$436,175
|
Mr. Anderson :
|
|
$230,979
|
Mr. Mills :
|
|
$186,103
|
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
There were no outstanding equity awards to the named executive
officers as of December 31, 2006.
Options
Exercises and Stock Vested
There were no options exercised or equity awards that vested
during the year ended December 31, 2006.
Pension
Benefits
There are no Partnership plans that provide for payments or
other benefits at, following, or in connection with the
retirement of any of our named executive officers.
Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation
There are no Partnership plans that provide for deferral of
compensation on a basis that is not tax-qualified.
Potential
Payments Upon Termination
Employment
Agreement with F. William Grube
We have an employment agreement with F. William Grube, our chief
executive officer and president, dated as of January 31,
2006 (the Effective Date). The term of the
employment agreement is five years and expires on
January 31, 2011 (the Employment Period), with
automatic extensions of an additional twelve months added to the
Employment Period beginning on the third anniversary of the
Effective Date, and on every anniversary of the Effective Date
thereafter, unless either party notifies the other of
non-extension at least ninety days prior to any such anniversary
date.
For the term of the employment agreement and for the one-year
period following the termination of employment, Mr. Grube
is prohibited from engaging in competition (as defined in the
employment agreement) with us and soliciting our customers and
employees.
Termination
of Employment Due to Death or Disability
Upon the termination of Mr. Grubes employment due to
his disability or death:
a. We will pay him or his beneficiary a lump sum equal to
his earned annual base salary through the date of termination to
the extent not theretofore paid;
b. We will pay him or his beneficiary a lump sum equal to
any compensation incentive awards payable in cash with respect
to fiscal years ended prior to the year that includes the date
of termination to the extent not theretofore paid;
c. We will pay him or his beneficiary a lump sum cash
payment with respect to his participation in any plans,
programs, contracts or other arrangements that may result in a
cash payment for the fiscal year that includes the date of
termination on a prorated basis considering the date of
termination relative to the full fiscal year; and
d. Any equity awards held by Mr. Grube shall
immediately vest and become fully exercisable or payable, as the
case may be.
124
For this purpose, Mr. Grube will be deemed to have a
disability if he is unable to perform his duties
under the employment agreement by reason of mental or physical
incapacity for 90 consecutive calendar days during the
Employment Period, provided that we will not have the right to
terminate his employment for disability if in the written
opinion of a qualified physician reasonably acceptable to us is
delivered to the us within 30 days of our delivery to
Mr. Grube of a notice of termination (as defined in the
employment agreement) that it is reasonably likely that
Mr. Grube will be able to resume his duties on a regular
basis within 90 days of the notice of termination and
Mr. Grube does resume such duties within such time.
If Mr. Grubes employment were to have been terminated
on December 31, 2006, due to death or disability (as
defined in the employment agreement), we estimate that the value
of the payments and benefits described in clauses (a), (b),
(c) and (d) above he would have been eligible to
receive is as follows: (a) $0; (b) $0;
(c) $655,263; and (d) $0, with an aggregate value of
$655,263.
Termination
of Employment by Mr. Grube for Good Reason or by Us Without
Cause
Upon the termination of Mr. Grubes employment by him
for good reason or by us without cause:
a. We will pay him a lump sum cash payment in an amount
equal to three times his annual base salary then in effect;
b. We will pay him a lump sum equal to his earned annual
base salary through the date of termination to the extent not
theretofore paid;
c. We will pay him a lump sum equal to any compensation
incentive awards payable in cash with respect to fiscal years
ended prior to the year that includes the date of termination to
the extent not theretofore paid;
d. We will pay him a lump sum cash payment with respect to
his participation in any plans, programs, contracts or other
arrangements that may result in a cash payment for the fiscal
year that includes the date of termination on a prorated basis
considering the date of termination relative to the full fiscal
year;
e. All equity-based awards (including phantom awards) held
by Mr. Grube shall immediately vest in full (at their
target levels, if applicable) and become fully exercisable or
payable, as the case may be.
Good reason as defined in the employment agreement
includes: (i) any material breach by us of the employment
agreement; (ii) any requirement by us that Mr. Grube
relocate outside of the metropolitan Indianapolis, Indiana area;
(iii) failure of any successor to us to assume the
employment agreement not later than the date as of which it
acquires substantially all of the equity, assets or business of
us; (iv) any material reduction in Mr. Grubes
title, authority, responsibilities, or duties (including a
change that causes him to cease being a member of the board of
directors or reporting directly and solely to the board of
directors); or (v) the assignment of Mr. Grube any
duties materially inconsistent with his duties as the chief
executive officer of the Partnership.
Cause as defined in the employment agreement
includes: (i) Mr. Grubes willful and continuing
failure (excluding as a result of his mental or physical
incapacity) to perform his duties and responsibilities with us;
(ii) Mr. Grubes having committed any act of
material dishonesty against us or any of its affiliates as
defined in the employment agreement;
(iii) Mr. Grubes willful and continuing breach
of the employment agreement; (iv) Mr. Grubes
having been convicted of, or having entered a plea of nolo
contendre to any felony; or (v) Mr. Grubes
having been the subject of any final and non-appealable order,
judicial or administrative, obtained or issued by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, for any securities violation involving
fraud.
If Mr. Grubes employment were to have been terminated
by him for good reason or by us without cause on
December 31, 2006, we estimate that the value of the
payments and benefits described in clauses (a), (b), (c),
(d) and (e) above he would have been eligible to
receive is as follows: (a) $998,400; (b) $0;
(c) $0; (d) $655,264; and (e) $0, with an
aggregate value of $1,652,663.
125
Termination
of Employment by Mr. Grube Without Good Reason or by Us for
Cause
Upon the termination of employment by Mr. Grube without
good reason or by us with cause:
a. We will pay him a lump sum equal to his earned annual
base salary through the date of termination to the extent not
theretofore paid;
b. We will pay him a lump sum equal to any compensation
incentive awards payable in cash with respect to fiscal years
ended prior to the year that includes the date of termination to
the extent not theretofore paid; and
c. We will pay him a lump sum cash payment with respect to
his participation in any plans, programs, contracts or other
arrangements that may result in a cash payment for the fiscal
year that includes the date of termination on a prorated basis
considering the date of termination relative to the full fiscal
year.
If Mr. Grubes employment were to have terminated by
him without good reason or by us for cause on December 31,
2006, we estimate that the value of the payments and benefits
described in clauses (a), (b) and (c) above he
would have been eligible to receive is as follows: (a) $0;
(b) $0; (c) $654,263, with an aggregate value of
$654,263.
Compensation
of Directors
Officers or employees of our general partner who also serve as
directors do not receive additional compensation for their
service as a Officers or employees of our general partner who
also serve as directors do not receive any additional
compensation for their service as a director of our general
partner. Each director who is not an officer or employee of our
general partner receives an annual fee as well as compensation
for attending meetings of the board of directors and committee
meetings. The primary fees paid to non-employee directors for
their attendance and participation in board meetings are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Annual fees of $30,000, payable in quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
The annual award of restricted or phantom units in an amount
equivalent to approximately $40,000 with a four-year vesting
period;
|
|
|
|
Annual fees of $8,000 to the audit committee chairperson,
payable in quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
Annual fees of $4,000 to each audit committee member, payable in
quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
Annual fees of $5,000 to all other committee chairpersons,
payable in quarterly installments;
|
|
|
|
Annual fees of $2,500 to all other committee members, payable in
quarterly installments.
|
In addition, each non-employee director will be reimbursed for
his
out-of-pocket
expenses in connection with attending meetings of the board of
directors or committees. Each director will be fully indemnified
by us for his actions associated with being a director to the
fullest extent permitted under Delaware law.
126
The following table sets forth certain compensation information
of our non-employee directors for the year ended
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Paid in Cash(1)
|
|
|
Unit Awards(2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
$
|
26,250
|
|
|
$
|
10,224
|
|
|
$
|
36,474
|
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
29,250
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
39,474
|
|
William S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
32,724
|
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
27,375
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
37,599
|
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
25,224
|
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
28,500
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
38,724
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents fees earned and paid related to the first, second and
third quarters of fiscal year 2006 subsequent to our initial
public offering which closed on January 31, 2006. Fees
related to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006 will be deemed
earned during the quarterly board meeting occurring subsequent
to December 31, 2006. |
|
|
|
For Mr. F. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Mr. W. Fehsenfeld and
Mr. Rutigliano, amounts exclude any fees or contributions
derived from certain administrative services received by Calumet
from The Heritage Group and self insurance programs in which
Calumet participates with The Heritage Group and certain of its
affiliates, as further described in Item 13 Certain
Relationships and Related Party Transactions
Administrative and Other Services. Mr. F.
Fehsenfeld, Jr. serves as the managing trustee of The
Heritage Group. Both Mr. W. Fehsenfeld and
Mr. Rutigliano serve as trustees of The Heritage Group.
Both The Heritage Group and Mr. F.
Fehsenfeld, Jr. family trusts are members of our
general partner. |
|
|
|
For Mr. Rutigliano, amount excludes any insurance brokerage
fees derived from Calumets placement of certain insurance
coverage underwriting through Mr. Rutiglianos
commercial insurance brokerage firm, Tobias Insurance
Group, Inc., as further described in Item 13 Certain
Relationships and Related Party Transactions
Transactions with Director. |
|
(2) |
|
On November 17, 2006, each non-employee director was
granted 1,216 phantom units with a fair value of $40,894 on the
date of grant for the year ended December 31, 2006 under
the terms of Calumets Long-Term Incentive Plan as part of
his director compensation package. With respect to this award,
25% of the phantom units vested on December 31, 2006,
entitling the director to common units, with an additional 25%
vesting on December 31 of each of the three successive
years. Pursuant to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment
(SFAS 123(R)) $10,224 of compensation cost for each
non-employee director was recognized by the Partnership in 2006
related to the vesting of 25% of the granted phantom units, or
304 common units, on December 31, 2006. As of
December 31, 2006, each non-employee director had 912
unvested phantom units outstanding with a market value of
$36,516. An aggregate of 5,472 phantom units with a market
value of $219,099 were outstanding as of December 31, 2006. |
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The members of our compensation committee are F. William Grube
and Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. Mr. Grube is our chief
executive officer and president. Mr. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
is the chairman of the board of directors of our general
partner. Please read Item 13 Certain Relationships
and Related Party Transactions Administrative and
Other Services and Crude Oil Purchases for
descriptions of our transactions in fiscal 2006 with certain
entities related to Messrs. Grube and Fehsenfeld, Jr.
No executive officer of our general partner served as a member
of the compensation committee of another entity that had an
executive officer serving as a member of our board of directors
or compensation committee.
Report of
the Compensation Committee for the Year Ended December 31,
2006
The compensation committee of our general partner has reviewed
and discussed our Compensation Discussion and Analysis with
management. Based upon such review, the related discussion with
management and such other matters deemed relevant and
appropriate by the compensation committee, the compensation
committee has
127
recommended to the board of directors that our Compensation
Discussion and Analysis be included in the Partnerships
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Members of the Compensation Committee:
Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Chairman
F. William Grube
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Unitholder Matters
|
The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of our
units as of February 16, 2007 held by:
|
|
|
|
|
each person who beneficially owns 5% or more of our outstanding
units;
|
|
|
|
each director of our general partner;
|
|
|
|
each named executive officer of our general partner; and
|
|
|
|
all directors, and executive officers of our general partner as
a group.
|
The amounts and percentages of units beneficially owned are
reported on the basis of regulations of the SEC governing the
determination of beneficial ownership of securities. Under the
rules of the SEC, a person is deemed to be a beneficial
owner of a security if that person has or shares
voting power, which includes the power to vote or to
direct the voting of such security, or investment
power, which includes the power to dispose of or to direct
the disposition of such security. A person is also deemed to be
a beneficial owner of any securities of which that person has a
right to acquire beneficial ownership within 60 days. Under
these rules, more than one person may be deemed a beneficial
owner of the same securities and a person may be deemed a
beneficial owner of securities as to which he has no economic
interest.
128
Except as indicated by footnote, the persons named in the table
below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all
units shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to community
property laws where applicable. The address for the beneficial
owners listed below, other than The Heritage Group, Kayne
Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P. Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
William, Jones & Associates, LLC and Osterweis Capital
Management, Inc., is 2780 Waterfront Pkwy E. Drive,
Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46214. The address for The
Heritage Group is 5400 W. 86th St., Indianapolis, Indiana
46268-0123.
The address for Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P. is 1800
Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California
90067. The address for Goldman, Sachs & Co. is 85 Broad
Street, New York, New York 10004. The address for Williams,
Jones & Associates, LLC is 717 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York 10002. The address of Osterweis Capital Management,
Inc. is One Maritime Plaza, Suite 800, San Francisco, California
94111.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
|
Subordinated
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Common Units
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Units
|
|
|
Total Units
|
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
The Heritage Group(1)
|
|
|
3,499,277
|
|
|
|
21.38
|
%
|
|
|
7,936,370
|
|
|
|
60.74
|
%
|
|
|
38.85
|
%
|
Calumet, Incorporated(2)
|
|
|
591,886
|
|
|
|
3.62
|
%
|
|
|
1,342,401
|
|
|
|
10.27
|
%
|
|
|
6.57
|
%
|
Goldman, Sachs & Co.(3)
|
|
|
1,606,345
|
|
|
|
9.82
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
5.46
|
%
|
Williams, Jones &
Associates, LLC(8)
|
|
|
1,500,540
|
|
|
|
9.17
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
5.10
|
%
|
Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors,
L.P.(4)
|
|
|
1,386,104
|
|
|
|
8.47
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
4.71
|
%
|
Osterweis Capital Management,
Inc.(9)
|
|
|
1,040,350
|
|
|
|
6.36
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
3.53
|
%
|
Janet K. Grube(2)(5)
|
|
|
1,179,969
|
|
|
|
7.21
|
%
|
|
|
2,676,173
|
|
|
|
20.48
|
%
|
|
|
13.10
|
%
|
F. William Grube(2)(5)
|
|
|
88,783
|
|
|
|
0.54
|
%
|
|
|
201,360
|
|
|
|
1.54
|
%
|
|
|
0.99
|
%
|
Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr.(1)(2)(10)(11)
|
|
|
185,852
|
|
|
|
1.13
|
%
|
|
|
393,323
|
|
|
|
3.01
|
%
|
|
|
1.97
|
%
|
Allan A. Moyes, III
|
|
|
14,124
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
Robert M. Mills
|
|
|
11,700
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
William A. Anderson
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
Jeffrey D. Smith
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
James S. Carter
|
|
|
4,429
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
William S. Fehsenfeld(1)(6)(11)
|
|
|
65,347
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
Robert E. Funk
|
|
|
5,304
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
Nicholas J. Rutigliano(1)(7)(11)
|
|
|
25,304
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
Michael L. Smith
|
|
|
5,304
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
*
|
|
All directors and executive
officers as a group (12 persons)
|
|
|
423,147
|
|
|
|
2.57
|
%
|
|
|
594,683
|
|
|
|
4.55
|
%
|
|
|
3.46
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Thirty grantor trusts indirectly own all of the outstanding
general partner interests in The Heritage Group, an Indiana
general partnership. The direct or indirect beneficiaries of the
grantor trusts are members of the Fehsenfeld family. Each of the
grantor trusts has five trustees, Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.,
James C. Fehsenfeld, Nicholas J. Rutigliano, William S.
Fehsenfeld and Nancy A. Smith, each of whom exercises equivalent
voting rights with respect to each such trust. Each of Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr., Nicholas J. Rutigliano and William S.
Fehsenfeld, who are directors of our general partner, disclaims
beneficial ownership of all of the common and subordinated units
owned by The Heritage Group, and none of these units are shown
as being beneficially owned by such directors in the table above. |
|
(2) |
|
F. William Grube is a director of and owns 15% of the common
shares of Calumet, Incorporated, an Indiana corporation.
Accordingly, 88,783 of the common units and 201,360 of the
subordinated units owned by Calumet, Incorporated are also shown
as being beneficially owned by F. William Grube in the table
above. Janet K. Grube, the spouse of F. William Grube, has
no voting or investment power over these units, and none |
129
|
|
|
|
|
of these units are shown as being beneficially owned by Janet K.
Grube in the table above. The remaining 85% of the common shares
of Calumet, Incorporated are indirectly owned 45.8% by The
Heritage Group and 5.1% by Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
personally. Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. is also a director of
Calumet, Incorporated. Accordingly, 230,244 of the common units
and 522,194 of the subordinated units owned by Calumet,
Incorporated are also shown as being beneficially owned by The
Heritage Group in the table above, and 25,451 of the common
units and 57,723 of the subordinated units owned by Calumet,
Incorporated are also shown as being beneficially owned by Fred
M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. in the table above. Each of F. William
Grube, The Heritage Group and Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
disclaims beneficial ownership of all of the common and
subordinated units owned by Calumet, Incorporated in excess of
their respective pecuniary interests in such units. |
|
(3) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
January 24, 2007. The filing person has indicated that it
shares voting and dispositive power of certain of such units. |
|
(4) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on
January 30, 2007. The filing person has indicated that it
shares voting and dispositive power of certain of such units. |
|
(5) |
|
Janet K. Grubes holdings include common and
subordinated units that are owned by two grantor retained
annuity trusts for which Janet K. Grube, the spouse of F.
William Grube, serves as sole trustee. Janet K. Grube and her
two children are the beneficiaries of such trusts. Janet K.
Grubes holdings also include common and subordinated units
owned by Janet K. Grube personally. F. William Grube has no
voting or investment power over these units and disclaims
beneficial ownership of all such units, and none of these units
are shown as being beneficially owned by F. William Grube in the
table above. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and children
of William S. Fehsenfeld for which he disclaims beneficial
ownership. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse of Nicholas
J. Rutigliano for which he disclaims beneficial ownership. |
|
(8) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on
February 14, 2007. |
|
(9) |
|
As noted in the Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
February 12, 2007. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes common units that are owned by the spouse and certain
children of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., for which he disclaims
beneficial ownership. |
|
(11) |
|
Does not include a total of 572,154 common units and 1,297,650
subordinated units owned by two trusts, the direct or indirect
beneficiaries of which are members of the Fred M. Fehsenfeld,
Jr. family. Each of the trusts has five trustees, Fred M.
Fehsenfeld, Jr., James C. Fehsenfeld, Nicholas J. Rutigliano,
William S. Fehsenfeld and Nancy A. Smith, each of whom exercises
equivalent voting rights with respect to each such trust. Each
of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr., Nicholas J. Rutigliano and William
S. Fehsenfeld, who are directors of our general partner,
disclaims beneficial ownership of all of the common and
subordinated units owned by the trusts, and none of these units
are shown as being beneficially owned by such directors in the
table above. |
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
The following table summarizes information about our equity
compensation plans as of December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
Future Issuance Under
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Equity Compensation
|
|
|
|
Exercise of Outstanding
|
|
|
of Outstanding
|
|
|
Plans (Excluding
|
|
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
|
Securities Reflected
|
|
|
|
and Rights(1)
|
|
|
and Rights
|
|
|
in Column (a))
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved
by unitholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans not
approved by unitholders
|
|
|
5,472
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
766,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,472
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
766,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Long-Term Incentive Plan contemplates the issuance or
delivery of up to 783,960 common units to satisfy awards under
the plan. The number of units presented in column
(a) assumes that all outstanding grants will be satisfied
by the issuance of new units or the purchase of existing units
on the open market upon vesting. In fact, some portion of the
phantom units may be settled in cash and some portion may be
withheld for taxes. Any units not issued upon vesting will
become available for future issuance under column
(c). For more information on our Long-Term Incentive Plan, which
did not require approval by our limited partners, refer to
Item 11 Executive and Director
Compensation Compensation Discussion and
(1) Analysis Elements of Executive
Compensation Long-Term, Unit-Based Awards. |
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships, Related Party Transactions and Director
Independence
|
Distributions
and Payments to Our General Partner and its Affiliates
Owners of our general partner and their affiliates own 6,511,115
common units and 13,066,000 subordinated units representing an
aggregate 64.0% limited partner interest in us. In addition, our
general partner own a 2% general partner interest in us and the
incentive distribution rights. We will generally make cash
distributions of 98% to the unitholders pro rata, including the
affiliates of our general partner, and 2% to our general
partner. In addition, if distributions exceed the minimum
quarterly distribution and other higher target distribution
levels, our general partner will be entitled to increasing
percentages of the distributions, up to 50% of the distributions
above the highest target level. Please refer to Item 5
Market Information for a summary of cash
distribution levels of the Partnership during the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Our general partner does not receive any management fee or other
compensation for its management of our partnership. Our general
partner and its affiliates are, however, reimbursed for all
expenses incurred on our behalf. These expenses include the cost
of employee, officer and director compensation benefits properly
allocable to us and all other expenses necessary or appropriate
to the conduct of our business and allocable to us. The
partnership agreement provides that our general partner
determine the expenses that are allocable to us. There is no
limit on the amount of expenses for which our general partner
and its affiliates may be reimbursed. The Heritage Group, one of
the owners of our general partner, currently provides us with
certain administrative services. For a description of these
services, please read Administrative and Other
Services.
Omnibus
Agreement
We entered into an omnibus agreement, dated January 31,
2006, with The Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates
pursuant to which The Heritage Group and its controlled
affiliates agreed not to engage in, whether by acquisition or
otherwise, the business of refining or marketing specialty
lubricating oils, solvents and wax products as well as gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel products in the continental United States
(restricted business) for so long as The Heritage
Group controls us. This restriction does not apply to:
|
|
|
|
|
any business owned or operated by The Heritage Group or any of
its affiliates as of January 31, 2006;
|
|
|
|
the refining and marketing of asphalt and asphalt-related
products and related product development activities;
|
|
|
|
the refining and marketing of other products that do not produce
qualifying income as defined in the Internal Revenue
Code;
|
|
|
|
the purchase and ownership of up to 9.9% of any class of
securities of any entity engaged in any restricted business;
|
|
|
|
any restricted business acquired or constructed that The
Heritage Group or any of its affiliates acquires or constructs
that has a fair market value or construction cost, as
applicable, of less than $5.0 million;
|
|
|
|
any restricted business acquired or constructed that has a fair
market value or construction cost, as applicable, of
$5.0 million or more if we have been offered the
opportunity to purchase it for fair market value or construction
cost and we decline to do so with the concurrence of the
conflicts committee of the board of directors of our general
partner; and
|
131
|
|
|
|
|
any business conducted by The Heritage Group with the approval
of the conflicts committee of the board of directors of our
general partner.
|
Administrative
and Other Services
The Heritage Group has historically provided us with certain
management, administrative and accounting services for which it
receives an annual fee. Payments for these services for 2006
were approximately $0.5 million.
We participate in a self-insurance program for medical benefits
with The Heritage Group and certain of its affiliates. In
connection with this program, we made contributions a voluntary
employees benefit association in 2006 totaling
approximately $3.1 million.
We participate in a self-insurance program for workers
compensation with The Heritage Group and certain of its
affiliates. In connection with this program, we made
contributions to The Heritage Group in 2006 totaling
approximately $0.2 million.
We participate in a self-insurance program for general liability
and auto liability with The Heritage Group and certain of its
affiliates. In connection with this program, we made
contributions to The Heritage Group. in 2006 totaling
approximately $0.7 million.
In 2007, we are planning a phase-out of our participation in
each of the transactions with The Heritage Group and certain of
its affiliates noted above in favor of standalone programs. We
expect this phase-out to occur in stages over the course of the
fiscal year.
Indemnification
of Directors and Officers
Under our limited partnership agreement and subject to specified
limitations, we will indemnify to the fullest extent permitted
by Delaware law, from and against all losses, claims, damages or
similar events any director or officer, or while serving as a
director or officer, any person who is or was serving as a tax
matters member or as a director, officer, tax matters member,
employee, partner, manager, fiduciary or trustee of our
partnership or any of our affiliates. Additionally, we will
indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by law, from and
against all losses, claims, damages or similar events any person
who is or was an employee (other than an officer) or agent of
our partnership.
Concurrent
Sale of Common Units
In connection with the completion of our initial public offering
on January 31, 2006, we sold 750,100 common units to Fred
M. Fehsenfeld Sr., the father of the chairman of our general
partner, and Mac and Frank B. Fehsenfeld, the uncles of the
chairman of our general partner at a per unit price of $19.995.
On January 25, 2006, we entered into a common unit purchase
agreement with those investors in connection with the sale of
the 750,100 common units.
Directed
Unit Program
In connection with our initial public offering which closed on
January 31, 2006, certain of our officers and directors,
including Messrs. Moyes, Murray, Mills, Anderson, J. Smith,
Carter, W. Fehsenfeld, Funk, Rutigliano and their affiliates
each purchased common units with a combined value of
approximately $1.8 million under our directed unit program.
Please read the table listing all Beneficial Owners in
Item 12 Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial
Owners and Management and Related Unitholder Matters.
Insurance
Brokerage
Nicholas J. Rutigliano, a member of the board of directors of
our general partner, founded and is the president of Tobias
Insurance Group, Inc., a commercial insurance brokerage
business, that has historically placed a portion of our
insurance underwriting requirements, including our general
liability, automobile liability, excess liability, workers
compensation as well as directors and officers
liability. The total premiums paid by us through
Mr. Rutiglianos firm for 2006 were approximately
$1.6 million. We believe these premiums are comparable to
the premiums we would pay for such insurance from a
non-affiliated third party and we have assessed our other
132
insurance brokerage options to confirm this belief. We
anticipate that we will transition several of the aforementioned
insurance underwriting requirements to a non-affiliated third
party commercial insurance broker during the 2007 fiscal year.
Crude Oil
Purchases
We have historically purchased a small percentage of our crude
oil supplies from Legacy Resources Co., L.P., an exploration and
production company owned in part by The Heritage Group and our
chief executive officer and president, F. William Grube. The
total purchases made by us from Legacy Resources in 2006 were
approximately $1.2 million, which represented purchases
based upon standard index-based, market rates. It is anticipated
that we may continue to purchase crude oil from Legacy Resources
at applicable market rates. We believe that the prices we pay
Legacy Resources for crude oil are comparable to the prices we
pay for crude oil from non-affiliated third parties.
Specialty
Product Sales
During 2006, we made ordinary course sales of certain
lubricating oil products to TruSouth Oil, LLC
(TruSouth), a specialty petroleum packaging and
distribution company owned in part by The Heritage Group,
Calumet, Incorporated, Fred M. Fehsenfeld, Jr. (our
chairman) as an individual, certain Fehsenfeld family trusts
established where Mr. Fehsenfeld or his family members are
the beneficiary, Janet K. Grube (the spouse of F. William
Grube, our chief executive officer and president) individually,
and certain Grube family trusts for which Janet K. Grube is sole
trustee. The total sales made by us to TruSouth in 2006 were
approximately $0.7 million. As of December 31, 2006
the balance due us from TruSouth related to these products sales
was approximately $0.2 million. We anticipate that we may
continue to sell products to TruSouth in the future. The product
sales prices and credit terms offered to TruSouth are comparable
to prices and terms offered to non-affiliated third party
customers.
Procedures
for Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions
Since our initial public offering on January 31, 2006, we
have not encountered a significant number of related person
transactions nor have we had formal, specified policies or
procedures for the review, approval or ratification of
transactions required to be reported under
paragraph (a) of
Regulation S-K
Item 404. However, the related person transactions in which
we engaged in fiscal 2006 were typically of a recurring,
ordinary course nature and were previously made known to the
board of directors of our general partner and for the most part
pre-dated our initial public offering. Additionally, as related
person transactions may result in potential conflicts of
interest among management and board-level decision makers, our
partnership agreement has since our inception set forth
procedures that the board of directors of our general partner
may utilize in connection with resolutions of potential
conflicts of interest, including the referral of such matters to
an independent conflicts committee for its review and approval
or disproval of such matters.
Effective February 9, 2007, to further formalize the
process by which related person transactions are analyzed and
approved or disproved, the board of directors of our general
partner has adopted the Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. Related Person Transaction Policy (the Policy)
to be followed in connection with all related person
transactions (as defined by the Policy) involving the
Partnership and its subsidiaries. The Policy was adopted to
provide guidelines and procedures for the application of the
partnership agreement to related person transactions and to
further supplement the conflicts resolutions policies already
set forth therein.
The Policy defines a related person transaction to
mean any transaction since the beginning of the
Partnerships last fiscal year (or any currently proposed
transaction) in which: (i) the Partnership or any of its
subsidiaries was or is to be a participant; (ii) the amount
involved exceeds $120,000 (including any series of similar
transactions exceeding such amount on an annual basis); and
(iii) any related person (as defined in the Policy) has or
will have a direct or indirect material interest. Under the
terms of the policy, our general partners chief executive
officer (CEO) has the authority to approve a related
person transaction (considering any and all factors as the CEO
determines in his sole discretion to be relevant, reasonable or
appropriate under the circumstances) so long as it is:
(a) in the normal course of the Partnerships business;
133
(b) not one in which the CEO or any of his immediate family
members has a direct or indirect material interest; and
(c) on terms no less favorable to the Partnership than
those generally being provided to or available from unrelated
third parties or fair to the Partnership, taking into account
the totality of the relationships between the parties involved
(including other transactions that may be particularly favorable
or advantageous to the Partnership).
The CEO does not have the authority to approve the issuances of
equity or grants of awards under the Partnerships
Long-Term Incentive Plan, except as provided in that plan.
Pursuant to the Policy, any other related person transaction
must be approved by the conflicts committee acting in accordance
with the terms and provisions of its charter.
A copy of the Policy is available on our website at
www.calumetspecialty.com and will be provided to unitholders
without charge upon their written request to: Investor
Relations, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., 2780
Waterfront Parkway E. Drive, Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN
46214.
Please see Item 10 Directors and Executive Officers
of Our General Partner for a discussion of director
independence matters.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
The following table details the aggregate fees billed for
professional services rendered by our independent auditor during
2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Audit fees
|
|
$
|
1,112,000
|
|
|
$
|
3,550,000
|
|
Audit related fees
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax fees
|
|
|
139,980
|
|
|
|
114,107
|
|
All other fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,301,980
|
|
|
$
|
3,664,107
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures classified as Audit fees above include
those related to our annual audit, audits of our general
partner, quarterly review procedures and work performed in
connection with our follow-on equity offering. For the year
ended December 31, 2005, Audit fees included expenditures
related to our initial public offering. Tax fees are
related to tax processing. For the year ended December 31,
2005, Tax fees include expenditures related to the preparation
of
Forms K-1
for our unitholders.
The audit committee of our general partners board of
directors has adopted an audit committee charter, which is
available on our website at www.calumetspecialty.com. The
charter requires the audit committee to pre-approve all audit
and non-audit services to be provided by our independent
registered public accounting firm. The audit committee does not
delegate its pre-approval responsibilities to management or to
an individual member of the audit committee. Since our Audit
Committee was not established until January 2006, none of the
2005 services reported in the audit, tax and all other fees
categories above were pre-approved by the audit committee.
PART IV
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules are omitted because they are not applicable, or
the required information is shown in the consolidated financial
statements or notes thereto.
(a)(3) Exhibits
134
The following documents are filed as exhibits to this
Form 10-K:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Limited Partnership
of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.1 of Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited
Partnership Agreement of Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
3
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Formation of
Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3
of Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
3
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited
Liability Company Agreement of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrants Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
3
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the First
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on July 11, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
|
|
ISDA Master Agreement between J.
Aron and Company, a general partnership, and Calumet Lubricants
Co., Limited Partnership, a limited partnership, dated
March 17, 2006 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on March 23, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrants Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Contribution, Conveyance and
Assumption Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to
Contribution, Conveyance and Assumption Agreement (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on March 20, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.5*
|
|
|
|
Form of Unit Option Grant
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
|
|
Omnibus Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrants Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.7*
|
|
|
|
F. William Grube Employment
Contract (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
First Amendment, dated
April 6, 2006, to the Revolving Credit Facility dated as of
December 9, 2005, by among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, as Borrower, Calumet Shreveport, LLC, Calumet
Shreveport Lubricants & Waxes, LLC and Calumet
Shreveport Fuels, LLC, as Guarantors, Bank of America, N.A., as
Administrative Agent and Lender, and the other Lenders party
thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on May 15, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
|
|
First Amendment, dated as of
June 19, 2006, to term loan Credit Agreement dated as
of December 9, 2005 among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, as Borrower, and certain of its affiliates,
including Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., as
Guarantors, and the lenders party thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on June 23, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
|
|
Second Amendment, dated as of
June 19, 2006, to revolving Credit Agreement dated as of
December 9, 2005 among Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries and the lenders party
thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on June 22, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.11*
|
|
|
|
Description of the Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Cash Incentive Plan
(incorporated by reference to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on August 16, 2006
(File No 000-51734)).
|
135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
|
|
Letter Amendment to ISDA Master
Agreement, dated as of March 17, 2006 between Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and J. Aron &
Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on November 13, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
|
|
Letter Amendment to ISDA Master
Agreement and related Schedule and Credit Support Annex, dated
as of March 17, 2006, between Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership and J. Aron & Company (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on October 23, 2006 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Form of Unit Option Grant and
description of the Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
2007 Cash Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on November 15, 2006 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 21.1 of Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File No.
333-128880))
|
|
23
|
.01
|
|
|
|
Consent of Ernst & Young,
LLP, independent registered public accounting firm
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302
certification of F. William Grube
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302
certification of R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Section 1350 certification of
F. William Grube and R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Identifies management contract and compensatory plan
arrangements. |
136
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
PARTNERS, L.P.
its general partner
F. William Grube, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Director of Calumet GP, LLC
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date: February 23, 2007
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ F.
WILLIAM
GRUBE
F.
William Grube
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director of Calumet GP, LLC (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ALLAN
A.
MOYES, III
Allan
A. Moyes, III
|
|
Executive Vice President of
Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ R.
PATRICK
MURRAY, II
R.
Patrick Murray, II
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary of Calumet GP, LLC (Principal Accounting
and Financial Officer)
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ FRED
M. FEHSENFELD,
JR.
Fred
M. Fehsenfeld, Jr.
|
|
Director and Chairman of the Board
of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ JAMES
S. CARTER
James
S. Carter
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ WILLIAM
S.
FEHSENFELD
William
S. Fehsenfeld
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ROBERT
E. FUNK
Robert
E. Funk
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ NICHOLAS
J.
RUTIGLIANO
Nicholas
J. Rutigliano
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ MICHAEL
L. SMITH
Michael
L. Smith
|
|
Director of Calumet GP, LLC
|
|
Date: February 23, 2007
|
137
Index to
Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Limited Partnership
of Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.1 of Registrants Registration
Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited
Partnership Agreement of Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
3
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Formation of
Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3
of Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
3
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Limited
Liability Company Agreement of Calumet GP, LLC (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrants Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
3
|
.5
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the First
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on July 11, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
|
|
ISDA Master Agreement between J.
Aron and Company, a general partnership, and Calumet Lubricants
Co., Limited Partnership, a limited partnership, dated
March 17, 2006 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on March 23, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
Calumet Specialty Products
Partners, L.P. Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrants Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Contribution, Conveyance and
Assumption Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to
Contribution, Conveyance and Assumption Agreement (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on March 20, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.5*
|
|
|
|
Form of Unit Option Grant
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File
No. 333-128880))
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
|
|
Omnibus Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrants Current
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.7*
|
|
|
|
F. William Grube Employment
Contract (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on February 13, 2006 (File No.
000-51734))
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
First Amendment, dated
April 6, 2006, to the Revolving Credit Facility dated as of
December 9, 2005, by among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, as Borrower, Calumet Shreveport, LLC, Calumet
Shreveport Lubricants & Waxes, LLC and Calumet
Shreveport Fuels, LLC, as Guarantors, Bank of America, N.A., as
Administrative Agent and Lender, and the other Lenders party
thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on May 15, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
|
|
First Amendment, dated as of
June 19, 2006, to term loan Credit Agreement dated as
of December 9, 2005 among Calumet Lubricants Co., Limited
Partnership, as Borrower, and certain of its affiliates,
including Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P., as
Guarantors, and the lenders party thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on June 23, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
|
|
Second Amendment, dated as of
June 19, 2006, to revolving Credit Agreement dated as of
December 9, 2005 among Calumet Specialty Products Partners,
L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries and the lenders party
thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on June 22, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.11*
|
|
|
|
Description of the Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. Cash Incentive Plan
(incorporated by reference to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on August 16, 2006 (File No
000-51734)).
|
138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
|
|
Letter Amendment to ISDA Master
Agreement, dated as of March 17, 2006 between Calumet
Lubricants Co., Limited Partnership and J. Aron &
Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on November 13, 2006 (File No
000-51734).
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
|
|
Letter Amendment to ISDA Master
Agreement and related Schedule and Credit Support Annex, dated
as of March 17, 2006, between Calumet Lubricants Co.,
Limited Partnership and J. Aron & Company (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on October 23, 2006 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
10
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Form of Unit Option Grant and
description of the Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P.
2007 Cash Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to the
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on November 15, 2006 (File No
000-51734)).
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Calumet
Specialty Products Partners, L.P. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 21.1 of Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(File No.
333-128880))
|
|
23
|
.01
|
|
|
|
Consent of Ernst & Young,
LLP, independent registered public accounting firm
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302
certification of F. William Grube
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302
certification of R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Section 1350 certification of
F. William Grube and R. Patrick Murray, II
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Identifies management contract and compensatory plan
arrangements. |
139